Agenda packet — Carpinteria City Council, March 28, 2022 (part 4 of 10)

conceptual level by the Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council at a joint conceptual review meeting.
• Requested information about the project costs for the proposed project and the project alternatives; asked if any one of the alternatives was most cost-effective. o Staff explained that Alternative “2” was abandoned due to challenging construction conditions related to unstable geologic conditions, and a need for significant retaining walls. The costs of these challenges made this Alternative likely financially infeasible. The proposed project was anticipated to be far less expensive to build, on the order of $1-2 million less, despite requiring more earthwork than Alternative “2.” Alternative “3”, by further reducing earthwork, would save additional money as compared to the proposed project. Alternative “4” is expected to be more expensive due to its increased length, more grading, more concrete, and more retaining walls.

Staff cautioned, however, that construction costs were not a significant factor in developing project alternatives; instead developing the best facility for the community was the main driver in designing the project alternatives.

Natasha Lohmus
• Will the exposed drainage outlets be placed at the beach elevation or will there be a vertical drop to the beach from the outlets, which could create erosion? She noted the existing drainages all have created erosional features. She asked if any energy dissipation features would be installed. o Staff answered that the new and replaced outlets are intended to have a 90° outlet at the beach elevation and would be protected with rock rip-rap or similar at the outlet. • Where do the soaring participants launch from relative to the project site? o Staff explained that the pilots launch from an area on private property to the southwest of the trail alignment, and confirmed that the trail would have no impacts on the launch area. • In Alternative “4,” if the bridge were rotated toward the highway, could the earthwork be modified to bring the trail up to the bridge deck elevation rather than directing the bridge/trail out toward the ocean and then having to swing back in toward the highway, and impacting the use of the ocean-side ridge for soaring? She did not feel that preserving ocean views from the trail was critical, and expressed more concern for impacts to soaring activities and the negative economic effects of such impacts to use of the area by the soaring community.
o Staff responded that there are a number of problems, including existing utility infrastructure, which make such an alternative alignment problematic. In addition, one of the primary project objectives as identified in the EIR was to preserve ocean views from the new trail.

Vince Semonsen
• What is the anticipated duration of the construction effort? Will construction extend through a rainy season? He is skeptical of any Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be sufficient to protect exposed soils given the extensive amount of earthwork anticipated on a steep slope during heavy winter rain events. The restoration/revegetation effort will also be exposed to winter rains/erosion. o Staff answered that the project is expected to take approximately 24 months to complete. o Staff added that the project will be operated in 2 separate grading operations, one above the UPRR corridor and one below. The earthwork area above the UPRR corridor will be able to utilize the existing, established storm drain system for capturing and diverting runoff. On the ocean side of the UPRR corridor, careful and thorough erosion control will be more critical and will need to be timed to occur outside of winter, if possible. The Las Positas bike path project in Santa Barbara was cited as an example of how projects can be completed during winter with appropriate BMPs in place.
• He questioned the efficacy and reality of the woodrat and legless lizard relocation efforts given the challenging terrain. Relocating the woodrat middens seems unlikely; the woodrats are likely to run away Carpinteria Rincon Trail ERC Meeting
04-13-2021

Page 3 of 8 ends

when their nests are disturbed.
• He questioned whether the finding of a 30% reduction in air currents relied upon by the soaring enthusiasts was accurately classified as “less than significant.” o Staff clarified that the impact was identified as being up to a maximum of a 30% reduction, and that based upon the range of suitable wind conditions that allow for soaring opportunities, soaring opportunities within the suitable wind range would remain albeit at this reduced level. It was also clarified that the environmentally superior alternative (Alternative “3”) was found to result in closer to a 20% reduction, and this in part, was why this Alternative was found to be environmentally superior.
• Why does Alternative 4 increase the amount of earthwork compared to the proposed project? o Staff confirmed this was correct and explained that the slope above the highway would need to be modified and re-worked for the entire length east of the UPRR crossing to create the new trail bench. Additionally, the Alternative 4 trail is considerably longer in length. It was also clarified that this Alternative requires retaining walls above and below the trail for a stretch towards the eastern end.
• Was there a previous Alternative that contemplated using the existing freeway bridge or attaching to the freeway bridge to cross the tracks and continuing the trail along the highway shoulder? o Staff responded that it was looked at early on but found to be infeasible due to the cost and constructability challenges with adding onto, or attaching a new bridge to the existing freeway overpass above the UPRR alignment. Matt Roberts clarified that Caltrans did not support such an option for further consideration and wanted to see a completely independent bridge structure for the trail to cross the railroad alignment. The proposed Alternative 4 is an attempt to retain some ocean vista views, and make use of a shorter bridge span. It also makes use of the work already completed with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) with respect to gaining approvals and easements for the rail corridor crossing. • He questioned the importance and emphasis given to providing or maintaining coastal views for this short trail segment given the availability of coastal views for the remainder of the trails to the north and south of the trail. He found it hard to justify in light of the amount of earthwork necessary to accommodate a trail with a continuous ocean view.
o Matt Roberts clarified that Alternative 3, the environmentally superior alternative, requires less earthwork than the proposed project while still meeting the project objectives of providing an ocean vista trail.
• How much earth removal would occur in Alternative “4”? o Anticipating ~94,100 cubic yards of export (i.e., earth removal). • In the Alternative “4” scenario, could the bridge be turned to be parallel, or closer to parallel, to the freeway to create a shorter bridge?
o Staff replied that the current bridge design, which is nearly perpendicular to the railroad tracks, is the shortest crossing of the rail corridor (at ~160’ in length). Staff clarified that various alternatives have been examined in an effort to minimize the bridge spans and needed earthwork.

Alternative “4” as shown also fits other project constraints related to easements, rights-of-way, construction staging, etc. At 160’ length, we are reaching the maximum length that can be accomplished with a clear span bridge. There were no significant constructability benefits observed from rotating the bridge.
• In the Alternative “4” scenario, none of the earthwork shown in the renderings on the ocean side of the bluff would occur, correct? Then where would the 94,000 cubic yards of net export come from in Alternative “4”? He asked to see a rendering or similar exhibit showing where the earthwork quantities would be coming from.
o Staff explained that the numbers are accurate having been determined using highly detailed models of the project area, and that the earthwork is necessary to create a trail bench along the Carpinteria Rincon Trail ERC Meeting
04-13-2021

Page 4 of 8 ends

entire length of the ridge.

John Ilasin
• He asked to hear from the project design team in response to some of the questions raised by the other ERC members.

Steve Goggia
• In Alternative “4”, could the trail be placed on top of the ridge instead? o Staff explained that at the bridge crossing, the bridge is near the same elevation as the freeway. In order to run down the ridgeline towards Bate Rd, the bridge would have to be increased in height 40 feet which would in turn result in a much longer bridge (current 160’ bridge expanded to 250’+ bridge length) with much more significant visual and construction impacts. • In Alternative “4”, does the trail need to still be 16 feet wide? Could it be narrower if it were higher up on the ridge if it didn’t need to carry so much of the uphill slope? • Any chance of using something like an ADA-compliant spiral ramp to gain the necessary elevation to reach the ridge?
o Staff replied that such a feature would not meet the design criteria for a trail or bike path, nor would it seem to fit the physical setting.

PUBLIC COMMENT
John Greynald
• The study is flawed and it will be easy for the soaring community to demonstrate the failings of the study and the attempts to delegitimize the recreational impacts to the soaring community. • Believes the analysis with respect to recreational impacts is illegal. • Disagrees with the conclusion that a 30% reduction in wind velocities is less than significant. • Nobody from the project team attempted to contact or consult with the soaring community. • Believes the wind study is flawed and incomplete.
• Alternative 4 is the only viable option that could be permitted. Stop wasting the taxpayers’ money on studying other project alternatives.

Karl Cameron
• There hasn’t been much erosion on the ocean bluff face over the last 20 or 30 years based on personal observations, except in the areas near the failing retaining walls. • Believes the wind study is incomplete and flawed. A 30% reduction in lift would have a drastic impact on the flying conditions.
• The soaring community has been exploring additional options for launch sites along the buffs, in addition to the existing launch site on the “King” property.
• The soaring community was not opposed to the original project alignment (now referred to as Alternative “2”), however they believe Alternative “4” is a better alternative because it delivers cyclists to the continuation of the bike path south of Bates Rd and doesn’t have any impacts to the ocean-facing bluff face.
• Asserts that they soaring activities are fully legal and sanctioned to fly in the area. • Requests that the design team consult with and engage the soaring community in the design of the trail.

Ottis Gillespie
• What is the difference between the described “earthwork” and “earth removal” in the DEIR? o Staff explained that “earthwork” is a general term for cut and fill, whereas “earth removal” refers specifically to excavation or cut. Projects balance onsite wherever possible.

Carpinteria Rincon Trail ERC Meeting
04-13-2021

Page 5 of 8 ends

• Please provide more details on the anticipated retaining walls in Alternative 4 (length, height, etc.). It doesn’t seem this would be a major obstacle to pursuing this Alternative. • The existing storm drains are not in good condition. The depiction of the existing and proposed storm drains is inaccurate since these “existing” storm drains need to be repaired/replaced. • In addition to natural erosion, there has also been mechanical intrusion into the asphalt along the existing bench. Provide close-up photos/images of what this bluff would look like. • Alternative 4 is the best option. It would not deliver cyclists at speed into the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot, which would be a significant safety issue. Cyclists won’t slow down just because they’re exiting the trail and entering a parking lot.
• Disagreed with the finding of no significant impact on soaring activities. The important element at this site is less about the wind velocity and more about the wind deflection from the bluff causing ridge lift.

Alterations that affect that ridge lift will disrupt our ability to fly at this site. Refer to the video submitted by Aaron LaPlante during the public comment period on the previous Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SMND).
• Surveyed more than 100 cyclists asking whether they would prefer a path on the ocean side or inland side of the trail considering wind exposure.

Dr. Mark Patterson
• Appreciates the complexity of the project.
• Discounts the findings of the wind study, noting that even minor features or changes can affect the wind and uplift conditions dramatically. Comparatively, laying back the existing steep slow to a 1:1 slope will have a significant impact on flying conditions. Asked whether the wind expert has any flying experience? • Recommended the project team consult with the experts from the Santa Barbara Soaring Association; they are the local experts of flying at this location. It doesn’t matter what experts say about wind over hills; talk to the people who actually fly the hills.
• This project would not affect the launch area, however we rely on the ocean-facing bluff face where the trail is proposed to be located to catch lift and continue with our flights. The bluff orientation, slope angle, and smoothness all factor into this, and if you change any of these features, it will ruin our flying conditions.
• There is a safety consideration too. This is a great beginner site because it doesn’t require much wind. The proposed changes would make it flyable only during periods of higher wind speeds which would make it less safe for less experienced pilots. It would increase the potential for injuries, crashes, and landings on the bike path.
• Prefer Alternative “4” to finish the bike path while preserving our ability to continue to fly here at this site.
• Alternative “4” also avoids delivering cyclists into a busy parking lot.

George Jimenez
• Agree with many of the comments from the others.
• The project is being promoted as improving safety, but no reports or statistics on bike crashes or incidents along the existing Caltrans shoulder have been provided to demonstrate a need for the trail. There have, however, been incidents with cyclists crashing into the non-compliant parking in the County Beach parking lot.
• Asked why is it okay for the public to cross the railroad tracks in other parts of town, but not here? • The wind study incorrectly looks at wind velocity rather than uplift. • Why hasn’t the City explored any other routes or possibilities? Explore other options and do a better study of other possible options.

Carpinteria Rincon Trail ERC Meeting
04-13-2021

Page 6 of 8 ends

Barry Remis, COAST and SB Bicycle Coalition
• Appreciates the examination of project alternatives.
• We believe the primary objective is to create a multi-use trail to allow improved pedestrian access and bridge a gap in connectivity. Therefore, we believe Alternative “4” is best as it provides a direct connection to the continuation of the bike path south of Bates Rd. • Pedestrian and cyclist safety concerns in passing through the County Beach parking lot are considerable. • Avoidance of wind for cyclists through Alternative “4” could be preferable. • Alternative “4” best meets the ultimate project objective with the least amount of exposure to risk to trail users.

Jeff Longcor
• Members of the soaring community are deeply concerned about this project. We’re feeling marginalized by findings of “less than significant” impacts to our soaring activities. Nobody has taken a realistic approach to the wind, or taken the opportunity to consult with us. • Santa Barbara Soaring Association (SBSA) previously refuted language in the SMND concerning our rights to use these areas and alleged violations of rules, and continue to disagree with this language being used in the DEIR.
• SBSA disputes raising issues over the long-term viability of the launch site. There have been allotments for the soaring community in the past and they can launch from elsewhere along the bluffs to arrive at the ridge, if needed.
• Pilots can only continue to enjoy our flying if the existing ridge is maintained and not altered. • The soaring community submitted over 100 pages of comments in the appendices. The ERC should read the comments.
• The soaring community has a petition with over 2,000 signatures and 60 comments in support of protecting this ridge, including many visitors from outside of the community. • This is an excessive amount of construction and earthwork for a 0.2-mile trail and would destroy the existing important soaring opportunities.
• If “recreation” exists under CEQA, then it needs to be considered. Based on the expert testimony provided by the soaring community on record, the described impacts should be found significant. • The expert wind study is unrealistic. It only deals with a parallel wind path which doesn’t reflect the site conditions, which hits at a tangent.
• If wind speed is reduced even just a little bit, there is an exponential decrease in lift. When wind is light, we can only fly along this ridge.

COMMITTEE MEMBER COMMENTS
Natasha Lohmus
• Concerning the proposed mitigation measures for the legless lizards and woodrats, perhaps consider some alternative options that would be easier and more realistic to accomplish. • For bird nesting, the mitigation measure should require compliance with state and federal regulations (e.g., 300’ buffer from an occupied nest; 500’ for raptors) for noise-producing construction activity and heavy equipment use.
• Where would off-site mitigation occur? Can receiver sites be identified or proposed? • For hydrology, concerns with impacts from concrete need to be addressed. Wet concrete is highly hazardous to wildlife. If concrete will be poured during the wet season, it should have a quick drying additive. Provide guidelines for when and how concrete will be poured for trail surfaces and v-ditches to avoid runoff-related impacts.
• Enhanced and more detailed explanations of proposed measures to address erosion during the rainy season are needed.

Carpinteria Rincon Trail ERC Meeting
04-13-2021

Page 7 of 8 ends

• Comments provided by the public have a lot of value. I support the idea of constructing a coastal trail, but it should not come at the expense of eliminating another group’s recreational use of the area, especially a group that contributes to the local economy through tourism dollars. The financial benefit of preserving the soaring community’s use of the area should be considered and addressed in the environmental document.
• Identified impacts to recreational use by the soaring community are significant. More analysis/work is needed on this section.
• If Alternative “4” is more expensive to build, perhaps additional grants can be pursued to help cover construction costs.

John Ilasin- No additional comments.
• Mr. Ilasin recused himself from further participation or voting on the Draft EIR, citing a potential for a conflict of interest due to his role in administering capital projects, including the subject project, on behalf of the City of Carpinteria.
o Mack Carlson, legal counsel for the City of Carpinteria, agreed and recommended Mr. Ilasin abstain from any votes on the project.

Erin Maker- No additional comments.

Steve Goggia
• Acknowledged that ERC members would like to see additional information and details about Alternative “4”. Asked the other ERC members if they would need additional information on Alternative “4” before making a recommendation on the EIR, or if sufficient information has been provided. o Vince Semonsen responded that he believes the current document provides sufficient information, although he would like to see a graphic depicting the earthwork for Alternative “4.” o Mack Carlson, legal counsel for the City of Carpinteria, clarified the options that the Board could pick from concerning how to take action on the Draft EIR. The Board could direct staff to provide additional details on any of the project alternatives, and/or request a continuance to present that additional information back to the ERC at a subsequent meeting. The Board could also direct staff to reformulate one of the Alternatives, which would then need to be evaluated to determine whether it would trigger a need to recirculate the Draft EIR. Lastly, the Board could make a recommendation to the Planning Commission to accept the EIR based on one or more of the project alternatives presented.

Vince Semonsen
• He noted a preference for Alternative 4 due to its avoidance of the ocean-facing bluff and impacts to the soaring community. He stated he does not trust the wind study prepared for the EIR. • He felt Alternative “4” would move less soil than the other options and avoided exposed steep slopes on the south-facing side of the ridge that would be prone to storm damage. He did not feel that any BMPs would be adequate to protect the slope from this type of damage. • Agreed with public comments concerning the safety risks of depositing cyclists into the parking lot. He felt cyclists would prefer the ability to continue directly on to the continuation of the bike path at Bates Rd rather than having to pass through the parking lot. In particular, he felt that electric bikes pose a hazard due to their high travel speed if passing through the parking lot. o Natasha Lohmus expressed her agreement with this, noting that the lot is often busy during summer months and cyclists would be exposed to potential injury or accidents. She also asked how enforcement of the prohibition on motorized bikes would be enforced. o Matt Roberts explained that the design had been reviewed by a traffic engineer and found to not pose unreasonable safety hazards. He added that traffic calming improvements would be included Carpinteria Rincon Trail ERC Meeting
04-13-2021

Page 8 of 8 ends

at the trail ends to warn cyclists of the changing traffic patterns. He also clarified that motorized bikes would not be legal on an un-motorized trail, and many agencies are beginning to establish speed limits on trails for these sorts of reasons. Mr. Roberts explained that enforcement would likely come through financial responsibility in the event of an accident along with periodic enforcement of regulations (e.g., citations).

ACTION:

Motion 1 by Committee member Lohmus, seconded by Committee member Semonsen, to recommend revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact Report to address the Committee’s comments, recommendations, clarifications, additional mitigation measures and corrections, including providing additional project details for Alternative “4”.

Motion 2 by Committee member Semonsen, seconded by Committee member Lohmus, to recommend approval of the Draft Environmental Impact Report to the Planning Commission with a preference for Alternative “4” and an understanding that the previous motion’s comments would be incorporated into the EIR.

VOTE:

Motion 1: 4-0 (Ilasin abstain)
Motion 2: 4-0 (Ilasin abstain)
MEETING ADJOURNED: 6:40 p.m.

Responses to Comments
Response to Verbal Comments Presented During
Environmental Review Committee Hearing on Draft EIR
Response to Natasha Lohmus Comments
• Legless Lizard/Woodrat relocation – the identified methods have been successfully used on other projects, CDFW did not recommend alternative methods.
• Nest construction activity setbacks - Refer to revisions in the Biology Section; the 300 foot and 500 foot radii for nests are included.
• Off-site mitigation – Rincon Bluffs (City) and Rincon Beach Park (County) are immediately adjacent to the project and would represent off-site mitigation opportunities, as necessary. • Impacts from concrete construction on biology – the prevention of impacts from concrete construction are addressed in MM-WAT-2 in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section of the EIR • Erosion control – MM-WAT-3 requires the preparation of a detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, to be based upon the final earthwork design. Sample erosion control techniques, measures, and equipment are identified in MM-WAT-3, but the final erosion control plan will be designed to specifically address the earthwork design and erosion control needs.
• Financial benefits of preserving soaring opportunities – the CEQA guidelines do not require the evaluation of the financial impacts of a project.
• Recreation impacts – Please refer to Global Response GR1 with respect to project impacts on soaring opportunities.
• Alternative 4 Costs – this comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR; no response is necessary.

Response to John Ilasin Comments
• This comment does not address the adequacy of the Draft EIR; no response is necessary.

Response to Steve Goggia Comments
• Sufficiency of information Regarding Alternative 4 – Vince Semonsen proffered the opinion that the existing Draft EIR provides adequate information addressing Alternative 4 to the Proposed Project. The EIR preparers agree with the opinion expressed by Mr. Semonsen.
• The legal direction provided by Mack Carlson clarified the actions available to the ERC with regard to requesting the inclusion of further analysis, or a recommendation to the Planning Commission pertaining to the acceptance of the Draft EIR.

Response to Vince Semonsen Comments
• Legless Lizard/Woodrat relocation – (from the ERC Questions section) the identified methods have been successfully used on other projects, CDFW did not recommend alternative methods. • Alternative 4 Preference – the commenter is correct that Alternative 4 would avoid modification of the oceanfacing bluff south of the UPRR corridor. Please refer to Global Response GR1 for further discussion pertaining to the wind study prepared for the EIR.
• Alternative 4 Minimization of Earthwork – The commenter is not correct in identifying Alternative 4 as involving the least amount of earthwork of all the project options. Alternative 3 would have the least total earthwork volume of all the options explored (including the proposed project and Alternative 1-4). MMWAT-3 requires the preparation of a detailed Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, to be based upon the final earthwork design. Sample erosion control techniques, measures, and equipment are identified in MM-WAT3, but the final erosion control plan will be designed to specifically address the earthwork design and erosion control needs.

Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 2-151
Responses to Comments
• Bike Safety Within Rincon Beach State Park Parking Lot – The City requested their professional consulting traffic engineer evaluate the potential for safety risks associated with the conflict between cyclists entering the Rincon Beach County Park from trail segments connecting to the parking lot from the east or west. The traffic engineer concluded that the proposed design configuration which would convey cyclists through the parking lot would not pose substantial safety risks from conflicts between cyclists and maneuvering vehicles.

Parking maneuverers tend to be low speed, visibility is good in the parking lot, and signage warning cyclists and motor vehicle operators would be effective in eliminating potential safety risks.

Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 2-152
Responses to Comments
References Cited
Bowen, A. J., & Lindley, D. (1977). A wind-tunnel investigation of the wind speed and turbulence characteristics close to the ground over various escarpment shapes. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 12(3), 259–271.

Bowen, A. J. (1980). Full scale measurements of the atmospheric turbulence over two escarpments. In J.

E. Cermak (Ed.), Wind Engineering (pp. 161–172). Pergamon.

Crawley, E. F., & Schmanske, M. (1994). Optimum ridge lift: a scaled experimental investigation.

Technical Soaring, 18(4), 120–128.

El Bahlouli, A., Leukauf, D., Platis, A., zum Berge, K., Bange, J., & Knaus, H. (2020). Validating CFD Predictions of Flow over an Escarpment Using Ground-Based and Airborne Measurement Devices.

Energies, 13(18), 4688.

Pagen, D. (1992). Understanding the Sky (1st ed.). Sport Aviation Publications.

Pagen, D. (2001). The Art of Paragliding (1st ed.). Sport Aviation Publications.

Safaei Pirooz, A. A., & Flay, R. G. J. (2018). Comparison of speed-up over hills derived from wind-tunnel experiments, wind-loading standards, and numerical modelling. Boundary - Layer Meteorology, 168(2), 213–246.

Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 2-153
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-1
3 Changes to the Draft EIR

3.1 Introduction
The comments received by the City of Carpinteria (City) during the public review period for the Draft EIR included information that has resulted in minor revisions to the text of the Draft EIR. These revisions are shown below and are categorized by section number. Text from the Draft EIR that has been removed is shown in strikethrough (i.e., strikethrough), and text that has been added as part of the Final EIR is shown as underlined (i.e., underline).

Revisions are shown with surrounding sentences or paragraphs for context. These errata merely clarify and correct minor facts and do not constitute “substantial revisions” requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR, as set forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15073.5.

The engineering design of the Project has also been refined since the Draft EIR, resulting in two notable revisions to the overall Project. First, the previously proposed bench along the slope above the trail has been removed from the design for the trail segment south of the UPRR alignment. Second, the number of vertical storm drains serving the trail south segment of the UPRR alignment has been reduced from a total of 5 to 4. Revisions to the Draft EIR language to reflect these Project refinements are also included in the Errata section below.

3.2 Errata

2.7 Project Description

2.7.1 Earthwork
The trail design has been engineered to incorporate pathway travel slopes that are consistent with ADA standards.

The design also avoids an area with deep landslides, south and west of the crossing point over the UPRR alignment, which were identified in geotechnical testing. The majority of project earthwork will occur on existing engineered slopes that were constructed as part of past road, highway and railroad projects; these manufactured slope faces in many instances are steeper than natural conditions, leading to increased erosion potential, which the project intends to correct though re-contouring to reduce slope angles. Construction of the proposed path design would involve a total of 107,386 96,040 cubic yards of cut, a total of 14,860 10,519 cubic yards of fill, and the export of a total of 92,526 85,521 cubic yards of earth material. The re-contouring of existing engineered topography along the path alignment to achieve more stable conditions is described in more detail below

2.7.1.2 Pathway Slope Profiles South of UPRR Alignment
For the portion of the path on the ocean side of the UPRR alignment, the regraded slopes for the trail “bench” would employ cut slopes with a ratio of 1:1 above the trail, while a ratio of 1.25:1 would be employed for the “reinforced” fill slopes below the trail. The earthwork would alter the elevation of the bench on which the trail would be aligned, but would not alter the top elevation of the hill/ridge. Illustration 2-3 presents an example of the existing versus proposed slope profile for earthwork modifications above and below the trail. 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-2
Note in Illustration 2-3 that the proposed cut-slopes are less-steep than those constructed for the railroad alignment in this area (illustrated with a dashed profile labeled as “OG” above) in order to provide an adequate margin of safety for the long-term stability of the slopes. Note there is also a proposed bench above the trail that would intercept rainwater and also prevent rock fall on the path below. The bench would also provide maintenance access for the manufactured slopes and path.

SOURCE: Bengal Engineering
Illustration 2-3 Pathway Grading Profile South of UPRR Alignment

2.7.3 Drainage
The proposed trail project includes an integrated storm drainage system to ensure stormwater runoff from the recontoured bluff face and the trail surface is conveyed to the ocean efficiently, avoiding potential erosion of slopes along the trail alignment. Along the portion of the trail north of the UPRR alignment, a concrete swale (v-ditch) would convey water along the trail edge, where it would be released into an existing surface drainage swale now serving U.S. Highway 101. This swale connects to an existing storm drain that crosses underneath the UPRR alignment, and then descends to the beach level. This storm drain is labelled as “1” in Illustration 2-6. No improvements are proposed to storm drain 1, and the trail storm drain volumes contributed to this storm drain would be negligible compared to existing flows already contributed from portions of U.S. Highway 101. – New Storm Drain With Beach Outlet ----------- Existing Drain / Outlet to be Removed 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-4
On the south side of the UPRR alignment, a concrete drainage swale would also carry surface runoff from the recontoured bluff face and trail, conveying such drainage along the side of the trail until it reaches one of the storm drain inlets lower in elevation. A total of 5 4 vertical storm drains would convey this stormwater from the trail to the beach elevation, for the trail segment south of the UPRR alignment (refer to Illustration 2-6). Drains No. 3 and No. 6 ( shown in light blue in Illustration 2-6) are existing, but are in seriously degraded condition and would be removed. re-used, including rehabilitation of existing piping; Drains No. 2 3, No. 4 5, No. 6, and No. 5 7 (shown labelled in in Illustration 2-6) would be newly developed for the project.

Section 3.1, Aesthetics
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The eastern portion of the proposed trail would involve regrading of the slope above the former UPRR track alignment, to include a fill slope below the new trail bench, and a cut slope with mid-elevation bench a less steep angle above the trail bench (Refer to Appendix G Illustration 2-6 for earthwork cross-sections/profiles illustrating the slope re-working). Again, the top elevation of the ridge within this segment of the trail alignment would not be modified and the overall area would continue to have the same general appearance as the existing condition (i.e., a manufactured slope along the original cut made for the railroad alignment).

The project also involves the construction of new vertical storm drains. As discussed in Section 2.7.3, the proposed storm drains would be installed during earth work for the trail and adjacent slopes, and would be buried to cross beneath the trail and then descend on the slope face to outlet at the beach elevation. Buried portions of the storm drain would be constructed of high-density plastic, transitioning to galvanized steel for the aboveground portions.

Due to the size of the proposed above ground components, the visibility of the above ground storm drain system would be minimal and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

Proposed project construction would include 107,386 96,040 cubic yards of cut, a total of 14,860 10,519 cubic yards of fill, and the export of a total of 92,526 85,519 cubic yards of earth material during the grading phase. It is anticipated that earth movement would be primarily, if not completely, accomplished using off-road equipment (e.g., scrapers and excavators). Off-road travel was assumed to be 1,000 feet per trip for vendor and haul trucks.

A detailed depiction of the construction schedule—including information regarding phases and equipment used during each phase—is included in Appendix B of this Environmental Impact Report. The information contained in Appendix B was used as CalEEMod model inputs.

Construction Emissions
Construction of the proposed project would result in the temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by on-site sources (i.e., off-road construction equipment) and off-site sources (i.e., on-road haul trucks, vendor trucks, and worker vehicle trips). Construction emission can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and for dust, the prevailing weather conditions.

Therefore, such emission levels can only be estimated, with a corresponding uncertainty in precise ambient air quality impacts. Based upon the initial earthwork volumes calculated for the project (i.e., 107,386 cubic yards cut, 14,860 cubic yards fill, with 92,526 cubic yards of export), construction-related emissions were calculated using CalEEMod; Table 3.2-5 presents the estimated results of the calculated annual construction emissions generated during construction of the project on the basis of the initial earthwork estimates. Details of the emission calculations are provided in Appendix B. Given the reduction in the estimated earthwork volumes for the proposed project, construction emissions are expected to be lower than the levels reported in Table 3.2-5.

Table 3.2-5. Estimated Annual Construction Emissions
Year
ROC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Tons per Year
2022 0.14 2.50 1.03 0.01 0.24 0.10
2023 0.07 0.85 0.53 0.00 0.17 0.05
Maximum Annual Emissions 0.14 2.50 1.03 0.01 0.24 0.10
SBCAPCD Threshold 25 25 25 25 25 25
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Appendix B.

Notes: ROC = reactive organic compound; CO = carbon monoxide; NOx = oxides of nitrogen; SOx = sulfur oxides; PM10 = course particulate matter; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-6
As shown in Table 3.2-5, based on the initial earthwork estimates, annual construction emissions would not exceed the SBCAPCD significance thresholds for ROC, NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5 emissions during construction. Given the updated earthwork estimates for the proposed project are reduced as compared to the initial estimates, the construction emissions from the proposed project would also remain well below applicable significance thresholds of the SBCAPCD. Therefore, construction of the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact.

Section 3.3, Biological Resources
NOTE: The Biological Resources section below replaces the entire Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR, as minor revisions are distributed throughout the section and presentation of isolated paragraphs would hamper overall readability.

This section describes the existing biological resources conditions of the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project (project) site and vicinity, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and proposes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The following discussion is based on review of existing databases; field surveys performed in 2011, 2018, 2019, and 2020, and 2021; knowledge of the project vicinity from previous biological surveys, consultations with local experts; and information from the Carpinteria Rincon Trail Proposed Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (City of Carpinteria 2015) and the Carpinteria Rincon Trail Final Subsequent MND (City of Carpinteria 2019) certified January 6, 2020.

3.3.1 Existing Conditions
The project is located on lands within the jurisdiction of the City of Carpinteria and the County of Santa Barbara (County) (Figure 2-1, Project Location). Carpinteria is a quaint seaside town located about 12 miles east of Santa Barbara near the intersection of Highway 150 and U.S. Highway 101, near the Ventura County line. The proposed trail alignment is located largely along an area of coastal bluff known as the Carpinteria Bluffs. As described in the City of Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report (City of Carpinteria 2003), the Carpinteria Bluffs are among the last remaining coastal open space areas within the County and are a prime example of undisturbed California coastline. The Carpinteria Bluffs provide important public access to the coast for residents and visitors. The Carpinteria Bluffs are partially developed and further development or redevelopment of portions of the Carpinteria Bluffs are anticipated over time making the establishment of policies to protect the environment and character of the place of utmost importance.

The project site crosses several parcels of land owned by public agencies. The trail parking lot location on Carpinteria Avenue is owned by the City of Carpinteria. Heading east, the next portion of the proposed trail route is owned by the State of California as part of the U.S. Highway 101 right-of-way and from there the proposed trail route crosses two parcels of landed owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) (APN 001-010-032 and APN 001-220-092).

The proposed trail route then connects to a parcel of land owned by the County as part of Rincon Beach County Park. A series of terraces interspersed with steep slopes along the proposed alignment route are evidence of extensive past grading for a former railroad bed and road cuts. Further evidence of extensive past grading is evident in the soils within the project site, as the vast majority of the site is composed of xerorthents, cut and fill areas, which are soils that are well drained, and are formed in material with a high content of gravel and cobbles derived from mixed rock sources (USDA 2020a). The remaining portion of the biological survey area contains a mapped section of beaches soils composed of sandy or stony alluvium along the coast, located along the bottom of the hill at the edge of the beach within Rincon Beach County Park (USDA 2020a). 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-7
The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way provides an unvegetated corridor approximately 50 feet wide containing a single track that divides the project alignment near its center. The eastern terminus of the proposed trail alignment is within Rincon Beach County Park parking lot, consisting of both undeveloped terraces as well as a largely developed area where a paved parking lot and landscaping dominate. An existing unsanctioned trail extends between Rincon Beach County Park and the UPRR tracks extending west on the bluffs to the north of the UPRR tracks with spur trails providing beach access. The western portion of the alignment is situated west and south of U.S. Highway 101 and partly includes an unvegetated pull-out at the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue as well as an area of disturbed ground adjacent to the pull-out and undeveloped open space south of U.S.

Highway 101.

Despite past disturbances, long stretches of the proposed trail alignment are dominated by native scrub vegetation.

In the eastern portion of the proposed trail alignment between the UPRR crossing and Rincon Beach County Park, the native shrub, quailbush (Atriplex lentiformis), is the dominant shrub throughout much of the area. Additional native vegetation borders the parking lot in Rincon Beach County Park and occupies portions of the proposed trail alignment. In the western portion of the proposed trail alignment between the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue and the UPRR crossing, California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and quailbush are the dominant plant species.

The project site region is identified by USGS White Ledge Peak 7.5 quadrangle as well as the four coastally influenced adjacent USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles (Ventura, Matilija, Pitas Point, Carpinteria).

3.3.1.1 Literature Review
Prior to the 2011 field visit conducted by Dudek, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was queried for records of special-status plants and wildlife in the vicinity of the site. In addition, Carpinteria local botanist Larry Ballard was consulted for information on rare plants potentially occurring in the project vicinity, including those on the Rare Plants of Santa Barbara County list, issued by the Central Coast Center for Plant Conservation (CCCPC) (Wilken 2007) and those included on the Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants (Magney 2020). Additional field surveys were performed in 2018, 2019, and 2020, and 2021. Prior to 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 field surveys, the location of documented special-status plant species near the project site and that have potential to occur on site were identified through a query of the CNDDB (CDFW 2018; CDFW 2020a) and the updated Rare Plants of Santa Barbara County (Wilken 2018). In summary the following were reviewed for this project:
• 2008-2009 Second Wet Season 90-Day Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey Report, King Ventures Rincon Bluffs Carpinteria, California (Sage Institute Inc. 2009) • Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report Carpinteria Bluffs, Areas III Development Plan (INTERFACE Planning and Counseling Corporation 1981)
• Carpinteria Bluffs Areas 2 and 3 Biological Resource Analysis & Mapping (Firma 2008) • Carpinteria Bluffs Biological Resources and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (Condor Environmental Planning Services 1996)
• CDFW CNDDB (CDFW 2018; CDFW 2020a)
• Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants (Magney 2020) • CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2020) • Draft Carpinteria Bluffs Area III Project Biological Resources Due Diligence Report (Dudek 2012a) 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-8
• Evaluation Report Carpinteria Bluffs Biological Resources and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (LSA Associates Inc. 1997)
• Initial Biological Assessment: Rincon Trail (VJS Biological Consulting 2008) • List of potentially occurring listed species generated from a review of the USFWS’s IPaC Trust Resources Report list of federal and threatened species (USFWS 2020a) • Proposed Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Carpinteria Rincon Trail (City of Carpinteria 2015) • Proposed Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. Carpinteria Rincon Trail (City of Carpinteria 2019) • Rare Plants of Santa Barbara County list (Wilken 2007, 2018) • USGS National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2020)
• USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2020b)
• USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2020c)
• Wetland Delineation of Pool Features at Carpinteria Bluffs Areas III per the California Coastal Act, City of Carpinteria, California (Dudek 2012b)
The biological survey area includes the proposed trail alignment as well as the extent of proposed temporary potential impacts encompassing vegetated terraces and slopes above and below the proposed trail alignment as well as portions of the developed Rincon Beach County Park (see Figure 3.3-1).

3.3.1.2 Vegetation Communities and Wildlife Habitats
During 2018, Dudek biologists conducted vegetation community mapping within the biological survey area in the field using the List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations (Natural Communities List) (CDFW 2010), which is based on the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2) (Sawyer et al. 2009), as shown in Table 3.3-1. The vegetation communities were updated to align with the California Natural Community List (CNCL) (CDFW 2020b), which incorporated changes based on taxonomic revisions related to dominant plants, reassignment of associations to new or different alliances, and revisions to the rarities rankings of some communities. If vegetation observed did not meet the membership rules of the vegetation communities in these sources, modifications were made to accommodate the lack of conformity of the observed communities (e.g., developed/disturbed land uses) using Oberbauer et al. (2008).

Vegetation community mapping conducted in 2018 was confirmed and/or updated during the 2020 site visit. An additional site visit was conducted in May 2021 to perform vegetation mapping, special-status plant species survey, and a tree assessment within the expanded biological survey area to include the limits of Alternative 4.

The following minimum vegetation mapping units applied during vegetation mapping:
• 0.5–1.0 acre for inaccessible areas of the site due to steep terrain. • acres for wetland (i.e., hydrophytic) vegetation in traditional wetland environments (i.e., OBL [obligate – plant species almost always in wetlands], FACW [facultative wetland – plant species usually occurring in wetlands but occasionally found in non-wetlands], but not all FAC [facultative – plant species equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands] species comprising a vegetation alliance will be mapped unless associated with a hydrologic unit – stream, depression, swale, etc.). • all areas with sensitive vegetation communities were mapped (no minimum mapping unit identified for sensitive vegetation communities)
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-9
Table 3.3-1. Survey Dates, Times, Personnel, and Conditions for Biological Surveys Survey Date Time Personnel Survey Conditions Survey Type 8/31/2011 0940-1253 Dave
Compton
61°F–63°F, 70%–100% cloud cover, 1-
8 mph winds
General Biological
Survey
5/5/2018 0655-1040 Heather
Moine
55°F–68°F, 50%–70% cloud cover, 1-2
mph winds
Special-Status Plant
Species Survey
5/15/2018 0630-0755 Heather
Moine
51°F–60°F, 0% cloud cover, 1-3 mph
winds
Vegetation Mapping
7/21/2018 0700-0900 Heather
Moine
63°F–64°F, 100% cloud cover, 1-2 mph
winds
Special-Status Plant
Species Survey
9/26/2018 1300-1510 Heather
Moine
67°F–69°F, 50%–75% cloud cover, 2-3
mph winds
Special-Status Plant
Species Survey,
Vegetation Mapping
4/8/2019 1505-1825 Heather
Moine
80°F–85°F, 10%–80% cloud cover, 2-3
mph winds
Special-Status Plant
Species Survey
7/23/2019 1300-1605 Heather
Moine
75°F–79°F, 0%–20% cloud cover, 4-5
mph winds
Special-Status Plant
Species Survey
12/24/2020 1320-1505 Mackenzie
Forgey
69°F–68°F, 90% cloud cover, 2-9 mph
winds
General Biological
Survey; Tree
Assessment
5/17/2021 1330-1706 Heather
Moine
60°F–61°F, 10%–100% cloud cover, 0-6
mph winds
Special-Status Plant
Species Survey;
Vegetation Mapping;
Tree Assessment
Notes: °F = degrees Fahrenheit; mph = miles per hour.

The CNCL (CDFW 2020b) is a hierarchical classification system which classifies natural vegetation communities based on alliances, which contain associations, the most granular level of classification (CDFW 2020c). The CNCL includes a state rarity rank based on the NatureServe Standard Heritage Methodology (NatureServe 2020). The conservation status of a vegetation community is designated by a number from 1 to 5, preceded by a letter reflecting the appropriate geographic scale of the assessment (G = global, N = national, and S = subnational). For the purpose of this report the focus is the S rarity rank. The numbers have the following meaning (NatureServe 2020):
1 = critically imperiled
2 = imperiled
3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction
4 = apparently secure
5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure
For example, S1 would indicate that a vegetation community is critically imperiled within a particular state or province. A rank of S3 would indicate the vegetation community is vulnerable and at moderate risk within a particular state or province, although it may be more secure elsewhere (NatureServe 2020). The CNCL (CDFW 2020b) includes state-level rarity rankings (i.e., the subnational [S] rank) for vegetation communities. The CNCL is considered the authority for ranking the conservation status of vegetation communities in California. As described by CDFW 2020c, ranking is an ongoing process and some associations are considered sensitive, denoted by a “Y” in the “Sensitive” column of the list, while others lack association-specific global and state ranks. This “Y” in the sensitive column indicates rarity, although that alliance may not be rated S3 or below as well (CDFW 2020c). CDFW 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-10
expects to provide association level ranks for all S3 or rarer entities in the future, including those associations that are considered sensitive despite lacking an S3 or rarer alliance ranking.

The overall condition and quality of habitat provided by each vegetation community including supporting wildlife species was assessed. Discussions include degrees of disturbance, biological productivity of supporting plant and/or wildlife populations, and the relative viability of the habitat resource are included for each vegetation community and land cover type.

Coastal Act environmentally sensitive habitat areas are defined as “any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments” (Coastal Act, Section 30107.5). The County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) identifies ESH based on such factors as intrinsic, scientific, and educational value and includes the following biological resource categories:
• Dunes
• Wetlands
• Native Grasslands
• Vernal Pools
• Butterfly Trees
• Marine Mammal Rookeries and Hauling Grounds
• White-tailed Kite Habitat
• Rocky Points and Intertidal Areas
• Subtidal Reefs
• Kelp Beds
• Seabird Nesting and Roosting Areas
• Native Plant Communities – examples: coastal sage scrub, chaparral, coastal bluff, closed cone pine forest, California native oak woodland (also individual oak trees), endangered and rare plant species as designated by CNPS, and other plants of special interest such as endemics • Streams
The City of Carpinteria General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003) ESHA includes a diversity and number of habitats and species not commonly found in urban areas and that warrant unique measures to ensure adequate protection. As such, the Carpinteria Bluffs have specifically been identified as an ESHA. The following list includes ESHA that have been identified as existing in Carpinteria:
• Wetlands
• Butterfly Habitat
• Marine Mammal Rookeries and Hauling Grounds
• Rocky Points and Intertidal Areas
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-11
• Subtidal Reef
• Kelp Beds
• Creeks and Riparian Habitat
• Significant Native Plant Communities such as coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, coastal bluff scrub, and native oak woodlands
• Sensitive, rare, threatened or endangered species habitat A total of 12 14 vegetation communities and land cover types were recorded within the biological survey area, including five six native scrub communities and seven eight non-native communities and land cover types (Figure

3.3-1 and Table 3.3-2). All five six of the native vegetation communities found are protected under the County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) and the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003), identified as coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub, and/or habitat for sensitive species, and are thus considered County ESH and City ESHA. Two Three of these five six communities, California brittle bush scrub – ashy buckwheat scrub alliance, Encelia californica association, California brittle bush scrub – ashy buckwheat scrub alliance, Encelia californica – Artemisia californica association, and lemonade berry scrub alliance, are also sensitive by virtue of their state rank. These communities are described in CNCL and MCV2. Eucalyptus, ice plant mats, and myoporum are non-native and do not have a state rank (state not applicable [SNA]). The other four five communities and land cover types are not listed in CNCL or MCV2.

While two individual Monterey cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) trees were identified in separate locations within the project site, one within the potential temporary grading impact area along the western portion of the site and the other within the proposed alignment footprint in the eastern portion of the site (Figure 3.3-1), they were not mapped as separate vegetation communities because one tree is not considered a stand or woodland. The first Monterey cypress tree is located near the western terminus of the proposed trail alignment, between the alignment and the pull-out off Carpinteria Avenue, and has a diameter of approximately 10 inches measured 4 feet above the ground. The second Monterey cypress is located within the proposed trail alignment within an unsanctioned trail within Rincon Beach County Park and has a diameter of approximately 12 inches measured 4 feet from the ground.

One additional Monterey cypress tree was identified in the northern portion of the project above the railroad rightof-way, which is located along the edge of the temporary grading impact area adjacent to disturbed habitat and was measured with an approximate 8-inch diameter measured from 4 feet above the ground. Two Monterey cypress trees are located within the developed portion of the Rincon Beach County Park, one of which is a very young sapling with a diameter under an inch and the other is a mature tree with a combined diameter measured 4 feet from the ground of 49 inches due to multiple stems. There are also trees associated with the Rincon Point housing development that abut Rincon Beach County Park and are located south and east of the temporary project impact area and include Monterey cypress trees.

Monterey cypress trees are not naturally occurring within the Carpinteria area and instead are documented as native in populations located in Monterey and Carmel, California (CNPS 2021); therefore, Monterey cypress trees are not considered sensitive vegetation communities or individual trees. However, Monterey cypress trees could be considered County ESH and/or City ESHA if used by sensitive wildlife species as further discussed in Section 3.3.1.4.

Two pine saplings that appeared to be newly planted with mulch placed around the trunks and stakes installed for tree stabilization, are located along the edge of the temporary grading impact area in the portion of the project above the railroad right-of-way, each under 4 inches diameter measured 4 feet from the ground. One of these newly 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-12
installed pine saplings is a Norfolk Island pine (Araucaria heterophylla), and the other could not be identified to species due to the lack of cones present at the time of the survey but appears to be a native pine tree (Pinus sp.).

There are also trees associated with the Rincon Point housing development that abut Rincon Beach County Park and are located south and east of the biological survey area, and include a few non-riparian California sycamore (Platanus racemosa) trees and other ornamental tree species located approximately 50-feet from Rincon Creek.

The County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) does not include mapped ESH within the project site. The City of Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003) includes mapped ESHA within the limits of the City north to but not including Carpinteria Avenue.

Table 3.3-2. Summary of Existing Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Habitat Group General Habitat
Vegetation Community
(Alliance, Association)
Alliance-Association (State
Sensitive)/County
ESH/City ESHA Acreage
Native Scrub
Communities
Coastal Bluff
Scrub
California Brittle Bush – Ashy
Buckwheat Scrub Alliance,
Encelia californica Association
S3-Yes (Yes)/Yes/Yes 0.96
California Brittle Bush – Ashy
Buckwheat Scrub Alliance,
Encelia californica – Artemisia
californica Association
S3-Yes (Yes)/Yes/Yes 0.48
Quailbush Scrub Alliance, Atriplex
lentiformis Association
S4-No (No)/Yes/Yes 6.18

6.93 Coastal Bluff Scrub Subtotal 7.13

8.38 Coastal Scrub California Sagebrush – (Purple
Sage) Scrub Alliance, Artemisia
californica Association
S5-S4 (No)/Yes/Yes 2.08

2.13 Coyote Brush Scrub Alliance,
Baccharis pilularis Association
S5-No (No)/Yes/Yes 1.18
Lemonade Berry Scrub Alliance,
Rhus integrifolia Association
S3-S3 (Yes)/Yes/Yes 0.31

0.64 Coastal Scrub Subtotal 3.57

3.94 Non-native
Communities
and Land
Cover Types
Non-native
Communities
Eucalyptus – Tree of Heaven –
Black Locust Groves Alliance,
Eucalyptus (globulus,
camaldulensis) Association
SNA-SNA (No)/No/No 0.21

0.23 Ice Plant Mats Alliance,
Carpobrotus (edulis) Association
SNA-SNA (No)/No/No 0.14
Pepper Tree or Myoporum Groves
Alliance, Myoporum laetum/
Arundo donax Association
SNR-SNA (No)/No/No 0.07

0.13 Parks and Ornamental Plantings NA (No)/No/No 0.10
Ruderal NA (No)/No/No 0.17
Land Cover
Types
Developed NA (No)/No/No 1.08

1.10 Disturbed Habitat NA (No)/No/No 1.45
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-13
Table 3.3-2. Summary of Existing Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Unvegetated Siltstone/Shale
Bedrock
NA (No)/No/No 0.18
Non-native Communities and Land Cover Types Subtotal 3.22

3.50 Combined Total 13.92

15.82 Notes:

SNA – state not applicable. State status rank not applicable because the species or ecosystem is not a suitable target for conservation activities (NatureServe 2020).

SNR – state no rank (NatureServe 2020).

NA – not applicable. Not included in California Natural Communities List (CDFW 2020b).

Native Scrub Communities
California Brittle Bush – Ashy Buckwheat Scrub Alliance, Encelia californica Association (S3-Sensitive [Sensitive], County ESH, City ESHA). This community includes California brittle bush and/or ashy buckwheat (Eriogonum cinereum) as the dominant or co-dominant shrub in the canopy. California brittle bush – ashy buckwheat scrub has an intermittent to continuous shrub canopy less than two meters (seven feet) in height with a variable herbaceous ground layer. The California brittle bush – ashy buckwheat scrub alliance occurs on sunny, steep south-facing slopes often rocky or eroded, with soils derived from sandstone, volcanic or shale substrates (Sawyer et al. 2009). Species associated with California brittle bush scrub on site include quailbush (Atriplex lentiformis), California sagebrush, coyote brush, western prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), and black mustard.

California brittle brush scrub occurs in limited patches within the project site, wildlife using this community is partly dictated by adjacent communities, which are generally other scrub communities. Brush rabbits (Sylvilagus bachmani) may occur within these areas, and some species of small mammals may occur here as well. The Coast Range western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis bocourti) likely occur within this community and within adjacent communities. Songbirds with the potential to nest within this community include the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia).

California brittle brush scrub has a S3-Sensitive designation and is thus considered a sensitive vegetation community per CDFW (2020b). California brittle bush scrub is a state sensitive vegetation community, considered coastal bluff scrub per the County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019), and supports sensitive plant species.

Additionally, California brittle bush scrub is mapped as ESHA, considered coastal bluff scrub in the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003), and supports sensitive plant species. Therefore, California brittle bush scrub is considered County ESH and City ESHA.

The Encelia californica association within the California brittle bush – ashy buckwheat scrub alliance was mapped in the project site. This association occurs in the proposed trail alignment in and near the County ’s Rincon Beach County Park (see Figure 3.3-1). Approximately 0.96 acres of this community, or 6.9 6.1% of the total biological survey area was identified.

California Brittle Bush – Ashy Buckwheat Scrub Alliance, Encelia californica – Artemisia californica Association (S3- Sensitive [Sensitive], County ESH, City ESHA). This community includes California brittle bush and/or ashy 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-14
buckwheat (Eriogonum cinereum) as the dominant or co-dominant shrub in the canopy. California brittle bush – ashy buckwheat scrub has an intermittent to continuous shrub canopy less than two meters (seven feet) in height with a variable herbaceous ground layer. The California brittle bush – ashy buckwheat scrub alliance occurs on sunny, steep south-facing slopes often rocky or eroded, with soils derived from sandstone, volcanic or shale substrates (Sawyer et al. 2009). Species associated with Encelia californica – Artemisia californica association on site include coyote brush, lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum parvifolium), and ladies’ tobacco (Pseudognaphalium californicum).

Encelia californica – Artemisia californica association occurs in limited patches within the project site, and wildlife using this community is partly dictated by adjacent communities, which are generally other scrub communities.

Similar to the Encelia californica association within the California brittle bush – ashy buckwheat scrub alliance, this community supports the following wildlife species, brush rabbits, Coast Range western fence lizard, mourning dove, bushtit, northern mockingbird, and song sparrow.

The Encelia californica – Artemisia californica association within the California brittle bush – ashy buckwheat scrub alliance was mapped in the project site. This association occurs within the southern portion of the project site along U.S. Highway 101 (see Figure 3.3-1). Approximately 0.48 acres of this community, or 3.0% of the total biological survey area was identified.

Quailbush Scrub Alliance, Atriplex lentiformis Association (S4-Not Sensitive [Not Sensitive], County ESH, City ESHA).

This vegetation community includes quailbush as a dominant species. Quailbush scrub has an open to intermittent scrub canopy less than five meters (16 feet) in height with a variable herbaceous layer (Sawyer et al. 2009). In the proposed trail alignment, species associated with this community include California brittle bush, lemonade berry and Australian saltbush (Atriplex semibaccata).

Quailbush scrub provides shelter for brush rabbits and probably for other medium-sized mammal species such as the raccoon (Procyon lotor) and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). California voles (Microtus californicus) may occur in this vegetation community. Common reptile species that occur here include the Coast Range western fence lizard and San Diego gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer annectens). Nesting songbirds occurring here include the mourning dove, bushtit, northern mockingbird, and song sparrow. Songbirds that may perch on shrubs within this community include the black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans).

Quailbush scrub has a S4-Not Sensitive designation and thus is not considered a sensitive vegetation community per CDFW (2020b). Quailbush scrub, however, is considered coastal bluff scrub per the County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) and mapped as ESHA and considered coastal bluff scrub in the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003), and therefore considered County ESH and City ESHA. Additionally, this vegetation community supports sensitive plant species and has the potential to support the state species of special concern (SSC) California legless lizard and further warrants County ESH and City ESHA designations. 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-15
The Atriplex lentiformis association within the quailbush scrub alliance was mapped in the project site. It occurs extensively in the proposed trail alignment east of the UPRR and in patches west of the UPRR (see Figure 3.3-1).

Approximately 6.18 6.93 acres of this community, or 44.3 43.8% of the total biological survey area was identified.

California Sagebrush – (Purple Sage) Scrub Alliance, Artemisia californica Association (S5-S4 [Not Sensitive], County ESH, City ESHA). This community includes California sagebrush (Artemisia californica) and/or purple sage (Salvia leucophylla) as the dominant or co-dominant shrub in the canopy. California sagebrush scrub has an intermittent to continuous shrub canopy less than two meters (seven feet) in height with a variable herbaceous ground layer (Sawyer et al. 2009). Species associated with this community include California brittle bush (Encelia californica), coast goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii) and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). Black mustard (Brassica nigra) and other non-native species are found in this community on site.

Wildlife occupying California sagebrush scrub includes many species common to other scrub communities within the project site. Brush rabbits seek cover in these areas, and small mammals such as California voles likely occur here. Coast Range western fence lizards and San Diego gophersnakes are reptiles that occur in scrub habitats.

Songbirds nesting here include the mourning dove, northern mockingbird, California towhee (Melozone crissalis), and song sparrow. White-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia leucophrys) occur here in winter.

California sagebrush scrub has a S5-S4 designation thus is not considered a sensitive vegetation community per CDFW (2020b). California sagebrush scrub is considered coastal sage scrub per the County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) and mapped as ESHA and considered coastal sage scrub in the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003), and therefore considered County ESH and City ESHA. Additionally, this vegetation community supports sensitive plant species and further warrants County ESH and City ESHA designations.

The Artemisia californica association within the California sagebrush – (purple sage) scrub alliance was mapped in the project site. This association occurs in the western portion of the project site, near Carpinteria Avenue and U.S.

Highway 101, in a heavily engineered portion of the proposed trail alignment graded during highway construction (see Figure 3.3-1). Smaller patches occur adjacent to the parking lot for Rincon Beach County Park and east of UPRR. Approximately 2.08 2.13 acres of this community, or 14.9 13.4% of the total biological survey area was identified.

Coyote Brush Scrub Alliance, Baccharis pilularis Association (S5-Not Sensitive [Not Sensitive], County ESH, City ESHA). Coyote brush scrub communities include greater than 50% relative cover of coyote brush and coyote brush as the dominant or co-dominant shrub in the canopy. Coyote brush scrub has a variable shrub canopy less than three meters (10 feet) in height with a variable herbaceous ground layer (Sawyer et al. 2009). Species associated with this community in the proposed trail alignment include scattered California sagebrush, California brittle bush, myoporum (Myoporum laetum) and black mustard.

Wildlife occurring in coyote brush scrub is very similar to that occurring in quailbush scrub and includes brush rabbits, raccoon, striped skunk, California voles, Coast Range western fence lizard, San Diego gophersnake, mourning dove, bushtit, northern mockingbird, song sparrow and black phoebe.

Coyote brush scrub has a S5-Not Sensitive designation thus is not considered a sensitive vegetation community per CDFW (2020b). Coyote brush scrub is not considered coastal sage scrub or associated with other ESH habitats by definition per the County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019); however, coyote brush scrub does support sensitive plant species and as such is designated County ESH. Additionally, coyote brush scrub is mapped as ESHA 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-16
in the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003), and also supports sensitive plant species and therefore considered City ESHA.

The Baccharis pilularis association within the coyote brush scrub alliance was mapped in the project site. It occurs in the proposed trail alignment mostly near the western terminus, but also in small patches in the vicinity of Rincon Beach County Park. The coyote brush scrub between UPRR and U.S. Highway 101 occurs in old road cuts (see Figure 3.3-1). Approximately 1.18 acres of this community, or 8.5 7.4% of the total biological survey area was identified.

Lemonade Berry Scrub Alliance, Rhus integrifolia Association (S3-S3 [Sensitive], County Not Sensitive, City Not Sensitive). This vegetation community includes lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia) as either a dominant or codominant species. Lemonade berry scrub has a two-tiered, open to continuous shrub canopy less than five meters (16 feet) in height with an open herbaceous ground layer and sparse cover of emergent trees (Sawyer et al. 2009).

Species associated with this community on site include coyote brush and myoporum.

Wildlife occurring in lemonade berry scrub is similar to that occurring in Coyote brush scrub and includes brush rabbits, raccoon, striped skunk, California voles, Coast Range western fence lizard, San Diego gophersnake, mourning dove, bushtit, northern mockingbird, song sparrow and black phoebe.

Lemonade berry scrub has a S3-S3 designation and thus is considered a sensitive vegetation community per CDFW (2020b). Lemonade berry scrub is not considered coastal sage scrub or associated with other ESH habitats by definition per the County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019); however, it does support sensitive plant species and is a state sensitive vegetation community and thus is considered County ESH. Additionally, lemonade berry scrub is not considered coastal sage scrub or associated with other ESHA habitats by definition per the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003); however, it does support sensitive plant species and is a state sensitive vegetation community and thus is considered City ESHA.

The Rhus integrifolia association within the lemonade berry scrub alliance was mapped in the project site. This association occurs in two small patches west of the Rincon Beach County Park and along U.S. Highway 101 east of UPRR (see Figure 3.3-1). Approximately 0.31 0.64 acres of this community, or 2.2 4.0% of the total biological survey area was identified.

Non-Native Communities
Eucalyptus – Tree of Heaven – Black Locust Groves Semi-Natural Alliance, Eucalyptus (globulus, camaldulensis) Provisional Association (SNA-SNA [Not Sensitive], County Not Sensitive, City Not Sensitive). This alliance contains eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.), tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), or black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia) as the dominant species in the tree canopy. These groves have an open to continuous tree canopy less than 60 meters (197 feet) in height. Understory shrubs and herbaceous layers are sparse to intermittent, and the herbaceous layer is sparse to intermittent. Throughout California, this semi-natural groves alliance occurs as planted trees, groves, and windbreaks, naturalized on uplands or bottomlands and adjacent to stream courses, lakes, or levees (Sawyer et al. 2009).

The Eucalyptus – tree of heaven – black locust groves semi-natural alliance and specific Eucalyptus (globulus, camaldulensis) association is listed in MCV2 (Sawyer et al. 2009) and CNCL (CDFW 2020b), but is ranked SNA-SNA as it is composed of non-native species; it is not considered sensitive. Additionally, per the County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) eucalyptus trees are considered ESH if they are butterfly trees or provide habitat to sensitive 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-17
species. Per the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003) eucalyptus trees are considered ESHA if they provide habitat for butterfly habitat or sensitive, rare, threatened or endangered species habitat. Included below is a discussion of potential wildlife use of the eucalyptus trees.

Because of shade and possibly the allelopathic (toxic) properties of eucalyptus leaf litter, little other vegetation is present in this community, and relatively little wildlife is found here. But the relatively open ground under the canopy permits medium-sized mammals such as common raccoons and striped skunks to move easily through this community to access adjacent areas. Some bird species are adapted to this community. Yellow-rumped warblers (Setophaga coronata) feed on insects attracted to eucalyptus blossoms in the winter. Some birds of prey favor eucalyptus trees for nesting. Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperii), and great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) also have the potential to nest in this community.

Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) use eucalyptus trees for roosting in the region, but they are not known to use eucalyptus within the project site. The majority of eucalyptus trees within the project site are either singular and isolated, or do not form a large enough grove to provide adequate microclimate conditions and wind protection monarch butterflies require for overwintering sites. Several eucalyptus trees are located within the proposed trail alignment near its western terminus and U.S. Highway 101, and range in diameter from approximately 18 to 28 inches measured 4 feet from the ground. Additionally, a small stand of eucalyptus trees is present at the eastern terminus of the biological survey area, which are rooted next to the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot; however, there is low potential for monarchs to overwinter here as well due to the small relative size of this eucalyptus stand and vulnerability to strong winds and weather. There are also three eucalyptus trees present near the western terminus of the biological survey area, however they each grow individually and do not form a grove capable of supporting overwintering monarchs. There are also trees associated with the Rincon Point housing development that abut Rincon Beach County Park and are located south and east of the eastern portion of the biological survey area and include some eucalyptus trees. Monarch butterflies and monarch butterfly habitat are further discussed in Section 3.3.1.4.

The white-tailed kite is known to occur in the area (City of Carpinteria 2003). The City specifically cites the Carpinteria Bluffs as a location where this species occurs and is protected. However, no white-tailed kites were detected in the biological survey area, and the eucalyptus trees in and around the western portion of biological survey area are relatively small, and located in areas with high levels of human disturbance where kites are unlikely to nest. Marginally suitable woodland nesting habitat is present in the trees adjacent to the project site near Rincon Beach County Park, within the Rincon Point housing development. This species prefers open grassland or marshland habitats which are not present on site, and is found less commonly in agricultural areas or rights-of-way.

This species is known to occur along the south coast, however most foraging and nesting activity in the County is restricted to more rural areas and in particular, the Goleta and Santa Maria Valleys (Lehman 2020).

The Eucalyptus (globulus, camaldulensis) provisional association within the eucalyptus - tree of heaven - black locust semi-natural alliance was mapped in the project site. Within the biological survey area this community is dominated by eucalyptus trees, which are sparse and do not create a windrow and do not provide habitat for sensitive species; and thus are not included as ESH per County of Santa Barbara (2009) or ESHA per City of Carpinteria (2003). Approximately 0.21 0.23 acres of this community, or 1.5% of the biological survey area was identified.

Ice Plant Mats Semi-Natural Alliance, Carpobrotus (edulis) Association (SNA-SNA [Not Sensitive], County Not Sensitive, City Not Sensitive). Ice plant mats contains hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), sea fig (Carpobrotus chilensis), or other ice plant taxa as the dominant or co-dominant species in the herbaceous layer. These species 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-18
invade coastal bluff scrub, dune mat, dune scrub, and coastal prairies and compete with native plants (Sawyer et al. 2009). Ice plant semi-natural alliance areas have an intermittent to continuous canopy within the herbaceous layer less than 0.5 meters (1.6 feet) in height.

Very few wildlife species occur in ice plant mats. California ground squirrels (Spermophilus [Otospermophilus] beecheyi) often inhabit this community. This community provides poor nesting habitat for birds. Common reptiles such as the western fence lizard likely occur here. This community is not generally valuable to special-status wildlife species.

The ice plant mats semi-natural alliance and specific Carpobrotus (edulis) association is listed in MCV2 (Sawyer et al. 2009) and CNCL (CDFW 2020b), but is ranked SNA-SNA as it is composed of non-native species; therefore, it is not considered sensitive. Additionally, ice plant mats vegetation community is not included on the list of ESH per the County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) or provide habitat for sensitive species. Ice plant mats are not mapped as ESHA, included as other ESHA habitats in the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003), and do not provide habitat for sensitive species, and therefore not considered locally sensitive.

The Carpobrotus (edulis) association within the ice plant mats semi-natural alliance was mapped in the project site.

Approximately 0.14 acres of this community, or 1.0 0.9% of the biological survey area was identified.

Pepper Tree or Myoporum Groves Semi-Natural Alliance, Myoporum laetum/Arundo donax Association (SNR-SNA [Not Sensitive], County Not Sensitive, City Not Sensitive). Pepper tree or myoporum groves consist of myoporum or pepper trees (Schinus spp.) as the dominant species in the tree canopy. Within the biological survey area, this community is dominated by myoporum. These groves have an open to continuous tree canopy less than 18 meters (59 feet) in height. Understory shrubs are infrequent or common and the herbaceous layer is simple to diverse lacking trees and shrubs. Throughout Central and Southern California, the pepper trees or myoporum groves seminatural alliance occurs in coastal canyons, washes, slopes, riparian areas, and roadsides (Sawyer et al. 2009).

Several myoporum trees are located within the proposed trail alignment west of Rincon Beach County Park, and are largely multistemmed. Myoporum groves provide shelter for medium-sized mammal species such as the brush rabbit, common raccoon, and striped skunk. California voles may occur in this vegetation community. Common reptile species such as the western fence lizard likely occur. Nesting songbirds occurring here likely include the mourning dove, bushtit, and northern mockingbird. Wintering black phoebes are among birds that likely perch on myoporum. Some birds of prey, such the white-tailed kite and other raptors, may also perch in this community where it is adjacent to foraging habitat.

This semi-natural alliance and specific Myoporum laetum/Arundo donax association mapped on site are listed in MCV2 (Sawyer et al. 2009) and CNCL (CDFW 2020b), but is ranked SNA as it is composed of non-native species; thus, it is not considered sensitive. Additionally, myoporum is not included on the list of ESH per the County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) or provide habitat for sensitive species. Myoporum are not mapped as ESHA, included as other ESHA habitats in the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003), and do not provide habitat for sensitive species, and therefore not considered locally sensitive.

The Myoporum laetum/Arundo donax association within the pepper tree or myoporum groves semi-natural alliance was mapped in the project site. Approximately 0.7 0.13 acres of this community, or 0.5 0.8% of the biological survey area was identified.
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-19
Parks and Ornamental Plantings (NA [Not sensitive], County Not Sensitive, City Not Sensitive). This community is not described in CNCL or MCV2 because it is not a naturally occurring community in California; thus, it is not considered sensitive. It includes landscaping plants as dominants. Additionally, parks and ornamental plantings is not included on the list of ESH per the County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) or provide habitat for sensitive species. Parks and ornamental plantings are not mapped as ESHA, included as other ESHA habitats in the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003), and do not provide habitat for sensitive species, and therefore not considered locally sensitive.

The ornamental vegetation community in the proposed trail alignment is characterized by the dominance of landscaped plant species. Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and California ground squirrel are among common mammals found in this community. Western fence lizards are a common reptile found in parks and ornamental plantings. Common nesting birds such as Eurasian collared-dove (Streptopelia decaocto), California scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), bushtit, and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) may be found here.

Parks and ornamental plantings occur within the eastern part of Rincon Beach County Park (see Figure 3.3-1).

Approximately 0.10 acres of this community, or 0.7 0.6% of the biological survey area was identified.

Ruderal (NA [Not Sensitive], County Not Sensitive, City Not Sensitive). Ruderal is not described in CNCL or MCV2 because it is not a naturally occurring community in California; thus, it is not considered sensitive. Additionally, ruderal habitats are not included on the list of ESH per the County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) or provide habitat for sensitive species. Ruderal habitats are not mapped as ESHA, included as other ESHA habitats in the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003), and do not provide habitat for sensitive species, and therefore not considered locally sensitive.

Ruderal areas are characterized by limited native vegetation resulting in low function ecological processes. Plants in these areas are dominated by non-native species and there is not a dominant plant species or overall structure to the habitat. Ruderal areas provide little habitat or foraging potential for wildlife, due to the lack of significant cover by vegetation; however, there are often patchy areas of non-native plant species. Mammals may include common species, such as the California ground squirrel, but medium-sized mammals such as raccoons may use ruderal habitats as movement corridors. Among common reptiles that may use these areas is the western fence lizard. Seed-eating birds found here include the California towhee and white-crowned sparrow. Ruderal does not provide habitat for special-status wildlife species.

Mapped ruderal includes roadside areas and areas with disturbed non-native vegetation (see Figure 3.3-1).

Approximately 0.17 acres of this community, or 1.3 1.1% of the biological survey area was identified.

Land Cover Types
Developed (NA [Not Sensitive], County Not Sensitive, City Not Sensitive). Within the biological survey area, developed areas are unvegetated areas such as pavement and development with impervious materials, it is not described in CNCL or MCV2, and does not provide habitat for sensitive species. Developed areas include the parking lot at Rincon Beach County Park and the wide turnout at the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue (see Figure

3.3-1). Approximately 1.08 1.10 acres of developed area, or 7.7 7.0% of the biological survey area was identified. 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-20
Disturbed Habitat (NA [Not Sensitive], County Not Sensitive, City Not Sensitive). This land cover type, which is not described in CNCL or MCV2, includes invasive non-native and other disturbance-tolerant species as dominants, and does not support sensitive species. Species occurring within this community, including some natives, are those that are tolerant to disturbances such as grading or vegetation clearing. On-site, species appearing in disturbed areas include poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), black mustard, Hottentot fig, and horseweed (Erigeron canadensis).

Approximately 1.45 acres of this land cover type, or 10.45 9.1% of the biological survey area was identified.

Unvegetated Siltstone/Shale Bedrock (NA [Not Sensitive], County Not Sensitive, City Not Sensitive). Within the biological survey area, unvegetated siltstone/shale bedrock areas are unvegetated areas with exposed siltstone/shale bedrock, it is not described in CNCL or MCV2, and does not provide habitat for sensitive species.

Unvegetated siltstone/shale bedrock areas include the southern slope along UPRR and southern portion of the biological survey area along U.S. Highway 101 (see Figure 3.3-1). Approximately 0.18 acre of unvegetated siltstone/shale bedrock, or 1.1% of the biological survey area was identified.

3.3.1.3 Special-Status Plant Species
During 2018, and 2019, and 2021, Dudek biologists performed floristic surveys for special-status plant species, as shown in Table 3.3-1. All plant species encountered during the field surveys were identified to subspecies or variety, if possible. Species that could not be identified in the field were brought into the laboratory for further investigation. Scientific and common names for plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) follow the California Native Plant Society On-Line Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2020). For plant species without a California Rare Plant Rank, scientific names follow the Jepson Interchange for California Floristics; Index to California Plant Names (Jepson Flora Project 2020) and common names follow the California Natural Community List (CDFW 2020b) or the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Plants Database (USDA 2020b).

For the purpose of CEQA analysis, federal, state, CNPS CRPR 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B plants, and locally rare plants (Wilken 2018) are considered special-status. CRPR 3 and 4 plants are CNPS designated rare, but not considered special-status as plant species but do add to the vegetation community value designated as County ESH and or City ESHA as CNPS CRPR 3 and 4 species.

In considering rarity beyond federal or state designations, the CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California was the primary reference (CNPS 2020). Use of the CNPS inventory is helpful because it clearly defines levels of endangerment and rarity for all of the species addressed. The CNPS inventory divides its subject taxa into four ranks: CRPR 1 (which is further divided into 1A and 1B), CRPR 2 (which is further divided into 2A and 2B), CRPR 3, and CRPR 4. Plants with a CRPR of 1A are presumed extirpated or extinct because they have not been seen or collected in the wild in California for many years. Plants with a CRPR of 1B are rare throughout their range, with the majority of them endemic to California. Most of the plants that are ranked 1B have declined significantly over the last century. Plants with a CRPR of 2A are presumed extirpated because they have not been observed or documented in California for many years. Except for being common beyond the boundaries of California, plants with a CRPR of 2B would have been ranked 1B. Plants with a CRPR of 3 have not had sufficient information collected to assign them to one of the other ranks or to reject them. Nearly all of the plants constituting CRPR 3 are taxonomically problematic. Plants with a CRPR of 3 are plants about which more information is needed and 4 are of limited distribution or infrequent throughout a broader area in California, and their status should be monitored regularly.

CRPR 3 plants lack necessary information to assign them to one of the other ranks or to reject them. Should the degree of endangerment or rarity of a CRPR 4 plant change, it would be transferred to a more appropriate rank. 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-21
CRPR plants are further defined as follows:
• .1 = seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) • .2 = moderately threatened in California (20%–80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat)
• .3 = not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known)
A total of 133 138 plant species were observed and identified during surveys. Of these, 57 61 (43 44%) are considered native and 76 77 (5756%) are considered non-native to California, included as Appendix C1, Plant and Wildlife Species Compendium. The CNDDB (CDFW 2018; CDFW 2020a) and CNPS (CNPS 2020) queries returned 34 special-status plant species that have been documented within the USGS White Ledge Peak 7.5 quadrangle as well as the four coastally influenced adjacent USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles (Ventura, Matilija, Pitas Point, Carpinteria), hereafter referred to as the region. Only the four coastally influenced adjacent USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles were queried for sensitive biological resources instead of all adjacent quadrangle maps, since the habitats north of the foothills vary greatly from the project site and would not be representative of what species are likely to occur in coastal habitats. Dudek analyzed the resulting special-status plant species potential to occur based on known elevation or geographic range, suitable habitat, or the species has been extirpated from the region.

Appendix C2, Plant and Wildlife Species Not Expected to Occur within the Biological Survey Area provides a list of the 20 special-status plant species that are not expected to occur based on site surveys, lack of suitable habitat, and the site being out of the species range. The special-status plant species in Appendix C2 are not analyzed in this report as no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are expected.

Based on Dudek’s habitat suitability analysis including elevation and habitats, 11 of the special-status plant species had the potential to occur within the project site, and 3 special-status plant species were observed during 2018, and 2019, and 2021 rare plant surveys. These 14 special-status plant species include aphanisma (Aphanisma blitoides), Miles’ milk-vetch (Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus), Ventura marsh milk-vetch (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus), Coulter’s saltbush (Atriplex coulteri), South Coast saltscale (Atriplex pacifica), southern tarplant (Centromadia parryi ssp. australis), Orcutt’s pincushion (Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana), mesa horkelia (Horkelia cuneata var. puberula), California satintail (Imperata brevifolia), Santa Barbara honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata var. subspicata), cliff malacothrix (Malacothrix saxatilis var. saxatilis), aparejo grass (Muhlenbergia utilis), south coast branching phacelia (Phacelia ramosissima var. austrolitoralis), Nuttall’s scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), salt spring checkerbloom (Sidalcea neomexicana), and woolly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia) (Table 3.3-3).

Table 3.3-3. Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur within the Biological Survey Area
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Statusa Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur within the BSA Aphanisma
blitoides
aphanisma None/None/1
B.2
Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal dunes, Coastal
scrub; sandy or
gravelly/annual
herb/Feb–June/3–
1,000 feet amsl
Low potential to occur. Suitable
coastal scrub and coastal bluff scrub
habitat is present, however the only
CNDDB occurrence in the region was
last confirmed in 1963 and located

1.5 miles west of the Ventura River
(CDFW 2020a). This species was not
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-22
Table 3.3-3. Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur within the Biological Survey Area
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Statusa Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur within the BSA detected during 2018, 2019, or
2021 special-status plant species
surveys.

Astragalus
didymocarpus
var. milesianus
Miles’ milkvetchNone/None/1
B.2
Coastal scrub
(clay)/annual
herb/Mar–June/66–
295 feet amsl
Low potential to occur. Suitable
coastal scrub habitat is present,
although clay soils are absent
(USDA 2020a). There are only two
CNDDB occurrences in the region
the most recent of which was
recorded in the 1970s in the Ojai
area (CDFW 2020a). This species
was not detected during 2018,
2019, or 2021 special-status plant
species surveys.

Atriplex coulteri Coulter’s
saltbush
None/None/1
B.2
Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal dunes, Coastal
scrub, Valley and
foothill grassland;
alkaline or
clay/perennial
herb/Mar–Oct/10–
1,505 feet amsl
Low potential to occur. Suitable
coastal bluff scrub and coastal
scrub habitat is present, and the
large quantities of quailbush on
site indicate that suitable alkaline
soils may be present. This species
is known to occur along Carpinteria
coastal bluffs, however this is from
an occurrence last confirmed in
1927 (CDFW 2020a). This species
was not detected during 2018,
2019, or 2021 special-status plant
species surveys.

Atriplex pacifica South Coast
saltscale
None/None/1
B.2
Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal dunes, Coastal
scrub, Playas/annual
herb/Mar–Oct/0–460
feet amsl
Low potential to occur. Suitable
coastal bluff scrub and coastal
scrub habitat is present and the
large quantities of quailbush on
site indicate that suitable alkaline
soils may be present. However,
there is only one occurrence in the
region which was last confirmed in
1972 about 1.5 miles west of the
Ventura River (CDFW 2020a). This
species was not detected during
2018, 2019, or 2021 specialstatus plant species surveys. 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-23
Table 3.3-3. Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur within the Biological Survey Area
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Statusa Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur within the BSA Centromadia
parryi ssp.
australis
southern
tarplant
None/None/1
B.1
Marshes and swamps
(margins), Valley and
foothill grassland
(vernally mesic), Vernal
pools/annual
herb/May–Nov/0–
1,570 feet amsl
Low potential to occur. Suitable
habitat is present in the disturbed
habitat and ruderal areas on site,
as this species can occur in
disturbed sites (CDFW 2020a).

However, the only occurrence in
the region was last confirmed in
1997 and is considered possibly
extirpated (CDFW 2020a). This
species was not detected during
2018, 2019, or 2021 specialstatus plant species surveys.

Chaenactis
glabriuscula var.
orcuttiana
Orcutt’s
pincushion
None/None/1
B.1
Coastal bluff scrub
(sandy), Coastal
dunes/annual
herb/Jan–Aug/0–330
feet amsl
Low potential to occur. Suitable
coastal bluff scrub habitat is
present. However, the only
occurrence in the region was last
confirmed in 1961 and is
considered possibly extirpated
(CDFW 2020a). This species was
not detected during 2018, 2019,
or 2021 special-status plant
species surveys.

Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula
mesa horkelia None/None/1
B.1
Chaparral (maritime),
Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub; sandy or
gravelly/perennial
herb/Feb–
July(Sep)/230–2,655
feet amsl
Low potential to occur. Suitable
coastal scrub habitat is present,
although the most recently
confirmed occurrence in the region
is from 1935 (CDFW 2020a). This
species was not detected during
2018, 2019, or 2021 specialstatus plant species surveys.

Imperata
brevifolia
California
satintail
None/None/2
B.1
Chaparral, Coastal
scrub, Mojavean desert
scrub, Meadows and
seeps (often alkali),
Riparian scrub;
mesic/perennial
rhizomatous herb/Sep–
May/0–3,985 feet amsl
Low potential to occur. Suitable
coastal scrub habitat is present,
and the large quantities of
quailbush on site indicate that
suitable alkaline soils may be
present. However, there are only
two occurrences in the region, both
of which are located behind the
transverse ranges north the site,
approximately 11 miles northeast
of the project site (CDFW 2020a).

This species was not detected
during 2018, 2019, or 2021
special-status plant species
surveys.

Lonicera
subspicata var.
subspicata
Santa Barbara
honeysuckle
None/None/1
B.2
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal
scrub/perennial
evergreen shrub/May–
Low potential to occur. Suitable
coastal scrub habitat is present.

However, all the occurrences in the
region are located within the
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-24
Table 3.3-3. Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur within the Biological Survey Area
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Statusa Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur within the BSA Aug(Dec–Feb)/33–
3,280 feet amsl
foothills and not directly along the
coast (CDFW 2020a). This species
was not detected during 2018,
2019, or 2021 special-status plant
species surveys.

Malacothrix
saxatilis var.
saxatilis
cliff
malacothrix
None/None/4
.2b
Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal scrub/perennial
rhizomatous herb/Mar–
Sep/10–655 feet amsl
Present. Detected during 2018,
2019, and 2021 special-status
plant species surveys.

Muhlenbergia
utilis
aparejo grass None/None/2
B.2
Meadows and seeps,
marshes and swamps,
chaparral, coastal
scrub, cismontane
woodland; sometimes
alkaline, sometimes
serpentinite/perennial
rhizomatous herb/Mar–
Oct/82–7,625 feet
amsl
Low potential to occur. Suitable
coastal scrub habitat is present,
and the large quantities of
quailbush on site indicate that
suitable alkaline soils may be
present. However, the only
occurrence in the region was last
confirmed in 1964 and was located
west of Matilija Lake (CDFW
2020a).

Phacelia
ramosissima var.
austrolitoralis
south coast
branching
phacelia
None/None/3
.2b
Chaparral, Coastal
dunes, Coastal scrub,
Marshes and swamps
(coastal salt); sandy,
sometimes
rocky/perennial
herb/Mar–Aug/16–985
feet amsl
Present. Detected during 2018 or
2019 special-status plant species
surveys.

Quercus dumosa Nuttall’s scrub
oak
None/None/1
B.1
Closed-cone coniferous
forest, Chaparral,
Coastal scrub; sandy,
clay loam/perennial
evergreen shrub/Feb–
Apr (May–Aug)/49–
1,310 feet amsl
Low potential to occur. Suitable
coastal scrub habitat is present,
although clay soils are absent
(USDA 2020a). The closest
occurrence in the region was last
confirmed in 1929 and was
described as occurring in
Carpinteria, and the remaining
occurrences in the region are
located within the foothills and not
directly along the coast (CDFW
2020a). This species was not
detected during 2018, 2019, or
2021 special-status plant species
surveys.
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-25
Table 3.3-3. Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur within the Biological Survey Area
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Statusa Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur within the BSA Suaeda taxifolia woolly seablite None/None/4
.2b
Coastal bluff scrub,
Coastal dunes, Marshes
and swamps (margins
of coastal
salt)/perennial
evergreen shrub/Jan–
Dec/0–165 feet amsl
Present. Detected during 2018 and
2019 special-status plant species
surveys.

Notes: amsl = above mean sea level.
a Status Legend:

FE: Federally listed as endangered
SE: State listed as endangered
CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California
CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR 2A: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but common elsewhere CRPR 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere CRPR 3: Plants about which more information is needed – a review list CRPR 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
.1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly endangered in California (20% to 80% of occurrences threatened) .3 Not very endangered in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known). b For the purpose of CEQA analysis, federal, state, and CNPS CRPR 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B plants are considered special-status. CRPR 3 and 4 plants are not considered special-status as plant species but do add to the vegetation community value designated as County environmentally sensitive habitat and or City environmentally sensitive habitat areas as CNPS CRPR 3 and 4 species.

No federal, state, or CNPS CRPR 1 or 2 plant species were observed. Two CNPS CRPR 4.2 plant species, cliff malacothrix (Malacothrix saxatilis var. saxatilis) and woolly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia), and one CNPS CRPR 3.2 plant species, south coast branching phacelia (Phacelia ramosissima var. austrolitoralis) were detected within the biological survey area (see Figure 3.3-1). Cliff malacothrix, south coast branching phacelia, and woolly seablite are not included on the Rare Plants of Santa Barbara County list (Wilken 2018); therefore, these are not considered special-status plant species.

Cliff malacothrix (Malacothrix saxatilis var. saxatilis). This CNPS CRPR 4.2 species is a perennial herb that occurs in coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub at 10 to 220 feet in elevation. It occurs along the coast from Orange County north to Santa Barbara County, and inland in Kern and San Bernardino Counties and blooms March through September. A total of 68,385 70,252 square feet and 834 902 individuals were documented (Figure 3.3-1) in the biological survey area.

South coast branching phacelia (Phacelia ramosissima var. austrolitoralis). This species is a perennial herb that is native to California and included as CNPS CRPR 3.2. It occurs in chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, marshes and swamps (coastal salt) in sandy sometimes rocky soils and blooms March through August. A total of 14 square feet and 2 individuals were documented (Figure 3.3-1) in the biological survey area.

Woolly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia). This CNPS CRPR 4.2 species is found in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, and marshes and swamps at 0 to 165 feet elevation. It occurs along the coast from Orange County north to San Luis Obispo County, as well as on the Channel Islands and blooms January through December, year-round. In the project vicinity, this species is distributed in monotypic patches along the bluffs just west of Rincon Beach County Park, adjacent to the trail alignment (Figure 3.3-1). A total of 75,161 square feet and 617 individuals were documented in the biological survey area.
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-26

3.3.1.4 Special-Status Wildlife Species
Wildlife species were documented during the 2011 general biological survey and subsequent vegetation mapping, and special-status plant species surveys during 2018, 2019, and 2021. Additionally, a Dudek biologist documented wildlife observed during the general biological survey conducted in December 2020.

A total of 32 special-status wildlife species (25 birds, two invertebrates, three mammals, and two reptiles) were either directly observed or detected based on vocal cues or observation of sign, included as Appendix C1. The CNDDB (CDFW 2018, 2020a) and USFWS (USFWS 2020a) queries returned 41 special-status wildlife species that have been documented within the USGS White Ledge Peak 7.5 quadrangle as well as the four coastally influenced adjacent USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles (Ventura, Matilija, Pitas Point, Carpinteria), herein after referred to as the region. Only the four coastally influenced adjacent USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles were queried for sensitive biological resources instead all adjacent quadrangle maps, since the habitats north of the foothills vary greatly from the project site and would not be representative of what species are likely to occur in coastal habitats.

A variety of special-status wildlife have recorded occurrences in the region (i.e., the five 7.5-minute quadrangles queried) and were evaluated for their potential to occur on the project site, including but not limited to the Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus; Special Animal), tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi; federally endangered [FE]), southern steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus; FE), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii); federally threatened [FT]), California legless lizard (Anniella sp.; California Species of Special Concern [SSC]), two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii; SSC), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; state fully protected [FP]); lightfooted clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes; FE, state endangered [SE], FP), snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus; FT) and Belding’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi; SE). Appendix C2 provides a list of the 31 special-status wildlife species that are not expected to occur based on site surveys, lack of suitable habitat, and the site being out of the species range. The special-status wildlife species in Appendix C2 are not analyzed in this report as no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts are expected.

Based on Dudek’s knowledge of regional biological resources, distribution of local species, and species-specific habitat preferences, 8 of the special-status wildlife species queried had the potential to occur within the project site. These 8 special-status wildlife species include California legless lizard, Blainville’s horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), coast patch-nosed snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea), white-tailed kite, western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia), and the monarch butterfly and their overwintering population (Table 3.3-4).

Table 3.3-4. Special-Status Wildlife Species Observed or with Potential to Occur within the Biological Survey Area
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Status1
Fed/State/
County/City Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur within the BSA Reptiles
Anniella sp. California
legless lizard
None/SSC/No
ne/None
Coastal dunes, stabilized
dunes, beaches, dry
washes, valley–foothill,
chaparral, and scrubs;
pine, oak, and riparian
Moderate potential to occur. Note
that the species of legless lizard
occurring in the region is not known
(Papenfuss and Parham 2013).

Suitable scrub habitat is present,
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-27
Table 3.3-4. Special-Status Wildlife Species Observed or with Potential to Occur within the Biological Survey Area
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Status1
Fed/State/
County/City Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur within the BSA woodlands; associated
with sparse vegetation
and sandy or loose, loamy
soils
although loose, loamy soils are less
abundant within the site due to
extensive past grading to form the
slopes adjacent to U.S. Highway
101. A 1952 CNDDB occurrence
was within the western portion of
the project site (CDFW 2020a). The
next closest occurrence is located
approximately 2 miles northwest of
the site at Carpinteria State Beach
(CDFW 2020a).

Phrynosoma
blainvillii
Blainville’s
horned lizard
None/SSC/No
ne/None
Open areas of sandy soil
in valleys, foothills, and
semi-arid mountains
including coastal scrub,
chaparral, valley–foothill
hardwood, conifer,
riparian, pine–cypress,
juniper, and annual
grassland habitats
Low potential to occur. Suitable
coastal scrub habitat is present,
although there is only one CNDDB
occurrence in the region, located
approximately 10.5 miles northeast
of the site near the Los Robles
Diversion Canal (CDFW 2020a).

Salvadora
hexalepis
virgultea
coast patchnosed snakeNone/SSC/No
ne/None
Brushy or shrubby
vegetation; requires small
mammal burrows for
refuge and overwintering
sites
Low potential to occur. Suitable
coastal scrub shrubby habitat is
present, although all three CNDDB
occurrences in the region are
located in the montane areas
behind the site and not in coastal
areas, the closest of which is
located approximately 10.5. miles
north of the site along E Camino
Cielo (CDFW 2020a).

Birds
Elanus leucurus
(nesting)
white-tailed
kite
None/FP/ESH
/ESHA
Nests in woodland,
riparian, and individual
trees near open lands;
forages opportunistically
in grassland, meadows,
scrubs, agriculture,
emergent wetland,
savanna, and disturbed
lands
Low potential to nest. Marginally
suitable woodland nesting habitat is
present in the trees adjacent to the
project site near Rincon Beach
County Park, within the Rincon Point
housing development. This species
prefers open grassland or
marshland habitats which are not
present on site, and is found less
commonly in agricultural areas or
rights-of-way. This species is known
to occur along the south coast,
however most foraging and nesting
activity in the County is restricted to
more rural areas and in particular,
the Goleta and Santa Maria Valleys
(Lehman 2020).
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-28
Table 3.3-4. Special-Status Wildlife Species Observed or with Potential to Occur within the Biological Survey Area
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Status1
Fed/State/
County/City Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur within the BSA Mammals
Corynorhinus
townsendii
Townsend’s
big-eared bat
None/SSC/No
ne/None
Mesic habitats
characterized by
coniferous and deciduous
forests and riparian
habitat, but also xeric
areas; roosts in limestone
caves and lava tubes,
human-made structures,
and tunnels
Low potential to occur, not expected
to roost. Marginally suitable coastal
scrub foraging habitat is present,
while suitable roosting habitat is
absent on site. There is only one
CNDDB occurrence in the region,
last confirmed in 1941 at the
Carpinteria Salt Marsh (CDFW
2020a).

Eumops perotis
californicus
western
mastiff bat
None/SSC/No
ne/None
Chaparral, coastal and
desert scrub, coniferous
and deciduous forest and
woodland; roosts in
crevices in rocky canyons
and cliffs where the
canyon or cliff is vertical
or nearly vertical, trees,
and tunnels
Low potential to occur, not expected
to roost. Suitable coastal scrub
foraging habitat is present, while
the slopes present on site are not
large and far enough away from
human disturbance to be suitable
roosting habitat. There is only one
CNDDB occurrence in the region,
which is located approximately 10
miles east of the site near Weldon
(CDFW 2020a).

Neotoma lepida
intermedia
San Diego
desert
woodrat
None/SSC/No
ne/None
Coastal scrub, desert
scrub, chaparral, cacti,
rocky areas
Moderate potential to occur.

Suitable coastal scrub habitat is
present, and this species is known
to occur along the coast in the
region, the closet occurrence of
which was last confirmed in 1992
located approximately 2.75 miles
southeast of the site just east of
Punta Gorda (CDFW 2020a).

Additionally, woodrat middens have
been observed within the project
site during various surveys.

Puma concolor
(southern and
central coast
California
evolutionary
significant units)
mountain lion None/SC/Non
e/None
Dense undergrowth and
cover in deserts, humid
coast forests, arid
hillsides, and scrub and
oak woodlands.

Low potential to occur. Suitable
habitat north and east of the project
site across U.S. Highway 101 in the
vicinity of State Route 150. This
species is known to occur in more
rural areas and may access areas
east of the project site via Rincon
Creek; however, project site access
is constricted by U.S. Highway 101
and adjacent chain link fencing
along the southbound lanes of the
highway, the narrow and frequently
used State Route 150, and the
beach.
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-29
Table 3.3-4. Special-Status Wildlife Species Observed or with Potential to Occur within the Biological Survey Area
Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Status1
Fed/State/
County/City Habitat Requirements Potential to Occur within the BSA Invertebrates
Danaus
plexippus
monarch FC/None/ESH
2/ESHA2
Follows a pattern of
seasonal migration and
the Rocky Mountain
population migrates
southwest to wintering
grounds along the
California coast from
Mendocino to the Mexico
border extending into
Baja, California, Mexico.

Overwintering populations
utilize wind-protected tree
groves (typically
eucalyptus [Eucalyptus
sp.], Monterey cypress
[Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa], sycamore
[Platanus racemosa], and
coast live oak [Quercus
agrifolia]) with nectar
sources and nearby water
sources.

Low potential to roost. While there
are a few trees located on the
project site including Monterey
cypress and eucalyptus trees, most
are isolated individuals, and none
assemble into a woodland large
enough to provide protection and
other elements required by
overwintering monarch butterflies.

There is low potential for monarch
butterflies to overwinter adjacent to
the project site, including the stand
of eucalyptus and trees associated
with residential development at
Rincon Point near Rincon Creek;
however, monarch individuals were
not observed during surveys and
winter roost sites have not been
documented in these areas (Xerces
Society 2020). There are numerous
occurrences in the region, including
a stand of eucalyptus trees north of
the project site along Rincon Creek
and Bates Road north of Highway
101, last confirmed in 2002 (CDFW
2020a).
1 Federal Designations:

FC Candidate for federal listing as threatened or endangered (FD) Federally delisted; monitored for five years
FE Federally listed Endangered
FT Federally listed as Threatened
FDL Federally delisted
BCC Bird of Conservation Concern
State Designations:

SC Candidate for state listing as endangered
SSC Species of Special Concern
FP California Department of Fish and Game Protected and Fully Protected Species SE State listed as Endangered
ST State listed as Threatened
SDL State delisted
WL Watch List
2 Monarch overwintering sites are protected under County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) and the City General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003) as County environmentally sensitive habitat and City environmentally sensitive habitat areas.

Two special-status wildlife species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the project site, including Northern California legless lizard (SSC) and San Diego desert woodrat (SSC). 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-30
California legless lizard. The California legless lizard is a state SSC and is a fossorial lizard that occupies suitable habitats such as coastal dune, valley and foothill grassland, chaparral, and coastal scrub from Contra Costa County south to the Mexico border. This species requires loose, friable soils for burrowing, and often requires moist substrates and environments (CDFW 2020a). This species has been recorded within the project site from a 1952 occurrence along the coastal bluffs near Rincon Road and Rincon Beach County Park (CDFW 2020a). Suitable habitat for this species occurs on site in the coastal scrub and coastal bluff scrub vegetation communities mapped over a large portion of the site
San Diego desert woodrat. The San Diego desert woodrat is a state SSC known to inhabit scrub habitats, such as coastal sage scrub. Its distribution tends to be on the west side of Coast Ranges from San Diego County north to at least San Luis Obispo County. The San Diego desert woodrat prefers moderate to dense canopies, and are particularly abundant in rock outcrops, rocky cliffs, and slopes (CDFW 2020a). Unlike dusky-footed woodrats, San Diego desert woodrats do not construct large stick nests. This species normally occupies openings in rocks, vegetation (such as openings among patches of cactus), and even debris, and sometimes small stick nests are built within an opening or crevice. Suitable habitat for this species occurs on site in the coastal scrub and coastal bluff scrub vegetation communities mapped over a large portion of the site. Woodrat middens have been observed during surveys on site.

White-tailed kite. The white-tailed kite, a state fully protected species, is known to occur in the area (City of Carpinteria 2003), and in addition to protections by the state, the white-tailed kite receives protection under the Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2019) and the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003). The City specifically cites the Carpinteria Bluffs as a location where this species occurs and is protected. However, no white-tailed kites were detected in the biological survey area, and the scrub vegetation that predominates there is unsuitable for foraging by this species, which hunts in habitats dominated by grasses and forbs. Trees in and around the site are relatively small, and located in areas with high levels of human disturbance where kites are unlikely to nest. Marginally suitable woodland nesting habitat is present in the trees adjacent to the project site near Rincon Beach County Park, within the Rincon Point housing development. This species prefers open grassland or marshland habitats which are not present on site, and is found less commonly in agricultural areas or rights-of-way. This species is known to occur along the south coast, however most foraging and nesting activity in the County is restricted to more rural areas and in particular, the Goleta and Santa Maria Valleys (Lehman 2020).

Monarch butterflies and overwintering sites. Monarch butterflies are currently a federal candidate species, while their overwintering sites are also protected under Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2019) and the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003) policies. The monarch butterfly follows a pattern of seasonal migration. The summer grounds of the species are found in New England, the Great Lakes region, the northern Rocky Mountains, and some portions of the Arid West (Pelton et al. 2016). The New England and Great Lakes populations generally migrate southwest to wintering grounds in the Sierra Madre mountain range of Mexico, while the Rocky Mountains population generally migrates southwest to wintering grounds along the California coast.

Monarchs require specific conditions for suitable wintering sites, and wintering sites in California are associated with wind-protected groves of large trees (primarily eucalyptus or pine) with nectar and water sources nearby, dappled sunlight, high humidity, and an absence of freezing temperatures or high wind, generally near the coast (Pelton et al. 2016). The majority of trees within the biological survey area are either singular and isolated, or do not form a large enough grove to provide adequate microclimate conditions and wind protection monarch butterflies 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-31
require for overwintering sites. There is a small portion of eucalyptus trees within the eastern portion of the biological survey area, however there is low potential for monarchs for overwinter here as well due to the small relative size of this eucalyptus stand and vulnerability to strong winds and weather. There are also three eucalyptus trees present at near the western terminus of the biological survey area, however they each grow individually and do not form a grove capable of supporting overwintering monarchs. Additionally, the eucalyptus trees present along the hills behind the biological survey on private property, specifically the eucalyptus trees around the residential development off Bates Ranch Road as well as the eucalyptus trees that extend beyond the terminus of Camino Carreta, appear to be planted windrows and do not form large protected groves that have the microclimate characteristics monarchs require for overwintering.

Monarch butterflies are known to occur near the biological survey area along Bates Road just north of U.S. Highway 101 in a eucalyptus stand associated with Rincon Creek (CNDDB Occurrence No. 268; Xerces Site No. 2803) (CDFW 2020a). Additionally, this site was known to have been surveyed for overwintering monarch populations in 2017 during the Xerces Society New Year’s Count, of which none were detected (Xerces Society 2020).

3.3.1.5 Critical Habitat
There is no USFWS designated critical habitat for any plant species or wildlife species within or adjacent to the project site (USFWS 2020b).

3.3.1.6 Wildlife Movement Corridors
The project site is located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and does not connect important habitat areas used by large or small wildlife species. In addition, U.S. Highway 101 and adjacent chain link fencing along the southbound lanes of the highway provide impediments to wildlife movement between the bluffs and more inland areas.

Additionally, development and restricted access from more open space areas to the north impede wildlife movement in accessing the project site. Large-sized mammal species such as mountain lion and California black bears (Ursus americanus californiensis) may utilize areas to the east of the biological survey area including Rincon Creek and the channelized portion under U.S. Highway 101 to access beach areas; however, the surrounding areas where Rincon Creek daylights is developed with residential homes and parking lot improvements, resulting in a high urban wildlife interface. Medium-sized mammal species such as the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) or northern raccoon (Procyon lotor) may move locally along the coast. The UPRR and associated right-of-way provides an unvegetated corridor approximately 50 feet wide containing a single track that divides the project alignment near its center. The UPRR tracks are at a much lower elevation than the adjacent bluffs creating an anthropogenic valley and break in continuous topography along the bluffs. The project includes a span bridge which connects the two bluffs and ultimately will not change the overall topography for wildlife to approach or cross the tracks. Additionally, minor changes to wind and weather patterns in a very local setting are not an impediment to birds moving long distance, particularly since the overall height of the slope should remain at the same elevation.

To evaluate the change in wind uplift patterns above the bluff face from the proposed regrading for the project, Dudek commissioned an Airflow Analysis for the Proposed Regrading of the Rincon Bluffs study (Airflow Analysis Report Study) by an expert in fluid dynamics; the Airflow Analysis Report Study is included as Appendix I of this Environmental Impact Report. Several different approaches were used, based upon published literature including wind tunnel experiments and direct field measurements of the amplification effects of a slope or vertical face on horizontal wind vectors perpendicular to the slope face. In the published literature reviewed for this Airflow Analysis Report Study, certain investigators compared the average slope angle of the entire slope or bluff face to determine 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-32
the wind amplification effect, while others compared the angle of just the upper portion of the slope. The analysis of the effects of the proposed regrading of the bluff face for the project concluded that the proposed regrading could reduce the vertical airflow velocity by 10% to 30% relative to current conditions; for altitudes relevant to paragliding and soaring activities, the reduction may be closer to the maximum reduction of 30% (Appendix I). Based on available experimental results, the introduction of an upper bench above the trail is expected to provide a small increase in turbulence (of the order of 5%) at an altitude of 30 feet above the front of the bluffs, becoming negligible by an altitude of approximately 75 feet (Appendix I). Migratory avian species travel hundreds to thousands of miles at various elevations during which they can be exposed to a variety of weather systems within days or weeks of each other and have behavioral plasticity in response to microscale through mesoscale conditions including extremely adverse weather (Sahmoun-Baranes 2017). The anticipated changes in wind velocity and turbulence would occur within a short linear distance relative to the distance traveled for a migrating avian species, and avian species regularly adjust to changing weather conditions. Additionally, the velocity and turbulence changes would be focused at altitudes near the bluff top and would not extend the whole altitude range for migrating birds.

3.3.1.7 Aquatic Resources
While a delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources was not performed; no evidence of aquatic features was observed within the biological survey area during field surveys. Additionally, there are no USGS National Hydrography Dataset (USGS 2020) or USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2020b) mapped aquatic resources within the project site. On the adjacent Carpinteria Bluffs III site, to the south and west of the western most portion of the project site, multiple seasonal pools and ephemeral pools have been documented (Sage Institute Inc. 2009; Dudek 2012a, 2012b). As part of the Wetland Determination of Pool Features at Carpinteria Bluffs Area II per the California Coastal Act (Dudek 2012b), jurisdictional determinations for coastal wetlands were made for documented seasonal pools and ephemeral features. No documented coastal wetlands occur within the project site; however, coastal wetlands (Dudek 2012b) are approximately 123 feet from project temporary impacts and 125 feet from project permanent impacts. The closest mapped riverine or stream/river feature is associated with the Rincon Creek outlet located approximately 50 feet from the eastern portion of the biological survey area.

3.3.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances

3.3.2.1 Federal
Clean Water Act, Section 404
The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States, and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Under the CWA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has implemented pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industry and developing national water quality criteria recommendations for pollutants in surface waters.

The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained. USEPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or human-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-33
Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has authority to regulate activities that could discharge fill of material into wetlands or other “waters of the United States.” Perennial and intermittent creeks are considered waters of the United States if they are hydrologically connected to other jurisdictional waters (typically a navigable water). USACE also implements the federal policy embodied in Executive Order 11990, which is intended to result in no net loss of wetland value or acres. In achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act, USACE seeks to avoid adverse impacts and offset unavoidable adverse impacts on existing aquatic resources. Any fill of wetlands that are hydrologically connected to jurisdictional waters would require a permit from USACE prior to the start of work. Typically, when a project involves impacts to waters of the United States, the goal of no net loss of wetland acres or values is met through avoidance and minimization to the extent practicable, followed by compensatory mitigation involving creation or enhancement of similar habitats.

Federal Endangered Species Act
Under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce jointly have the authority to list a species as threatened or endangered (16 USC 1533[c]). Pursuant to the requirements of the ESA, an agency reviewing a project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed threatened or endangered species may be present in the planning area, and determine whether the project would have a potentially significant impact on such species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the ESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC 1536[3][4]). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Marine Fisheries Service are responsible for implementation of the ESA.

USFWS also publishes a list of candidate species. Species on this list receive special attention from federal agencies during environmental review, although they are not protected otherwise under the ESA. The candidate species are those for which USFWS has sufficient biological information to support a proposal to list them as endangered or threatened.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the take of any migratory bird or any part, nest, or eggs of any such bird.

Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, “take” is defined as “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill trap, capture, or collect, or any attempt to carry out these activities” (16 USC 703 et seq.). Additionally, Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, requires that any project with federal involvement address impacts of federal actions on migratory birds with the purpose of promoting conservation of migratory bird populations (66 FR 3853–3856). Executive Order 13186 requires federal agencies to work with USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding. USFWS reviews actions that might affect these species. Currently, birds are considered to be nesting under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act only when there are eggs or chicks that are dependent on the nest.

3.3.2.2 State
California Endangered Species Act
The California ESA establishes state policy to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. Under the California ESA, CDFW is responsible for maintaining a list of threatened species and endangered species (California Fish and Game Code, Section 2070). CDFW also maintains a list of 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-34
candidate species, which are species that CDFW has formally noticed as under review for addition to the threatened or endangered species list. CDFW also maintains lists of California species of special concern, which serve as watch lists. Pursuant to the requirements of the California ESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed endangered or threatened species may be present in the area, and determine whether the proposed project would have a potentially significant impact on such species. CDFW encourages informal consultation on any proposed project that may impact a candidate species.

California Fish and Game Code
Under the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW provides protection from take for a variety of species, including fully protected species. “Fully protected” is a legal protective designation administered by CDFW and intended to conserve wildlife species that risk extinction within California. Lists have been created for birds, mammals, fish, amphibians, and reptiles.

Birds of prey are protected in California under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Construction disturbance during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “taking” by CDFW. Section 3511 prohibits take or possession of a fully protected species. In addition, Section 3513 states “It is unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird as designated in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or any part of such migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory [Bird] Treaty Act.” Any loss of fertile eggs or nesting raptors, or any activities resulting in nest abandonment would constitute a significant impact. Non-raptor native birds receive similar protection under California Fish and Game Code Section 3503. Project impacts to these species would not be considered significant unless the species are known to, or have a high potential to, nest in the area or rely on it for primary foraging.

The Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900 et seq.) gives CDFW authority to designate state endangered, threatened, and rare plants, and provides specific protection measures for identified populations.

CDFW also protects streams, water bodies, and riparian corridors through the Streambed Alteration Agreement process under Sections 1601–1606 of the California Fish and Game Code. The California Fish and Game Code stipulates that it is “unlawful to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake” without notifying CDFW, incorporating necessary mitigation, and obtaining a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Through policy, CDFW asserts jurisdiction to the top of banks of all streams, including intermittent and ephemeral streams, extending laterally to the upland edge of adjacent riparian vegetation. CDFW uses the Cowardin system for wetland identification and classification, which typically results in a larger jurisdictional area than federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Under this system, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year.

3.3.2.3 Local
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-35
City of Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan The City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan includes the following objectives and policies relevant to the proposed project and biological resources:
• OSC-1 Protect, Preserve and Enhance Local Natural Resources and Habitats o Policy OSC-1a. Protect ESHAs from development and maintain them as natural open space or passive recreational areas.
o Policy OSC-1b. Prohibit activities, including development, that could damage or destroy ESHA. o Policy OSC-1c. Establish and support preservation and restoration programs for ESHA, including but not limited to Carpinteria Creek, Carpinteria Bluffs, Carpinteria Salt Marsh, seal rookery, Carpinteria reef, Pismo clam beds and the intertidal zones along the shoreline. o Policy OSC-1d. Property including ESHA should be designated with a zoning category that allows for the protection of, and access to, the resource area, such as Open Space/Recreation or Public Facility zoning. Any development on property including ESHA should be designed and conducted to protect the resources. Within environmentally sensitive habitat only uses dependent upon those resources shall be allowed and the resources shall be protected against any disruption. o Policy OSC-1f. Protect and restore degraded wetlands, butterfly habitat, native plant communities, and sensitive, rare, threatened or endangered species habitat on City-owned land to the maximum extent feasible.
• OSC-3 Preserve and Restore Wetlands Such as the Carpinteria Salt Marsh o Policy OSC-3a. Wetland delineations shall be based on the definitions contained in Section 13577 (b) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations
o Policy OSC-3b. The upland limit of a wetland is defined as ▪ the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover;
▪ the boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and soil that is predominantly non-hydric; ▪ in the case of wetlands without vegetation or soils, the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time during years of normal precipitation, and land that is not. ▪ If questions exist, the limit shall be determined by a habitat survey made by a qualified biologist in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game. o Policy OSC-3c. Development adjacent to the required buffer around wetlands should not result in adverse impacts including but not limited to sediment runoff, chemical and fertilizer contamination, noise, light pollution and other disturbances.
• OSC-7 Conserve Native Plant Communities.
o Policy OSC-7b. When sites are graded or developed, areas with significant amounts of native vegetation shall be preserved. Structures shall be sited and designed to minimize the impact of grading, paving construction of roads, runoff and erosion on native vegetation. Sensitive resources that exhibit any level of disturbance shall be maintained, and if feasible, restored. New development shall include measures to restore any disturbed or degraded habitat on the project site. Cut and fill slopes and all areas disturbed by construction activities shall be landscaped or revegetated at the completion of 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-36
grading. Plantings shall be of native, drought-tolerant plant species consistent with the existing native vegetation on the site. Invasive plant species that tend to supplant native species shall be prohibited.

Santa Barbara County Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance Pursuant to PRC Section 30500 of the California Coastal Act of 1976, Santa Barbara County was required to prepare an LCP for portions of the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County within the coastal zone. Sections of the Santa Barbara County Article II Zoning Ordinance that may be relevant to the proposed project include Section 35-140, Tree Removal. Section 35-140 regulates the removal of qualifying trees within the coastal zone, and requires Coastal Development Permit (CDP) approval prior to removal of any qualifying tree. A qualifying tree is defined as a tree which is six inches or more in diameter measured four feet above the ground and six feet or more in height and which is 1) located in a County street right-of-way; or 2) located within 50 feet of any major or minor stream except when such trees are removed for agricultural purposes; or 3) oak trees; or 4) used as a habitat by the monarch butterflies. However, a CDP to remove trees in the coastal zone shall only be issued for reasons such as: the trees are dead; the trees prevent the construction of a project for which a CDP has been issued and project redesign is not feasible; the trees are diseased and pose a danger to healthy trees in the immediate vicinity; or the trees are so weakened by age, disease, storm, fire, excavation, removal of adjacent trees, or any injury so as to cause imminent danger to persons or property.

Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan
The Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan was partially certified by the Coastal Commission on March 17, 1981, adopted in 1982, and republished June 2019, as the Local Coastal Program for unincorporated Santa Barbara County. It details the rules and regulations of land use within Santa Barbara County’s coastal areas. The following policies would apply to the proposed project. Policy 9-37 consists of the same guidelines discussed above in the Santa Barbara County Article II Zoning Ordinance Section 35-97.19, Development Standards for Stream Habitats. Policy 9-38 consists of the same guidelines discussed above in the Santa Barbara County Article II Zoning Ordinance Section 35-97.19.
• Policy 9-36: When sites are graded or developed, areas with significant amounts of native vegetation shall be preserved. All development shall be sited, designed, and constructed to minimize impacts of grading, paving, construction of roads or structures, runoff, and erosion on native vegetation. In particular, grading and paving shall not adversely affect root zone aeration and stability of native trees. • Policy 9-37: The minimum buffer strip for major streams in rural areas, as defined by the land use plan, shall be presumptively 100 feet, and for streams in urban areas, 50 feet. These minimum buffers may be adjusted upward or downward on a case-by-case basis. The buffer shall be established based on an investigation of the following factors and after consultation with the Department of Fish and Game and Regional Water Quality Control Board in order to protect the biological productivity and water quality of streams:
1) Soil type and stability of stream corridors;
2) How surface water filters into the ground;
3) Slope of the land on either side of the stream; and
4) Location of the 100-year flood plain boundary.

Riparian vegetation shall be protected and shall be included in the buffer. Where riparian vegetation has previously been removed, except for channelization, the buffer shall allow for the reestablishment of riparian vegetation to its prior extent to the greatest degree possible. Riparian vegetation shall be protected 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-37
and shall be included in the buffer. Where riparian vegetation has previously been removed, except for channelization, the buffer shall allow for the reestablishment of riparian vegetation to its prior extent to the greatest degree possible.
• Policy 9-38: No structures shall be located within the stream corridor except: public trails, dams for necessary water supply projects, flood control projects where no other method for protecting existing structures in the flood plain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development; and other development where the primary function is for the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. Culverts, fences, pipelines, and bridges (when support structures are located outside the critical habitat) may be permitted when no alternative route/location is feasible. All development shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible.

3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance
The County provides types of impacts to biological resources that may be considered significant if the project substantially alters biological resources in the following ways (County of Santa Barbara 2008):

Substantially reduce or eliminate species diversity or abundance Substantially reduce or eliminate quantity or quality of nesting areas Substantially limit reproductive capacity through losses of individuals or habitat Substantially fragment, eliminate, or otherwise disrupt foraging areas and/or access to food sources Substantially limit or fragment range and movement (geographic distribution or animals and/or seed dispersal routes)
Substantially interfere with natural processes, such as fire or flooding, upon which the habitat depends.

Furthermore, the size, type, and timing of impacts should be considered in assessing the significance of project impacts on biological resources (County of Santa Barbara 2008).

The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to biological resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to biological resources would occur if the project would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-38
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. g) Result in cumulatively considerable impacts to biological resources.

3.3.4 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? For the purpose of CEQA analysis, federal, state, CNPS CRPR 1A, 1B, 2A, and 2B plants, and locally rare plants (Wilken 2018) are considered special-status plant species. CRPR 3 and 4 plants, which are CNPS “rare”, but not considered special-status plant species under CEQA. Yet these plant species do add to the vegetation community value designated as County ESH and or City ESHA as CNPS CRPR 3 and 4 species. No federal, state, or CNPS CRPR 1 or 2 species, or locally rare (Wilken 2018) species were observed. Two CNPS CRPR 4.2 plant species, cliff malacothrix and woolly seablite, and one CNPS CRPR 3.2 plant species, south coast branching phacelia, were detected within the biological survey area. Cliff malacothrix, south coast branching phacelia, and woolly seablite are not included on the Rare Plants of Santa Barbara County list (Wilken 2018) and therefore, are not considered special-status plant species.

No special-status plant species were observed; thus, impacts to special-status plant species would be less than significant.CNPS’ CRPR 4 plant species are of limited distribution or are infrequent throughout a broader area in California, so that their vulnerability or susceptibility to threat appears low at this time, from a statewide perspective as described by the CNPS. Per CNPS, these species warrant regular monitoring for evidence of decline and subsequent transfer to a more sensitive rank.

Cliff malacothrix, CRPR 4.2, is known to occur in coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub habitats from northern Santa Barbara County south through southern Orange County. It is not considered locally rare in Santa Barbara County (Wilken 2018), but is considered locally rare in Ventura County (Magney 2020). From 1980 to present, there have been 27 recorded observations of this species in Santa Barbara County and Ventura County (Calflora 2021). The recorded observations were along coastal bluffs that have likely not been developed or disturbed since recorded. Although there are an abundance of recorded cliff malacothrix observations in Santa Barbara County, this species is likely under documented and is known to occur in large areas adjacent to the project site and multiple locations along the Santa Barbara County and nearby Ventura County coast. Cliff malacothrix documented within the biological survey area is in habitats similar throughout the range of the species, coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub habitats on siltstone/shale bedrock. The proposed project lies generally within an elevated marine terrace, which has been subject to extensive grading associated with current and former transportation facilities. The project site is located within Santa Barbara County immediately adjacent to Ventura County, which is well within the known geographic range of this species, northern Santa Barbara County south through southern Orange County. Cliff malacothrix is not included on the BLM Special Status Plants under the jurisdiction of the California State Office as of May 28, 2015 list (USDOI, BLM 2015), USFWS listed plants (USFWS 2021), are not listed or proposed under the ESA (USFS 2005). A total of approximately 418 cliff malacothrix individuals would be impacted by the project, approximately 46% of the individuals within the biological survey area. The project is within the geographic range of the species, cliff malacothrix is not considered locally rare in Santa Barbara County (Wilken 2018), the cliff malacothrix individuals were observed 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-39
on areas that were subjected to extensive grading associated with current and former transportation facilities, and the species occurs in coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub on siltstone/shale bedrock which are common habitats and substrates for this species. Project impacts would not result in declines in cliff malacothrix to transfer to a more sensitive rank; therefore, impacts to cliff malacothrix would be less than significant.

Woolly seablite, CRPR 4.2, is known to occur in coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, and marshes and swamps (coastal margins) habitats from San Luis Obispo County south through southern San Diego County including the Channel Islands. It is not considered locally rare in Santa Barbara County (Wilken 2018), but is considered locally rare in Ventura County (Magney 2020). From 1980 to present, there have been 47 recorded observations of this species in Santa Barbara County and Ventura County (Calflora 2021). The recorded observations were along coastal bluffs and beach terraces that have likely not been developed or disturbed since recorded. Although there are an abundance of recorded woolly seablite observations in Santa Barbara County and Ventura County, this species is likely under documented and is known to occur in large areas adjacent to the project site and multiple locations along the Santa Barbara County and nearby Ventura County coast. Woolly seablite documented within the biological survey area is in habitats similar throughout the range of the species, coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub habitats on siltstone/shale bedrock. The proposed project lies generally within an elevated marine terrace, which has been subject to extensive grading associated with current and former transportation facilities. The project site is located within Santa Barbara County immediately adjacent to Ventura County which is well within the known geographic range of this species, San Luis Obispo County south through southern San Diego County. Woolly seablite is not included on the BLM Special Status Plants under the jurisdiction of the California State Office as of May 28, 2015 list (USDOI, BLM 2015), USFWS listed plants (USFWS 2021) that are not listed or proposed under the ESA (USFS 2005). A total of approximately 256 woolly seablite individuals would be impacted by the project, approximately 41% of the individuals within the biological survey area. The project is within the geographic range of the species, woolly seablite is not considered locally rare in Santa Barbara County (Wilken 2018), the woolly seablite individuals were observed on areas that were subjected to extensive grading associated with current and former transportation facilities, and the species occurs in coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub on siltstone/shale bedrock which are common habitats and substrates for this species. Project impacts would not result in declines in woolly seablite to transfer to a more sensitive rank; therefore, impacts to woolly seablite would be less than significant.

CRPR 3 plant species are those species about which more information is needed. Necessary information is lacking to assign these species to one of the other ranks or to reject them.

South coast branching phacelia, CRPR 3.2, is known to occur in chaparral, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and marshes and swamps (coastal salt) habitats within sandy, sometimes rocky habitats from southern San Luis Obispo County south through central coastal San Diego County. It is not considered locally rare in Santa Barbara County (Wilken 2018), but is considered locally rare in Ventura County (Magney 2020). From 1980 to present, there have been 44 recorded observations of this species in Santa Barbara County and Ventura County (Calflora 2021). The recorded observations were along rivers, within La Purisima Mission State Historic Park, within Burton Mesa Ecological Reserve, and abandoned roads and trails that have likely not been developed or disturbed since recorded. Although there are an abundance of recorded south coast branching phacelia observations in Santa Barbara County and Ventura County, this species is likely under documented and is known to occur in multiple locations along the Santa Barbara County and nearby Ventura County coast. South coast branching phacelia documented within the biological survey area is in habitats similar throughout the range of the species, coastal scrub. The proposed project lies generally within an elevated marine terrace, which has been subject to extensive grading associated with current and former transportation facilities. The project 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-40
site is located within Santa Barbara County immediately adjacent to Ventura County which is well within the known geographic range of this species, southern San Luis Obispo County south through central coastal San Diego County. South coast branching phacelia is not included on the BLM Special Status Plants under the jurisdiction of the California State Office as of May 28, 2015 list (USDOI, BLM 2015), USFWS listed plants (USFWS 2021 that are not listed or proposed under the ESA (USFS 2005). The one individual of south coast branching phacelia documented within the biological survey area would be impacted by the project. The project is within the geographic range of the species, south coast branching phacelia is not considered locally rare in Santa Barbara County (Wilken 2018), the south coast branching phacelia individual was observed in an area that was subjected to extensive grading associated with current and former transportation facilities, and the species occurs in coastal scrub on siltstone/shale bedrock which are common habitats and substrates for this species. Project impacts would not result in declines in south coast branching phacelia to transfer to a more sensitive rank; therefore, impacts to south coast branching phacelia would be less than significant.

Habitat was documented for two special-status wildlife species, either within or adjacent to the trail alignment:

California legless lizard and San Diego desert woodrat. Habitat for the California legless lizard was found in the proposed trail alignment immediately south of the UPRR crossing. California legless lizard individuals could suffer injury or mortality because of grading and other construction activities associated with the project.

Therefore, impacts to California legless lizard would be potentially significant absent mitigation. Habitat for the woodrat is located throughout the scrub dominated portions of the site. Woodrat individuals could suffer injury or mortality because of grading and other construction activities. Therefore, impacts to woodrat would be potentially significant absent mitigation. Impacts to these species’ habitats would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 through MM-BIO-4.

White-tailed kite is known to occur along the south coast, however most foraging and nesting activity in the County is restricted to more rural areas and in particular, the Goleta and Santa Maria Valleys (Lehman 2020). The City specifically cites the Carpinteria Bluffs as a location where white-tailed kites occur and their habitat is protected.

However, no white-tailed kites were detected in the biological survey area, and the scrub vegetation that predominates there is unsuitable for foraging by this species, which hunts in habitats dominated by grasses and forbs. This species prefers open grassland or marshland habitats which are not present on site, and is found less commonly in agricultural areas or rights-of-way. Trees in and around the project site are relatively small, and located in areas with high levels of human disturbance where white-tailed kites are unlikely to nest. Marginally suitable woodland nesting habitat is present in the trees adjacent to the project site near Rincon Beach County Park and within the Rincon Point housing development; however, proposed project impacts are greater than 500 feet from these habitats. The trees within the vicinity of Rincon Beach County Park are not planned to be directly impacted. Therefore, impacts to white-tailed kites would be less than significant.

Monarchs require specific conditions for suitable wintering sites, and wintering sites in California are associated with wind-protected groves of large trees (primarily eucalyptus or pine) with nectar and water sources nearby, dappled sunlight, high humidity, and an absence of freezing temperatures or high wind, generally near the coast (Pelton et al. 2016). The majority of trees within the project site are either singular and isolated, or do not form a large enough grove to provide adequate microclimate conditions and wind protection monarch butterflies require for overwintering sites. There are three eucalyptus trees present near the western terminus of the project site, however they each grow individually and do not form a grove capable of supporting overwintering monarchs. There is a small portion of eucalyptus trees within the eastern portion of the biological survey area, however there is low potential for monarchs to overwinter here as well due to the small relative size of this eucalyptus stand and vulnerability to strong winds and weather. The easternmost proposed project impacts are over 1,000 feet from 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-41
these eucalyptus trees. Additionally, the eucalyptus trees present along the hills behind the project site on private property, specifically the eucalyptus trees around the residential development off Bates Ranch Road as well as the eucalyptus trees that extend beyond the terminus of Camino Carreta, appear to be planted windrows and do not form large protected groves that have the microclimate characteristics monarchs require for overwintering.

Monarch butterflies are known to occur near the project site along Bates Road just north of U.S. Highway 101 in a eucalyptus stand associated with Rincon Creek (CNDDB Occurrence No. 268; Xerces Site No. 2803) (CDFW 2020a). Additionally, this site was known to have been surveyed for overwintering monarch populations in 2017 during the Xerces Society New Year’s Count, of which none were detected (Xerces Society 2020). While this population is not within 100 feet of the project site, it conceivably could be affected by project implementation due to changed weather patterns. However, no impacts to this monarch overwintering site are anticipated since the overall height of the slope within Rincon Beach County Park south of Highway 101 will not be reduced, as work includes proposed terraces to stabilize the hill but will not decrease its overall height, and therefore no changes to the wind conditions at the overwintering site are expected. Additionally, this overwintering site is largely protected by the hill below the single residential development at 637 Bates Road, and any possible changes to weather and wind patterns due to project implementation would not affect the protective contour this hill independently provides. Therefore, monarch butterflies are not anticipated to be affected since there is low potential for the project site to support overwintering populations, and because known overwintering populations in the vicinity would not be adversely affected due to project implementation. Therefore, impacts to monarch butterfly individuals and monarch butterfly overwintering sites would be less than significant.

Several trees, including eucalyptus, Monterey cypress, pine, are located within the proposed trail alignment near its western terminus and U.S. Highway 101. These trees are relatively small and located in areas with high levels of human disturbance including U.S. Highway 101 vehicular traffic and pedestrian use of Carpinteria Avenue and adjacent areas. These isolated and singular trees lack dense foliage and are located in areas vulnerable to strong winds and weather. Several myoporum trees are located within the proposed trail alignment and are largely multistemmed. The myoporum located directly adjacent to the unsanctioned trail experiences high levels of human disturbance. Due to the locations of these trees in areas with high levels of human disturbance, relatively small size of these trees, isolated nature of the trees, and vulnerability to strong winds and weather, raptors are unlikely to nest in these trees. Therefore, removal of these trees would not substantially reduce or eliminate the quantity or quality of raptor nesting areas and impacts would be less than significant.

Additionally, a stand of trees is present at the eastern terminus of the biological survey area, which are rooted next to the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot. The eastern most proposed project impacts are over 1,000 feet from this stand of trees. The trees within the vicinity of Rincon Beach County Park are not planned to be directly impacted. Therefore, project impacts to raptor nesting trees would not substantially reduce or eliminate the quantity or quality of nesting areas and impacts to nesting trees would be less than significant. b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
As discussed in Section 3.1.1.2, five native scrub communities ([California brittle bush – ashy buckwheat scrub alliance, Encelia californica association], [quailbush scrub alliance, Atriplex lentiformis association], [coastal sage scrub: California sagebrush – (purple sage) scrub alliance, Artemisia californica association], [coyote brush scrub alliance, Baccharis pilularis association], and [lemonade berry scrub alliance, Rhus integrifolia association]) are 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-42
found in the proposed trail alignment and adjacent areas. These five native scrub communities are designated sensitive by CDFW, County ESH by definition (coastal bluff scrub or coastal sage scrub habitat) or supporting sensitive species, and/or City ESHA by definition (coastal bluff scrub or coastal sage scrub habitat), mapped as ESHA by the City, or supporting sensitive species, as described in Table 3.3-5.

Communities impacted by the proposed project are shown in Table 3.3-5, below, and include California brittle bush – ashy buckwheat scrub alliance, Encelia californica association (0.42 acres permanent impacts) and quailbush scrub alliance, Atriplex lentiformis association (1.73 acres permanent impacts) as well as coastal sage scrub: California sagebrush – (purple sage) scrub alliance, Artemisia californica association (1.29 acres permanent impacts), coyote brush scrub alliance, Baccharis pilularis association (0.71 acres permanent impacts), and lemonade berry scrub alliance, Rhus integrifolia association (0.17 acres permanent impacts).

Table 3.3-5. Permanent Impacts to Sensitive Native Vegetation Communities Vegetation Community Alliance, Association
Alliance-Association
(State Sensitive)/
County ESH/ City
ESHA

Permanent
Impacts (acres)
Coastal Bluff Scrub
California Brittle Bush – Ashy Buckwheat Scrub Alliance, Encelia californica Association
S3-Yes (Yes)/Yes/Yes 0.42
Quailbush Scrub Alliance, Atriplex lentiformis Association S4-No (No)/Yes/Yes 1.73 Coastal Bluff Scrub Subtotal 2.15
Coastal Scrub
California Sagebrush – (Purple Sage) Scrub Alliance, Artemisia californica Association
S5-S4 (No)/Yes/Yes

1.29 Coyote Brush Scrub Alliance, Baccharis pilularis Association S5-No (No)/Yes/Yes 0.71 Lemonade Berry Scrub Alliance, Rhus integrifolia Association S3-S3 (Yes)/Yes/Yes 0.17 Coastal Scrub Subtotal 2.17
Total 4.32
As shown in Table 3.3-5, approximately 3.55 acres of CDFW sensitive, County ESH, and/or City ESHA habitats would be temporarily impacted due to construction. An additional 0.76 4.32 acres of CDFW sensitive, County ESH, and/or City ESHA habitats would be permanently impacted due to construction. These native plant communities are considered CDFW sensitive, County ESH, and/or City ESHA and protected under County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) and the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003) policies.

Therefore, the proposed project would result in a substantial adverse effect on a sensitive natural community, and impacts would be potentially significant.

County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) and the City of Carpinteria General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003) policies require County ESH and City ESHA avoidance. With implementation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-5, and MM-BIO-6 impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-43
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
As discussed in Section 3.1.1.8, above, no jurisdictional aquatic resources were detected at the biological survey area during the field survey. Therefore, no direct impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources would occur. On the adjacent Carpinteria Bluffs III site, to the south and west of the westernmost portion of the project site, multiple seasonal pools and ephemeral pools have been documented (Sage Institute Inc. 2009; Dudek 2012a, 2012b).

As part of the Wetland Determination of Pool Features at Carpinteria Bluffs Area II per the California Coastal Act (Dudek 2012b), jurisdictional determinations for coastal wetlands were made for documented seasonal pools and ephemeral features. These coastal wetlands (Dudek 2012b) are approximately 123 feet from project temporary impacts and 125 feet from project permanent impacts. The closest mapped riverine or stream/river feature is associated with the Rincon Creek outlet located approximately 50 feet from the eastern portion of the biological survey area and over 1,000 feet from the eastern terminus of proposed impacts. The existing developed areas near this portion of Rincon Creek included the Rincon Beach County Park asphalt parking lot and associated developments of a standard curb, vegetation, paved Rincon Point Lane, and additional vegetation.

The City of Carpinteria General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003) includes implementation policies associated with wetlands which state, “Maintain a minimum 100-foot setback/buffer strip in a natural condition along the upland limits of all wetlands. No structures other than those required to support light recreational, scientific and educational uses shall be permitted within the setback, where such structures are consistent with all other wetland development policies and where all feasible measures have been taken to prevent adverse impacts. The minimum setback may be adjusted upward to account for site-specific conditions affecting avoidance of adverse impacts.”
Project impacts, both temporary and permanent, are greater than 100 feet from known coastal wetlands near the western terminus of the project and greater than 1,000 feet from Rincon Creek near the eastern terminus of the project. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on coastal wetlands including creeks and no impact would occur.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
As discussed in Section 3.1.1.7, the proposed trail alignment is located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and does not connect important habitat areas used by large or small terrestrial wildlife species. In addition, U.S. Highway 101 and the chain link fence adjacent to the southbound lanes of the highway provide impediments to movement of larger and medium-sized wildlife. Additionally, development and restricted access from more open space areas to the north impede wildlife movement in accessing the project site. Large-sized mammal species such as mountain lion and California black bears (Ursus americanus californiensis) may utilize areas to the east of the biological survey area including Rincon Creek and the channelized portion under U.S. Highway 101 to access beach areas; however, the surrounding areas where Rincon Creek daylights is developed with residential homes and parking lot improvements, resulting in a high urban wildlife interface. Medium-sized mammal species such as the striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) or northern raccoon (Procyon lotor) may occasionally use the opening provided by the trail to move locally along the coast. The trail may provide some hazard to common, smaller terrestrial species such as the western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), common side-blotched lizard (Uta 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-44
stansburiana) and California pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus), but the trail and associated fencing will not present a physical barrier to their movement.

Concerning avian species, minor changes to wind and weather patterns in a very local setting are not an impediment to birds moving long distance, particularly since the overall height of the slope should remain at the same elevation. As identified in the Airflow Study (Appendix I), the analysis of the effects of the proposed regrading of the bluff face for the project concluded that the proposed regrading could reduce the vertical airflow velocity by 10% to 30% relative to current conditions; for altitudes relevant to paragliding and soaring activities, the reduction is expected to be closer to 30%. Based on available experimental results, the introduction of an upper bench above the trail is expected to provide a small increase in turbulence (of the order of 5%) at an altitude of 30 feet above the front of the bluffs, becoming negligible by an altitude of approximately 75 feet. Migrating avian species may experience reduced airflow velocity by approximately 30% and an increase in turbulence (of the order of 5%) at an altitude of 30 feet above the front of the bluffs. Migratory avian species travel hundreds to thousands of miles at various elevations during which they can be exposed to a variety of weather systems within days or weeks of each other and have behavioral plasticity in response to microscale through mesoscale conditions including extremely adverse weather (Sahmoun-Baranes 2017). The anticipated changes in velocity and turbulence would occur within a short linear distance relative to the distance traveled for a migrating avian species, and avian species regularly adjust to changing weather conditions. Additionally, the velocity and turbulence changes would be focused at altitudes near the bluff top and would not extend the whole altitude range for migrating birds.

Therefore, changes in topography associated with regrading would not substantially impact migratory avian species and impacts would be less than significant.

In addition, as discussed under Threshold a, above, 22 species of native birds were detected on site, including several with the potential to nest there. Nests, eggs and nestlings of all native bird species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. Vegetation clearing and grading, if occurring during the nesting season (typically mid-February to August), have the potential to destroy nests, eggs and nestlings, which could violate these regulations. Therefore, the project impacts to nesting birds from project disturbances would be potentially significant. With implementation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-7, project impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
As discussed in Section 3.1.1.4, three Monterey cypress trees (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa), a species native to California but not to the project region, exist on or near the proposed alignment, or within the temporary grading impact area. This includes a single tree near the western terminus of the project site near the pull-out off Carpinteria Ave., a single tree at the edge of the temporary disturbance grading impact area near disturbed habitat in the western half of the project, and a single tree adjacent to the myoporum grove along an unsanctioned trail within Rincon Beach County Park. Additionally, two newly planted pine saplings (Pinus sp.) exist near the edge of the temporary disturbance grading impact area in the western portion of the project, both of which were under 3 inches diameter measured 4 feet from the ground and were installed with supportive stakes and mulch. Several eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.) are adjacent to the western portions of the proposed trail, located within the City, as well as exist near the eastern terminus of the biological survey area overhanging the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot. All of the trees described above are not native or naturally occurring in the region, therefore they should not be considered native trees under Policy 9.36 of the Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2019).
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-45
Furthermore, the only trees on site that meet the definition for qualifying trees under the Santa Barbara County Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance, are the few eucalyptus trees located at the eastern terminus of the biological survey area, the canopies of which spread across the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot. These few trees are large enough and are located within 50 feet of Rincon Creek satisfying the definition for a qualifying tree. Note that Rincon Creek is outside the biological survey area and greater than 1,000 feet from proposed project impacts.

The trees associated with Rincon Creek and trees south of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot are not proposed to be impacted or altered in any way, and thus the project would not conflict with the Coastal Zoning Ordinance. None of the other trees on site meet the definition of a qualifying trees under the Santa Barbara County Article II Coastal Zoning Ordinance as they are not located in a County street right-of-way, located within 50 feet of any major or minor stream, oak trees or used as a habitat by the monarch butterflies. In addition, none of the trees identified on site are not a part of any windbreak on the Carpinteria Bluffs, which are protected under the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003). Therefore, the project does not conflict with any local tree preservation policy and impacts to trees would be less than significant.

White-tailed kite is known to occur along the south coast, however, most foraging and nesting activity in the County is restricted to more rural areas and in particular, the Goleta and Santa Maria Valleys (Lehman 2020). The City specifically cites the Carpinteria Bluffs as a location where white-tailed kites occur and their habitat is protected.

Monarchs require specific conditions for suitable wintering sites, and wintering sites in California are associated with wind-protected groves of large trees (primarily eucalyptus or pine) with nectar and water sources nearby, dappled sunlight, high humidity, and an absence of freezing temperatures or high wind, generally near the coast (Pelton et al. 2016). The majority of trees within the project site are either singular and isolated, or do not form a large enough grove to provide adequate microclimate conditions and wind protection monarch butterflies require for overwintering sites. There are three eucalyptus trees present near the western terminus of the project site, however they each grow individually and do not form a grove capable of supporting overwintering monarchs. There is a small portion of eucalyptus trees within the eastern portion of the biological survey area, however, there is low potential for monarchs to overwinter here as well due to the small relative size of this eucalyptus stand and vulnerability to strong winds and weather. The easternmost proposed project impacts are over 1,000 feet from these eucalyptus trees. Additionally, the eucalyptus trees present along the hills behind the project sit on private property, specifically the eucalyptus trees around the residential development off Bates Ranch Road as well as the eucalyptus trees that extend beyond the terminus of Camino Carreta, appear to be planted windrows and do not form large protected groves that have the microclimate characteristics monarchs require for overwintering.

Monarch butterflies are known to occur near the project site along Bates Road just north of U.S. Highway 101 in a eucalyptus stand associated with Rincon Creek (CNDDB Occurrence No. 268; Xerces Site No. 2803) (CDFW 2020a). Additionally, this site was known to have been surveyed for overwintering monarch populations in 2017 during the Xerces Society New Year’s Count, of which none were detected (Xerces Society 2020). While this 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-46
population is not within 100 feet of the project site, it could be affected by project implementation due to changed weather patterns. However, no impacts to this monarch overwintering site is anticipated since the overall height of the slope within Rincon Beach County Park south of U.S. Highway 101 will not be reduced, as work includes proposed terraces to stabilize the hill but will not decrease its overall height, and therefore no changes to the wind conditions at the overwintering site are expected. Additionally, this overwintering site is largely protected by the hill below the single residential development at 637 Bates Road, and any possible changes to weather and wind patterns due to project implementation would not affect the protective contour this hill independently provides.

Therefore, monarch butterflies are not anticipated to be affected since there is low potential for the project site to support overwintering populations, and because known overwintering populations in the vicinity would not be adversely affected due to project implementation. Therefore, impacts to monarch butterfly individuals and monarch butterfly overwintering sites would be less than significant.

Several trees, including eucalyptus, Monterey cypress, and pine, are located within the proposed trail alignment near its western terminus and U.S. Highway 101. These trees are relatively small and located in areas with high levels of human disturbance including U.S. Highway 101 vehicular traffic and pedestrian use of Carpinteria Avenue and adjacent areas. These isolated and singular trees lack dense foliage and are located in areas vulnerable to strong winds and weather. Several myoporum trees are located within the proposed trail alignment and are largely multistemmed. The myoporum located directly adjacent to the unsanctioned trail experiences high levels of human disturbance. Due to the locations of these trees in areas with high levels of human disturbance, relatively small size of these trees, isolated nature of the trees, and vulnerability to strong winds and weather, raptors are unlikely to nest in these trees. Therefore, removal of these trees would not substantially reduce or eliminate quantity or quality of raptor nesting areas and impacts would be less than significant.

County environmentally sensitive habitat (ESH) and City environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) were evaluated based on definitions in the County Coastal Land Use Plan (CLUP) (County of Santa Barbara 2019) and the City of Carpinteria General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003). As shown in Table 3.3-5, approximately 3.55 acres of CDFW sensitive, County ESH, and/or City ESHA habitats would be temporarily impacted due to construction. An additional 0.76 4.32 acres of CDFW sensitive, County ESH, and/or City ESHA habitats would be permanently impacted due to construction. These native plant communities are considered CDFW sensitive, County ESH, and/or City ESHA and protected under County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) and the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003) policies. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a substantial adverse effect on a sensitive natural community, and impacts would be potentially significant. County CLUP (County of Santa Barbara 2019) and the City of Carpinteria General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003) policies require County ESH and City ESHA avoidance. With implementation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-5, and MM-BIO-6 impacts would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation.

As discussed in Section 3.1.1.8, above, no jurisdictional aquatic resources were detected in the biological survey area during the field survey. Therefore, no direct impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources would occur. On the adjacent Carpinteria Bluffs III site, to the south and west of the western most portion of the project site, multiple 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-47
seasonal pools and ephemeral pools have been documented (Sage Institute Inc. 2009; Dudek 2012a, 2012b).

The City of Carpinteria General Plan and Local Coastal Plan (City of Carpinteria 2003) includes implementation policies associated with wetlands which state, Maintain a minimum 100-foot setback/buffer strip in a natural condition along the upland limits of all wetlands. No structures other than those required to support light recreational, scientific and educational uses shall be permitted within the setback, where such structures are consistent with all other wetland development policies and where all feasible measures have been taken to prevent adverse impacts. The minimum setback may be adjusted upward to account for site-specific conditions affecting avoidance of adverse impacts.

Project impacts, both temporary and permanent, are greater than 100 feet from known coastal wetlands near the western terminus of the project and greater than 1,000 feet from Rincon Creek near the eastern terminus of the project. Therefore, the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on coastal wetlands including creeks and no impact would occur.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No habitat conservation plans apply to the project area (CDFW 2019). No impact would occur. g) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable impacts to biological resources? The surrounding land uses of the project site include transportation, open space, residential development, and recreational facilities. While the project site is primarily composed of undeveloped lands, they have been previously subject to extensive grading to form the terraces and slopes that abut U.S. Highway 101 to the north and UPRR which bisects the site. The coastal bluffs west of the project site are moderately trafficked areas used for recreation, walking, and biking. In 2017, The Land Trust for Santa Barbara County partnered with the Citizens for the Carpinteria Bluffs, the City of Carpinteria, the County of Santa Barbara, and over a thousand community members to purchase, initiate restoration, and ensure long-term maintenance of the Carpinteria Bluffs III property (also referred to as Rincon Bluffs Preserve), the 21-acre property directly to the west of the project site. A conservation easement of the Carpinteria Bluffs III property/Rincon Bluffs Preserve has been recorded which provides permanent preservation and provides long-term conservation of the open space, scenery, habitat for native plants and animals, and coastal access and recreational opportunities. And within the eastern portion of the project site, the currently developed Rincon Beach County Park provides infrastructure for recreation and is highly utilized. Areas to the south are associated with undeveloped beach areas and the Pacific Ocean. As discussed in Section 3.1.1.7, the proposed trail alignment is located adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and does not connect important habitat areas used by large or small terrestrial wildlife species, and minor changes to wind and weather patterns in a very local setting are not an impediment to birds moving long distance, particularly since 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-48
the overall height of the slope would remain at the same elevation. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce potential impacts to special-status wildlife species and sensitive vegetation communities to less-thansignificant levels. Therefore, cumulative impacts resulting from the proposed project, in combination with the reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area, would be less-than-significant.

3.3.5 Mitigation
MM-BIO-1 Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). The City shall fund an approved biologist to prepare and implement a worker education and awareness program (WEAP) specific to the project.

The program shall be presented to all individuals involved in the construction of the project. The program shall include information focused on sensitive vegetation communities, sensitive wildlife and plant species, and common wildlife species and their habitats and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
• Description of sensitive vegetation communities.
• Workers shall be provided with photographs of sensitive biological resources including sensitive wildlife and plant species.
• Workers shall be informed verbally and in writing of the various project tasks that require biological surveys and monitoring for resource protection. • Workers shall be provided with a photograph or description of the markers for active bird nests, trees, or other mitigation areas, so that they shall know these are not to be disturbed without a biological monitor present.
• Workers shall be informed not to litter. All trash and litter shall be picked up and removed from the construction sites at the end of each day.
• Workers shall be informed to obey a speed limit of 15 miles per hour while traveling on the project site to avoid collisions with wildlife.
• Workers shall avoid driving over or otherwise disturbing areas outside the designated construction areas.

Plan Requirements and Timing: The applicant shall submit the WEAP to the City of Carpinteria (City) and County of Santa Barbara (County) for review and approval prior to implementation issuance of zoning clearance. All workers, contractors, and visitors shall attend the WEAP prior to entering the project site and performing any work. The applicant shall provide copies of the training attendance sheets to City of Carpinteria and County staff as a record of compliance with this measure on a monthly basis. The WEAP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Carpinteria and County prior to Zoning Clearance approval. Implementation of the WEAP training shall occur prior to the start of construction and as new crew members are added to the project.

Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County permit compliance staff will ensure compliance with the WEAP throughout construction by review of attendance sheets and hardhats, inspection of the site, and interviewing workers, as appropriate.

MM-BIO-2 Fencing. To prevent inadvertent impacts on adjacent sensitive vegetation communities including County ESH and City ESHA, native vegetation, special-status species, and common wildlife species and their habitats, construction limits will be fenced with highly visible fencing and staked. Wildlifesafe highly visible construction fencing shall be installed to identify the limits of grading/disturbance, 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-49
which would reduce potential human trampling outside of the construction limits and minimize the potential spread of non-native weeds or invasive plant species. Wildlife-safe construction fencing and flagging shall remain in place during construction and replaced as needed.

Plan Requirements and Timing: The detailed fencing plan, showing the location of required fencing shall be reviewed and approved by City of Carpinteria and County staff prior to Zoning Clearance approval. This condition shall be printed on all project plans. The detailed fencing plan, showing the location of fencing shall be submitted to City of Carpinteria and County staff for review and approval prior to Zoning Clearance approval. The fence shall be installed prior to the start of ground disturbing activities.

Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County staff will inspect the project plans and site, to ensure compliance with this measure as appropriate.

MM-BIO-3 Pre-construction California Legless Lizard Survey and Relocation. Prior to initiation of construction, capture and relocation efforts for California legless lizards shall be conducted. Trapping shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall include the following steps:

Prior to initiation of capture and relocation, a suitable receptor site shall be located. This site shall include areas with loose, moist soils occurring in scrub habitat with high coverage of deerweed (Lotus scoparius) or California goldenbush, in arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) thickets or in other suitable scrub or woodland habitat.

Capture and relocation shall take place no more than five days prior to the initiation of construction.

These surveys shall be performed by lightly raking loose soil, sand and leaf litter with a wooden rake for a sufficient period to determine that no legless lizards are present, or all legless lizards have been captured.

Any lizards found shall be placed in a receptacle with sand and a wet towel and relocated to the previously designated receptor site.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to initiation of construction, capture and relocation efforts for California legless lizards shall be conducted where appropriate. Trapping shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.

Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County staff shall ensure the pre-construction survey and relocation efforts, if required, are completed prior to commencement of any earth-moving activities.

MM-BIO-4 Pre-construction Woodrat Survey and Relocation. Prior to initiation of construction, capture and relocation efforts for woodrat shall be conducted. Trapping shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall include the following steps:

Prior to initiation of capture and relocation, a suitable receptor site shall be located. This site shall be within similar habitat and an adequate distance away from any locations that might be subject to increased human disturbance, such as adjacent to a walking path.

These pre-construction surveys shall be performed searching all coastal sage scrub or coastal bluff scrub within the disturbance area for middens or other sign of the species.

Any middens and woodrats found shall be live-trapped and relocated to the pre-determined receptor site. The midden shall be dismantled and the materials placed at the relocation site. 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-50
Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to initiation of construction, capture and relocation efforts for woodrat shall be conducted where appropriate. Trapping shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.

Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County staff shall ensure the pre-construction survey and relocation efforts, if required, are completed prior to commencement of any earth-moving activities.

MM-BIO-5 Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Prior to issuance of zoning clearance approval of a coastal development permit, the City shall contract with a qualified biologist to develop a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (Plan) to mitigate for impacts to County ESH/City ESHA vegetation communities. The Plan shall outline efforts to restore or enhance coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub communities, and, therefore, preserve or provide wildlife habitat, in areas impacted by construction of the trail but outside the trail-related impervious surfaces and within similar habitats adjacent to the impacted biological resources. The Plan may focus on the following:
• In-kind, on-site restoration of areas where coastal sage scrub or coastal bluff scrub has been removed;
• Enhancement of temporarily impacted areas on site currently occupied by ornamental, disturbed or developed areas;
• Restoration of areas occupied by non-native habitats or native habitats with large components of non-native vegetation, within similar habitats adjacent to the impacted biological resources.

A total of 4.32 acres of impacts are proposed to County ESH/City ESHA native vegetation communities. Under the Plan, impacts to S3/County ESH/City ESHA native vegetation communities (California brittle bush – ashy buckwheat scrub alliance, Encelia californica association and lemonade berry scrub alliance, Rhus integrifolia association) that total 0.59 acres shall be restored in-kind at 4:1. Impacts to S4 and S5/County ESH/City ESHA native vegetation communities (quailbush scrub alliance, Atriplex lentiformis association, California sagebrush – (purple sage) scrub alliance, Artemisia californica association, and coyote brush scrub alliance, Baccharis pilularis association) that total 3.73 acres shall be restored in-kind at 2:1. To the extent feasible, restoration should occur on site and, any additional mitigation required shall be carried out on areas within adjacent land controlled by the County or City, such as the Rincon Bluffs Preserve or Rincon Beach County Park.

A qualified biologist/botanist shall develop the Plan, which shall provide specific measures to restore or enhance habitat to replace the loss of coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub communities. This Plan shall be focused on adaptive management principles, and shall identify detailed enhancement areas and strategies based on the parameters outlined below, with longterm timing and monitoring requirements. The Plan shall:

Provide an up-to-date inventory of on-site native vegetation resources.

Define attainable and measurable goals and objectives to achieve through implementation of the Plan. Goals and objectives shall focus on replacement of coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub and rare plants removed during construction.

Provide site selection and justification. Prior to identifying habitat restoration mitigation areas, both within the project area and adjacent lands, the habitat shall be surveyed for sensitive vegetation communities and special-status plant species, to ensure avoidance of impacts during habitat restoration implementation. Additionally, potential adjacent mitigation 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-51
lands shall be assessed to ensure sites are suitable and appropriate for implementation of habitat restoration for the impacted native vegetation communities.

Detail a restoration work plan including methodologies, restoration schedule, plant materials (seed and container plant) sourcing – locally genetic stock, and implementation strategies.

Provide a detailed maintenance plan to include removal of invasive non-native species.

Define annual and final performance standards. Prior to grading, the project-related native coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub vegetation communities shall be assessed by vegetation community type for percent cover (both basal and vegetative), species diversity, density, and abundance. This project site native vegetation community data shall be used to define performance standards for native habitat restoration by vegetation layers (tree, shrub, grass, and forb) for each vegetation community type and for non-native plant species.

Identify that the restoration areas shall be irrigation-free for at least 3 years and the performance standards have remained stable (no negative trend for richness/ diversity/ abundance/ cover of native species and no positive trend for invasive/non-native cover for each vegetation layer) for at least 3 years.

Provide a monitoring plan to include methods and analysis of results. Also, include goals, success or failure criteria, and an adaptive management plan, contingency actions, and suggestions for failed restoration efforts.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading permit zoning clearance, the City of Carpinteria shall contract with a qualified biologist to develop a Plan. The Plan shall outline efforts to restore or enhance coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub communities in areas impacted by construction of the project.

Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County staff shall ensure development of the Plan and adherence to Plan measures are completed prior to commencement of any earth-moving activities.

Additionally, California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall approve the Plan prior to issuance of zoning clearance ground disturbance. City and County staff shall periodically conduct site inspections to ensure compliance on site. Restored areas shall be monitored for five years following planting. Annual reports and the final report shall be submitted to the City and County.

MM-BIO-6 Weed Management Plan. Prior to issuance of zoning clearance approval of a coastal development permit, the City shall contract with a qualified biologist to develop a Weed Management Plan to be implemented during construction and implementation of the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The Weed Management Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
• Prior to ground disturbance, a City approved qualified biologist shall map invasive weeds within the limits of impacts plus a 100-foot buffer. Invasive weeds shall be defined as California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (Cal-IPC) moderate and high ratings. Invasive species subject to control measures shall be identified. Note that non-native grasses such as bromes and wild oats shall be mapped but are not subject to control measures. Prior to ground disturbance, areas with invasive weeds shall be treated according to control methods below and BMPs for invasive weeds.
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-52
• To prevent the spread of invasive weeds and inhibit germination, the following shall be implemented.
o Maintain vehicle wash and conduct inspections to monitor the types of materials brought on site to minimize the potential for invasive weed introduction o Limit disturbance areas to the permitted disturbance area o Limit ingress and egress to defined routes
o Use certified weed-free products
• Invasive weed control methods shall include legally permitted herbicide, manual, and mechanical methods approved for application. The application of herbicides shall be in compliance with state and federal laws and regulations under the prescription of a pest control advisor, with the City’s concurrence, and shall be implemented by a licensed qualified applicator. All product labels shall be followed. Spot treatments shall be the method of application and broadcast applications shall be avoided. Herbicides shall not be applied during or within 72 hours of a forecasted measurable rain event or during high wind conditions.

Invasive weed debris accumulated during manual and mechanical methods shall be disposed of at an appropriate location off-site. Maintenance shall be timed to remove invasive weeds prior to seed production. The maintenance crew shall coordinate with the City approved biologist to avoid and minimize impacts to plant species and wildlife species. • A City approved qualified biologist shall perform annual monitoring within the limits of disturbance and a 100-foot buffer to map and document invasive weed species. At any time during implementation of the Weed Management Plan, monitoring frequency may increase as needed to provide guidance to maintenance crews.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of zoning clearance a grading permit, the City of Carpinteria shall contract with a qualified biologist to develop a Plan. The Plan shall outline efforts to implement a weed management plan to control invasive weeds. Pre-construction survey results shall be reported and ongoing invasive weed control efforts and annual survey results shall be submitted annually and for the five year duration of the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.

MM-BIO-7 Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys. Within 30 days prior to any vegetation clearing, ground disturbance, or use of noise-generating equipment associated with construction or grading that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native bird species potentially nesting on the site (typically mid-February through August in the project region, or as determined by a qualified biologist), the City shall have weekly surveys conducted by a qualified biologist to determine if active nests of special-status bird species, or of any bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-53
California Fish and Game Code, are present in the disturbance zone or within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the area to be disturbed. The surveys shall occur on a weekly basis, with the last survey being conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of disturbance work. If ground disturbance is delayed, then additional pre-disturbance surveys shall be conducted such that no more than seven days will have elapsed between the survey and ground disturbance activities. The City or contractor shall provide the biologist with plans detailing the extent of proposed ground disturbance prior to the survey effort.

If active nests are found, including any nests for Cooper’s hawk, clearing and use of noise-generating construction equipment within 300 feet of the nest (500 feet for raptors) shall be postponed or halted, at the discretion of the biologist, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits of construction to avoid an active nest shall be established in the field with highly visible construction fencing, and construction personnel shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas. The results of the surveys, including graphics showing the locations of any nests detected, and any avoidance measures recommended, shall be submitted to the City and County within 14 days of completion of the pre-construction surveys to document compliance with applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the protection of native birds.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Pre-construction nesting bird surveys shall be completed within 30 days prior to any vegetation clearing or ground disturbance associated with construction or grading during the bird nesting season (typically mid-February to August). The surveys shall occur on a weekly basis, with the last survey being conducted no more than seven days prior to initiation of disturbance work.

3.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-3 would reduce impacts to California legless lizard to less than significant. Implementation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-4 would reduce impacts to San Diego desert woodrat to less than significant. After implementation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, MM-BIO-5, and MM-BIO-6 impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, including County ESH and City ESHA, would be less than significant. After implementation of MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2, and MM-BIO-7, impacts to nesting birds during the bird nesting season would be less than significant. 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-54
Section 3.5, Geology & Soils

3.5.4 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
The California Department of Conservation provides an index map that identifies all Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones delineated by the California Geological Survey through December 2010 under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. According to the most recent data, the proposed project is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone; however, the project site is to the north of the Pitas Point quadrangle (CGS 2018c). The northwestern corner of the Pitas Point quadrangle encompasses a very small portion of Santa Barbara County, consisting of the Rincon Point neighborhood south of Rincon Point Lane. The fault line within the Pitas Point Quadrangle that is closest to the proposed project runs northwest-southeast, north of La Conchita Beach in Ventura County, approximately two miles southeast from Rincon Beach County Park (Dibblee and Ehrenspeck 1986).

According to the City of Carpinteria’s General Plan Fault Map, the Rincon Creek fault is located to the north of the proposed project and the Carpinteria Fault is located to the south (City of Carpinteria 2003). In the immediate vicinity of the proposed trail and parking lot, the project is located on the up-thrown side on an inferred fault located to the north of US Highway 101 near the connection to Highway 150 (City of Carpinteria 2003). According to the Santa Barbara County’s South Coast Seismic Tectonic Map, the entire south coast portion of the county, including the project site, is rated as having a high seismic potential with a moderate possible variation from the assigned rating (County of Santa Barbara 2011). The Santa Barbara County South Coast Seismic Tectonic Map indicates that the Red Mountain fault is the closest known potentially active fault and traverses the proposed trail near the intersection of the UPRR and the trail alignment. The Red Mountain fault is approximately 39 km (24 miles) long and trends in a generally east-west direction, running parallel to the coastline, near the project area. A maximum credible earthquake of moment magnitude 6.8 has been assigned to this reverse displacement fault (CGS 1996).

The proposed project consists of a shared-use path with pedestrian bridge and other trail improvements. The project would not introduce new buildings that would be subject to structural damage in the unlikely event of strong seismic ground shaking. Moreover, there are no existing buildings within the project area that would pose a risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of potential structural damage caused by earth movement.

However, the pedestrian bridge structure could be damaged by seismic activity if not designed to withstand the potential peak ground acceleration of 0.8 g, as identified in the Bengal geotechnical report (Appendix E).

Previously manipulated and engineered slopes along the trail alignment are proposed to be re-graded to achieve a finished slope face that is more gradual (less steep) than the existing slope faces. Slopes adjacent to US Highway 101 would be reshaped with those above the trail having a slope ratio of 1.25:1, fill slopes (which would be present only adjacent to the bridge over the UPRR) are proposed to have slope ratios between 2:1 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-55
and 4:1. For the portion of the path on the ocean side of the UPRR alignment, the regraded slopes for the trail “bench” would employ cut slopes with a ratio of 1:1 above the trail, while a ratio of 1.25:1 would be employed for the “reinforced” fill slopes below the trail. These slope angles are each shallower than existing conditions, and mid-elevation benches in the slopes and would further decrease the potential for mass soil movement (shallow landslides). It is important to note that all of the earthwork proposed for the project involves manipulation of manufactured slopes (previously modified landforms) and not natural topography. In addition, the project proposes to vegetate all new slope areas to minimize the potential for shallow erosion to occur.

The Carpinteria Valley is subject to geologic hazards related primarily to earthquakes and secondary hazards, such as landslides and liquefaction; the project includes manufactured slopes and a bridge structure that could be damaged by seismic ground shaking. As such, potential impacts relating to adverse effects caused by strong seismic ground shaking, or seismic related ground failure would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure (MM) GEO-1 through MM-GEO-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation. b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Soils within the project site have been classified as Xerorthents, cut and fill areas (USDA 2020). The NRCS Web Soil Survey provides an erosion hazard rating that indicates the hazard of soil loss from off-road and off-trail areas after disturbance activities that expose the soil surface. Xerorthents in the project area have a moderate erosion hazard rating, which indicates that some erosion is likely and that erosion control measures may be needed (USDA 2020). The project does propose to vegetate all new slope area to minimize the potential for soil erosion to occur.

To prepare the site for trail construction, the trail alignment along with adjacent slopes would be graded to meet the proposed finished grade surface and to achieve stable slope profiles above and below the trail. It is anticipated that total cut would be approximately 107,386 96,040 cubic yards and total fill would be approximately 14,860 10,519 cubic yards during the grading phase. Cut material on site would be utilized for the necessary fill material, as feasible. The re-grading of previously manufactured slopes is intended to reduce the angle of the slope face, decreasing historic erosion rates and increasing the long-term stability of the slope faces. The lower angle slopes would not be noticeably different from the existing manufactured slopes but should eliminate or greatly reduce the amount of soil materials moving down the slope areas to be deposited on the trail or areas below the trail.

Erosion potential would be lessened with the proposed engineered slope design. However, soil erosion could be increased unless proper slope construction techniques are employed. Accordingly, soil erosion impacts would be potentially significant. MM-GEO-3 would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation.

Section 3.8 Hydrology & Water Quality

3.8.4 Impact Analysis
c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site?
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-56
iv. impede or redirect flood flows?
The project would moderately alter the existing drainage patterns of the site, via regrading of project slopes and short-term removal of vegetation, as well as through introduction of the impervious trail surface (approximately 1 acre of new impervious surface). Increased stormwater runoff and erosion potential during construction and until new vegetation is established are addressed under MM-WAT-1, MM-WAT-2, and MMWAT-3. Long-term stormwater runoff from the trail surface would be collected by a concrete v-ditch adjacent to the trail, and released through a series of short length storm drains with discharge along the adjacent beach. The provision of project-specific storm drains would accommodate the storm runoff volumes anticipated from the project’s impervious surfaces, and also avoid directing stormwater to existing public storm drain systems in the project vicinity that could lack surplus capacity to accommodate the project.

Release of project storm drainage along the beach would not result in substantial erosion, as the introduction of impervious surface would be minimal compared to the overall project drainage area and the trail drainage will be divided into 6 5 separate outlets to minimize the discharge volume from any of the outlets. Illustration

3.8-1 2.6 (Project Description) illustrates these 6 5 outlets., three exist (blue color) and three would be new (magenta). The Project would remove two heavily degraded storm drains and outlets and construct four new storm drain lines for the segment of trail south of the UPRR alignment.

Illustrations 3.8-2 and 3.8-3 provide plan sheet excerpts of the proposed drainage system outlets, with connection to other drainage conveyance elements.

SOURCE: Bengal Engineering
Illustration 3.8-2 Design Details for Storm Drain Outlets #3 and #5 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-57
SOURCE: Bengal Engineering
Illustration 3.8-3 Design Details for Storm Drain Outlets #6 and #7 The proposed storm drain system includes concrete v-ditch for collection and conveyance of runoff water, drop inlets connecting to vertical drainpipes, and outlets at the beach elevation. The concrete v-ditch components would be durable, and not prone to weathering or failure over time. The vertical drains are proposed to be composed of a 12-inch diameter corrugated metal pipe. The pipe would be buried to cross beneath the trail section and would descend partly down the bluff face. However, in order to allow visual access for inspection of the pipe integrity, the lower portion of the storm drainpipe would be mounted on the surface of the slope/bluff face. The corrugated metal material was selected for weight consideration and as a superior material to PVC for withstanding damage from fire or sun exposure. However, the metal is prone to rust or corrosion, with the potential for collapse or failure over time. Leaks from the vertical drains would contribute to erosion of the bluff face, failure of a vertical storm drain could lead to significant erosion of the bluff face. The storm drains would be installed by the project, MM-WAT-5 requires periodic inspection and maintenance of the storm drains in perpetuity to prevent failure of such facilities. Accordingly, the project's impacts on existing drainage patterns and storm drain systems would be potentially significant. Incorporation of MM-WAT-5 would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation.
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-58
Section 3.9, Land Use and Planning
In response to comments received on May 3, 2021 by the County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development, the following changes have been made to Section 3.9.2, Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances, included in the Draft EIR.

Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan
As indicated above, California State Government Code Section 65300 requires all cities and counties adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan that outlines physical development of the county or city. The County of Santa Barbara refers to theirs as a Comprehensive Plan, to avoid confusion with the City of Santa Barbara General Plan. The comprehensive plan must cover a local jurisdiction's entire planning area so that it can adequately address the broad range of issues associated with the city or county's development.

Ultimately, the comprehensive plan expresses the community's development goals and embodies public policy relative to the distribution of future public and private land uses. The Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan contains the following Elements: Agriculture, Circulation, Coastal Land use Plan, Conservation, Energy, Environmental Resources Management, Hazardous Waste, Housing, Land Use, Noise, Open Space, Scenic Highways, Seismic Safety & Safety. The Coastal Land Use Plan is described in further detail below, including applicable objectives and policies. The remaining elements of the County Comprehensive Plan are described within the EIR sections to which they pertain. The Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan Open Space Element includes the following applicable policies.

Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 7-33: To encourage walking and biking as alternatives to travel by automobile, the County shall strongly encourage development of new pedestrian and/or bicycle-friendly paths along the highway corridor. Improvements to Highway 101 shall not remove existing bikeways or pedestrian paths or preclude the development of proposed bikeways or pedestrian paths that are identified in the County’s Comprehensive Plan, Coastal Land Use Plan and community plans, without providing comparable or better replacement facilities.

Coastal Act Policy 30211. Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use, custom, or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

Coastal Act Policy 30252. The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by: (1) facilitating the provision or extension of transit service; (2) providing commercial facilities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads; (3) providing non-automobile circulation within the development; (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the development with public transportation; (5) assuring the potential for public transit for high-intensity uses such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acquisition and development plans with the provision of on-site recreational facilities to serve the new development.

Coastal Act Policy 30210. In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-59
be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners and natural resource areas from overuse.

Coastal Act Policy 30212.5 Wherever appropriate and feasible, public-facilities, including parking areas or facilities, shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by the public of any single area.

Coastal Act Policy 30213. Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.

Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 7-8: Increased opportunities for beach access shall be provided in the Carpinteria planning area.

Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 3-13: Plans for development shall minimize cut and fill operations. Plans requiring excessive cutting and filling may be denied if it is determined that the development could be carried out with less alteration of the natural terrain.

Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 3-14: All development shall be designed to fit the site topography, soils, geology, hydrology, and any other existing conditions and be oriented so that grading and other site preparation is kept to an absolute minimum. Natural features, landforms, and native vegetation, such as trees, shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Areas of the site which are not suited for development because of known soil, geologic, flood, erosion or other hazards shall remain in open space.

Coastal Act Policy 30240 (b). Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas.

Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4-3: In areas designated as rural on the land use plan maps, the height, scale, and design of structures shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding natural environment, except where technical requirements dictate otherwise. Structures shall be subordinate in appearance to natural landforms; shall be designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape; and shall be sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places.

Circulation Element Policy 5C: The County shall continue to develop programs that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation including, but not limited to, an updated bicycle route plan, park and ride facilities, and transportation demand management ordinances.

3.9.4 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The project site within the City of Carpinteria has a Carpinteria General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation of Visitor-Serving Commercial (2003) and has been zoned for Resort Zone District use. The portion of the project within the County of Santa Barbara is designated as Other Open Land and Recreation and is zoned Transportation Corridor and Recreation (County of Santa Barbara 2010). The proposed trail is an apt use for the 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-60
City’s and County’s vision for the properties within each jurisdiction. The provision of the proposed multi-use trail within the coastal zone would also meet the objectives in Coastal Act Policies to expand low cost recreation opportunities, enhance access to coastal and beach resources, and to support alternative modes of transportation. The proposed multi-use trail would assist in achieving similar objectives in Carpinteria and Santa Barbara County coastal land use policies that strongly encourage development of a trail parallel to the US Highway 101 corridor, provision of alternative transportation facilities, and enhancement of public access to the beach While the proposed trail in some areas would traverse areas designated as environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA), the avoidance of which is generally prioritized in local coastal plan and Coastal Act policies, mitigation measures require the restoration of areas outside the trail to fully offset the removal of native plants to accommodate trail construction (refer to Section 3.3, Biological Resources). The proposed trail would involve substantial earthwork, which is generally discouraged by local coastal land use policies; however the earthwork is focused on the remediation of artificially steep slope areas which are remnants of previous transportation facilities within the Project corridor, and does not involve modification of natural landforms. Mitigation measures require that new slopes follow specifications in the Project geotechnical study to achieve replacement slopes that are stable. With the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in this document to reduce environmental impacts to less than significant levels, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. In addition, no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans apply to the project site. Overall, the proposed project would achieve the goal of enhanced coastal access. In addition, with respect to consideration of parking related to coastal access, construction is not anticipated to reduce parking availability. No parking spaces would be removed by the proposed project. However, absent mitigation, impacts due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures (MM) AES-1; MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6; MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4; MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-3; MM-HAZ-1; MM-WAT-1 through MM-WAT-6; MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-2; MM-TCR-1 would reduce impacts to conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulations to less than significant with mitigation. b) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable impacts to land use and planning? The proposed project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations that have been assigned to the project site parcels. It would also implement a number of policies aimed at increasing public access to the beach as well as providing transportation alternatives for non-vehicle travel. While portions of the proposed trail would traverse designated ESHA, MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-4 would be required to fully offset the project’s reduction in habitat area (refer to Section 3.3). The proposed trail would involve substantial earthwork; however, the earthwork is focused on the remediation of artificially steep slope areas which are remnants of previous transportation facilities within the Project corridor. MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-3 would ensure that all trail elements and replacement slopes are stable. In addition, impacts due to conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect would be potentially significant. Therefore, Mitigation Measures (MM) AES-1; MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6; MM-CR-1 through MM-CR4; MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-3; MM-HAZ-1; MM-WAT-1 through MM-WAT-6; MM-NOI-1 through MM-NOI-2; MMTCR-1 would reduce impacts to conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulations to less than significant with mitigation. Therefore, with implementation of all mitigation included in the EIR, the proposed project would not have a considerable contribution to any cumulative land use or planning impact. 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-61
Section 3.11, Recreation

3.11.4 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? The proposed project includes a shared-use path for walking and biking. The proposed trail would fill in an existing segment of the California Coastal Trail between the Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve, which includes several miles of interconnected coastal bluff open space trails, and Rincon Beach County Park with 1 mile of the trail along the bluff. As the Rincon segment will expand the Carpinteria Coastal Trail System and would connect the City of Carpinteria with Rincon Beach County Park and points east and west along the Pacific Coast Bikeway and California Coastal Trail, it would provide additional recreation and access opportunities along the Santa Barbara County and Ventura County coastline. The proposed trail also would serve to fill in missing segments in the California Missions Trail and the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail. The project would provide a safe, direct and scenic coastal pedestrian and bike trail link to Ventura County paralleling U.S. Highway 101 and would formalize one railroad overcrossing along this segment, providing for safe access to the coast.

Although the air space above the proposed trail is not a public recreational facility for the purposes of the CEQA Guidelines, the proposed trail also is not expected to significantly impair the ability of paragliders and hang-gliders.

Members of the paragliding and hang-gliding community have expressed concern that the proposed regrading of slopes along the trail alignment could adversely impact wind uplift conditions, such that paragliding and hanggliding opportunities in the air space above the property could be eliminated, or substantially reduced.

The portion of the bluff face that would be regraded for the proposed trail was previously altered to create a bench for the UPRR alignment, and this steep manufactured slope is not considered to be stable in the long term with or without the project (the railroad was previously re-aligned away from this slope). Reducing the steepness of the slope face (making it less vertical) is necessary to avoid it collapsing over time and ensuring the longevity of the proposed new trail. Comments from the soaring community indicate a belief the proposed lessening of the bluff face slope angle could reduce or eliminate wind uplift patterns along the re-graded bluff slope area.

In order to evaluate the change in wind uplift patterns above the bluff face from the proposed regrading for the project, Dudek commissioned an Airflow Analysis for the Proposed Regrading of the Rincon Bluffs study (Airflow Study) by an expert in fluid dynamics; the Airflow Study is included as Appendix I of this Environmental Impact Report. Several different approaches were used, based upon published literature including wind tunnel experiments and direct field measurements of the amplification effects of a slope or vertical face on horizontal wind vectors perpendicular to the slope face. In the published literature reviewed for this Airflow Study, certain investigators compared the average slope angle of the entire slope or bluff face to determine the wind amplification effect, while others compared the angle of just the upper portion of the slope. The analysis of the effects of the originally proposed regrading of the bluff face for the project (which previously included a midelevation bench above the trail) concluded that the proposed regrading could reduce the vertical airflow velocity by 10% to 30% relative to current conditions; for altitudes relevant to soaring activities, the reduction is expected to be closer to 30% (Appendix I). Given the updated project design that no longer incorporates a mid-elevation bench above the trail, the Air Flow Study (Appendix I) found that the elimination of the upper bench would result 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-62
in a reduction in the vertical wind speed along the bluff edge by 10% to 20%, rather than the 30% maximum reduction resulting from the originally proposed project. In practical terms, a reduction in vertical wind speeds along the bluffs caused by regrading could maintain conditions favorable for paragliding and hang-gliding activities to occur in the air space over the trail alignment. A vertical wind speed reduction of 10% to 20% would have a lower effect upon soaring opportunities than the 30% reduction associated with the originally proposed project.

As such, the updated project design could result in conditions that allow for soaring more frequently than the originally proposed project. Based on available experimental results, the introduction of an upper bench above the trail is expected to provide a small increase in turbulence (on the order of 5%) at an altitude of 30 feet above the front of the bluffs, becoming negligible by an altitude of approximately 75 feet (Appendix I).

Published records of wind speeds favorable to paragliding and hang-gliding above the bluffs along the trail alignment do not exist. However, the Torrey Pines Gliderport is a dedicated soaring facility adjacent to the ocean bluffs in San Diego County, that exhibit similar characteristics to the bluffs along the Rincon Trail alignment. At Torrey Pines, about 7-15 mph of wind coming from the west (perpendicular to the bluffs) is generally needed for paragliding tandems; hang gliding tandems generally need 10-18 mph, also from the west (Torrey Pines Gliderport 2021). This evidences a wind regime that is successful in supporting soaring operations with an approximately 50% range of wind speeds (lowest viable wind speed representing 50% of the top speed). Consequently, the maximum predicted reduction in vertical wind velocity (30% 20%) caused by the proposed regrading of bluffs along the trail segment south of the UPRR alignment should not eliminate favorable wind uplift patterns above the bluff face for soaring activities. The existing 20% 30% of the upper portion of wind speeds successful for soaring should continue to provide acceptable uplift conditions; thus the proposed trail alignment would not cause paragliders and hang-gliders to use other air space, such that substantial physical deterioration of those facilities would occur or be accelerated. The upper end of the wind speed regime considered acceptable for soaring activities also may be extended somewhat by reduced updraft velocities, which may create additional opportunities for soaring activities during conditions with high wind velocities. In addition, the bluff west of where the proposed trail would cross the UPRR alignment would not be altered in any way by the proposed trail. Therefore, while the proposed regrading of the ocean bluffs will cause some modification of vertical wind velocities supporting soaring activities, it is unknown what the net effect will be on the number of days annually in which the wind conditions within the project alignment are favorable for soaring. Given the uncertainty above and the Airflow Study analysis that the maximum predicted reduction in vertical wind velocity will be 30% 20% given the absence of a mid-elevation bench above the trail, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on recreational resources.

Section 6.0, Alternatives

6.6.2 Maximize Existing Benchwork/Topography Alternative (Alternative 2) Project Alternative 2 Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
The Maximum Existing Benchwork/Topography Alternative, would overall disturb less more area than the proposed project. The project impacts a total of 5.05 acres and this alternative impacts a total of 6.30 acres, resulting in an increase of 1.25 acres. Project temporary impacts total 4.02 acres and this alternative has no temporary impacts identified, resulting in a net decrease of 4.02 acres of temporary impacts. It should be noted that although temporary impacts have not been identified, this alternative will likely result in temporary impacts. Project 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-63
permanent impacts total 1.02 acres and this alternative includes 0.67 acres of permanent impacts resulting in a net decrease of 0.35 acres of permanent impacts. Overall, the net impacts will decrease by 4.37 acres under this alternative since less grading and earthwork is required. More specifically, the project would result in 4.32 acres of impacts to County ESH and City ESHA and this alternative would result in 5.48 acres of impacts to County ESH and City ESHA, resulting in an increase of 1.16 acres of impacts to County ESH and City ESHA. More specifically, the project would result in 3.55 acres of temporary impacts to County ESH and City ESHA and this alternative has no temporary impacts identified, resulting in a net decrease of 3.55 acres of temporary impacts to County ESH and City ESHA. The project will result in 0.76 acres of permanent impacts to County ESH and City ESHA and this alternative includes 0.51 acres of permanent impacts to County ESH and City ESHA, resulting in a net decrease of

0.25 acres of permanent impacts to County ESH and City ESHA. Overall, the net impacts to County ESH and City ESHA would decrease by 3.80 acres under this alternative since less grading and earthwork is required.

Because the vast majority of impacts under the proposed project are occurring within sensitive native vegetation communities identified as County ESH and City ESHA and require mitigation, this alternative would result in fewer more overall impacts. However, mitigation measures associated with County ESH and City ESHAs would still be required. While less more area is proposed to be impacted under this alternative, similar impacts to special-status wildlife species and nesting birds may occur and would require similar mitigation. Therefore, due to the decreased increased overall direct impacts to sensitive native vegetation communities identified as County ESH and City ESHA, impacts to biological resources would be reduced increased under the Maximum Existing Benchwork/Topography Alternative, Alternative 2 and MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6 would continue to be required..

6.6.3 Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative (Alternative 3) Project Alternative 3 Summary
Under the proposed project, to achieve compliance with pathway surface slope limitations under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), the existing benched slope would be regraded along the entire trail alignment. On some portions of the trail (along the segments north of the UPRR alignment), the proposed project also includes creation reconstruction of an existing second earthwork bench on the new slope above the trail to reduce erosion potential.

Several agencies provided comments indicating that earthwork should be reduced as much as possible in order for the Project to achieve compliance with applicable resource protection policies and to minimize environmental impacts. In response, a refined The Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative (Alternative 3) has been developed that would: 1) reduce the paved width of the trail from 16 feet to 14 feet for the segment south of the UPRR crossing; 2) re-align the trail slightly in the segment south of the UPRR crossing to re-use a longer portion of the existing historic bench; and, 3) remove one of the earthwork benches that was originally proposed on the slope above the trail alignment, for a portion of the trail length segment south of the UPRR crossing.

Figure 6-2 (Concept Design 6% Grade) illustrates the alignment of the trail for the segment south of the UPRR crossing under the refined Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative (Alternative 3). In order to capitalize on the existing historic bench, the trail would need to descend slightly more steeply from the UPRR over-crossing bridge, resulting in a trail segment of approximately 690 feet in length with trail surface slope of 6% as compared to the proposed project that employs a 5% grade along this trail segment. It should be noted that 5% is the maximum trail surface slope for a path/trail to be ADA compliant, and consequently the easterly 690 foot portion of the trail southward of the UPRR crossing would not evidently achieve ADA compliance under the refined Alternative 3. The U.S. Access Board (USAB) is responsible for developing accessibility guidelines for the construction and alteration of facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) of 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-64
1968. The guidelines ensure that the facilities are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The Access Board issued the current guidelines in 2004. According to the USAB guidelines, segments of the trail may qualify for an exception to the maximum surface slope, where compliance is not practicable due to terrain. Not practicable may be defined as requiring extensive cuts or fills that are difficult to construct and maintain, cause drainage or erosion impacts, or create other adverse environmental impacts (https://www.accessboard.gov/aba/guides/chapter-10-outdoor/#conditions-for-exceptions-1019). If this exception were to be granted for the 690 foot segment with 6% ground slope, the entire trail could potentially be considered ADA compliant.

The cross sections proposed under Alternative 3 are shown in Illustration 6-1, Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative (Alternative 3) Trail Cross Section, below. Alternative 3 would result in a 7.6% reduction of earthwork, or 10,015 less CY, compared to the project. Regarding the export of earth materials from the site, refined Alternative 3 would reduce exported materials volume by approximately 121 CY (from 85,521 CY to 85,400 CY) compared to the proposed project. Under refined Alternative 3, the proposed alignment would be the same as the proposed project for the segment north of the UPRR corridor. Similar to the proposed project, a bridge would be provided to provide safe crossing for trail users over the UPRR. However, the exact alignment and cross section of the trail south of the UPRR crossing, on the eastern portion of the trail alignment, would be different. More specifically, Alternative 3 would not provide benches above the trail (to control drainage and rockfall); the trail would intersect the existing historic railroad bench at a more westerly point; and, a segment of the trail approximately 690 feet in length would descend at a slightly steeper grade (6%).

Project Alternative 3 Impact Analysis
Air Quality
Alternative 3 would result in 96,077 CY of cut and 10,570 CY of fill, resulting in 85,507 85,400 CY of export. This is lower than the proposed project’s 92,526 85, 521 CY of export and therefore would result in fewer haul trucks during construction. Therefore, criteria air pollutant emissions during construction are expected to be less than the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant during construction. During operation, Alternative 3 would result in emissions from maintenance activities similar to the proposed project. Maintenance activities include landscape watering, vegetation control and other trail amenity care and repair, which would involve the temporary use of a light-duty truck that would generate nominal air pollutant emissions. Operational impacts would be considered less than significant, and similar to that of the proposed project.

Biological Resources
Alternative 3 would disturb approximately the same area as the proposed project. While the volume of sediment removed and grading configuration proposed for this alternative would reduce overall earthwork, it would occur within the same overall grading and development footprint since the location of the trail alignment would be substantially the same as for the proposed project. Additionally, impacts to special-status wildlife species and nesting birds would be similar under this alternative since the impact footprint is approximately the same. The Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources as the proposed project and would require similar mitigation because development would generally occur within the same footprint as the proposed project. Therefore, the Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources and MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-7 would continue to be required to address potentially significant biological resources impacts under Alternative 3. 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-65
Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would disturb approximately the same area as the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3.4, cultural resources are present between the UPRR crossing bridge and U.S. Highway 101. Development under Alternative 2 3 would still result in development of the trail segment north of the UPRR crossing in the identical alignment to the proposed project, same area, and would therefore result in equivalent impacts to these existing cultural resources. In addition, the project could still potentially impact undiscovered cultural resources along the overall trail alignment, including archaeological resources and human remains. MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4 would still be required. Impacts would be similar to the proposed project.

Energy
Alternative 3 would result in 96,077 CY of cut and 10,570 CY of fill, resulting in 85,507 85,400 CY of export. This is lower than the proposed project’s 92,526 85, 521 CY of export and therefore would result in fewer haul trucks during construction. Therefore, energy use during construction is expected to be less than the proposed project.

During operation, Alternative 3 would result in energy use from maintenance activities similar to the proposed project. Maintenance activities include landscape watering, vegetation control and other trail amenity care and repair, which would involve the temporary use of a light-duty truck that would generate nominal energy usage.

Operational impacts would be considered less than significant, and similar to the proposed project.

Geology and Soils
Alternative 3 would result in 110,019 40 less CY of earthwork excavation, compared to the project, and 121 CY less exported earth materials. Under Alternative 3, the proposed alignment would be substantially the same as the proposed project. However, for the cross section of the trail south of the UPRR crossing, on the eastern portion of the trail alignment, Alternative 3 would re-align the trail slightly to re-use a longer portion of the existing historic bench and would employ a trail surface slope of 6% for the easterly 690 feet of the trail not provide benches above the trail. Given the slightly lower volume of earthwork involved, temporary erosion impacts during construction would be slightly reduced with this alternative; however, MM-GEO-3 would continue to be required. The same bridge structure over the UPRR alignment would be employed, and therefore MM-GEO-1 and MM-GEO-2 would continue to be required. Updated geotechnical design details would be needed to address long-term stability of the regraded slopes south of the UPRR alignment, but the project engineers have indicated that feasible methods to achieve such stability are available and could be detailed in an updated geotechnical report if Alternative 3 were to be selected for implementation. It should be noted that MM-GEO-3 mandates preparation of an updated geotechnical investigation to address final trail design, and incorporation of all identified recommendations from the updated geotechnical investigation during implementation of the final selected trail design. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the proposed project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 3 would result in 96,077 CY of cut and 10,570 CY of fill, resulting in 85,507 85,400 CY of export. This is lower than the proposed project’s 92,526 85, 521 CY of export and therefore would result in fewer haul trucks during construction. Therefore, GHG emissions during construction are expected to be less than the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant during construction. During operation, Alternative 3 would result in GHG emissions from maintenance activities similar to the proposed project. Maintenance activities include landscape watering, vegetation control and other trail amenity care and repair, which would involve the temporary 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-66
use of a light-duty truck that would generate nominal air pollutant emissions. Operational impacts would be considered less than significant, and similar to the proposed project.

Hazards and Hazardous Emissions
Alternative 3 would involve an identical trail length to the project, but would reduce earthwork the volume of exported earth materials by approximately 10,019 121 CY. The use of heavy equipment would be slightly reduced in duration, compared to the project, due to the reduced earthwork volume of exported earth materials. The section of the trail north of the UPRR corridor (the western portion) would have the same potential to encounter soils with ADL. Overall, impacts would remain similar or the same as the project relative to the volumes of hazardous materials associated with construction and the risk of release, as well as handling and disposal of ADL containing soils. MMWAT-2 and MM-HAZ-1 would continue to be required, and residual impacts under Alternative 3 would also be less than significant.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 3 would involve an identical trail length to the project and would have substantially similar total earthwork volumes as the project but would reduce earthwork by approximately 10,019. With slightly reduced earthwork volume of excavated and exported earth materials, the potential for erosion during construction would be reduced under Alternative 3, as compared to the proposed project; however, MM-WAT-1, MM-WAT-2, and MMWAT-3 would continue to be required to address potential erosion and other water quality impacts during construction. The trail alignment under Alternative 3 would substantially match the project, and therefore all of the proposed storm drain components would continue to adequately serve the stormwater runoff volumes from the project. As with the proposed project, MM-WAT-4, MM-WAT-5, and MM-WAT-6 would continue to be required to address long-term operational affects upon water quality. Overall, Alternative 3 would marginally reduce hydrology and water quality impacts when compared to the project.

Land Use and Planning
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to land use and planning with incorporation of MMBIO-1 through MM-BIO-4, which prescribe required mitigation measures to satisfy requirements found in City and County policies governing ESHA. As discussed under Biological Resources, above, Alternative 3 would disturb approximately the same area as the proposed project, resulting in similar impacts to ESHA. In addition, the project would result in less than significant impacts to conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect with implementation of MM-AES-1; MM-BIO-1 through MMBIO-7; MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4; MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-3; MM-HAZ-1; MM-WAT-1 through MM-WAT-6; MMNOI-1 through MM-NOI-2; MM-TCR-1. It is anticipated that Alternative 2 3 would require similar mitigation measures to reduce potential land use impacts. Thus, impacts to land use and planning would be similar under this alternative.

Noise
Alternative 3 would involve an identical trail length and substantially similar alignment to the project but would reduce the volume of exported earth material by approximately 121 CY, compared to the proposed project earthwork by approximately 10,019 CY. With reduced earthwork volume, the duration for earthwork activities using heavy equipment would be lessened, and lessening the number of off-site haul truck trips; nonetheless MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2 would continue to be required to reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level.

Noise impacts from Alternative 3 would be similar to the project, but somewhat less due to the reduced earthwork volumes involved, as compared to the project.
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-67
Recreation
Under Alternative 3, a multi-use trail for cyclists and pedestrians identical that is substantially similar to the proposed project would be constructed and operated, and the substantial gap that currently exists in the Coastal Trail system would be filled. Enhancement of local and regional biking and hiking opportunities delivered by the project would also be achieved under Alternative 3, and recreational benefits of the project would be realized. A critical difference would be incorporated, however, in the grading profile for the trail segment along the bluff face adjacent to the ocean; this segment would not be re-graded to create a second bench above the trail bench (unlike the proposed project). The Air Flow Study (Appendix I) found that the elimination of the upper bench would result in a reduction in the vertical wind speed along the bluff edge by 10% to 20%, rather than the 30% maximum reduction resulting from the proposed project. In practical terms, a reduction in vertical wind speeds along the bluffs caused by regrading could maintain conditions favorable for paragliding and hang-gliding activities to occur in the air space over the trail alignment. A vertical wind speed reduction of 10% to 20% would have a lower effect upon soaring opportunities than the 30% reduction associated with the proposed project. As such, Alternative 3 could have lesser impacts on recreation resources and opportunities than the project, specifically in regard to soaring opportunities.

Alternative 3 would continue to meet primary recreational objectives for the project by providing a trail that offers views of the Pacific Ocean, that is ADA compliant, and which achieves a safe connection between Carpinteria and the Rincon Beach County Park that can function as an alternative transportation mechanism. This alternative would therefore have lesser impacts on recreation resources than the proposed project.

In order to capitalize on the existing historic bench that exists in the trail alignment for the portion south of the UPRR alignment, the design for Alternative 3 (refined) descends slightly more steeply from the UPRR over-crossing bridge, resulting in a trail surface slope of 6% as compared to the proposed project that employs a 5% grade along this trail segment (which measures approximately 690 feet in length). It should be noted that 5% is the maximum trail surface slope for a path/trail to be ADA compliant, and consequently the 690 foot portion of the trail southward of the UPRR crossing would not achieve ADA compliance under the refined Alternative 3. A definition of slope percent is useful for understanding this proposed trail surface slope. A 5% trail surface means that the elevation of the trail changes 5 vertical feet for every 100 feet of distance traveled along the trail. By comparison, a 6% trail would have a change in elevation of 6 feet for every 100 feet of travel. From a practical perspective, an increase of 1% slope in the trail surface over the ADA limit should not substantially reduce the usability of the trail segment south of the UPRR crossing. For bicycling, a slope of 4-6% is considered a manageable gradient (The Climbing Cyclist, 2013); the proposed trail slope would remain in this range. For walking or hiking, 5% slopes are comfortable, with a maximum slope of not more than 10% recommended to maintain enjoyment for the widest variety of trail users (Ventura County Trails, 2004). Persons with mobility limitations should be able to access the portion of the proposed Alternative 3 trail from the western terminus to the overlook at the south end of the UPRR crossing bridge, as this segment would achieve compliance with the ADA 5% maximum slope limit. Consequently, the incorporation of a 6% slope for a 690 foot portion of the trail segment south of the UPRR crossing would still support use of the entire project trail alignment by cyclists and pedestrians, while preservation of the trail surface slope at no greater than 5% for the remainder segments would allow access from Rincon Bluffs Preserve to the trail overlook on the south side of the UPRR bridge for visitors that may have mobility limitations. Recreation objectives of the project would therefore be substantially met under Alternative 3.

Furthermore, the U.S. Access Board (USAB) is responsible for developing accessibility guidelines for the construction and alteration of facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) of 1968. The guidelines ensure that the facilities are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The Access Board issued the current guidelines in 2004. According to the USAB guidelines, 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-68
segments of the trail may qualify for an exception to the maximum surface slope, where compliance is not practicable due to terrain. Not practicable may be defined as requiring extensive cuts or fills that are difficult to construct and maintain, cause drainage or erosion impacts, or create other adverse environmental impacts (https://www.access-board.gov/aba/guides/chapter-10-outdoor/#conditions-for-exceptions-1019). If this exception were to be granted for the 690-foot segment with 6% ground slope, the entire trail could potentially be considered ADA compliant. Because of the slightly greater slope percent (690 feet of the trail at 6% instead of 5%), the refined Alternative 3 would have marginally greater impacts on recreation than the project.

Transportation
Under Alternative 3, a multi-use trail for cyclists and pedestrians identical substantially similar to the project would be constructed and operated. In order to capitalize on the existing historic bench that exists in the trail alignment for the portion south of the UPRR alignment, the design for Alternative 3 (refined) descends slightly more steeply from the UPRR over-crossing bridge, resulting in a trail surface slope of 6% for a 690 foot portion as compared to the proposed project that employs a 5% grade along this trail segment; this slight increase in the proposed trail surface slope would not be expected to deter use of the trail by pedestrians or cyclists (refer to Recreation discussion above). Alternative 3 would therefore also close the substantial gap that currently exists in the Coastal Trail system, equivalent to the project. The use of a vehicle by residents in visiting the Rincon Beach County Park would be expected to decline under Alternative 3 as well, due to the existence of a new safe alternative to vehicle travel from points within Carpinteria. Transportation hazards associated with pedestrians crossing the UPRR alignment to navigate to Rincon Beach County Park would be resolved. In this regard, the enhancements of local and regional biking and hiking opportunities delivered by the project would occur under Alternative 3, and a solution to existing pedestrian hazards of the project would also be realized. This alternative would have transportation benefits and impacts equivalent to the project.

Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 3 would involve an identical trail length to the project but would reduce earthwork excavation volumes by approximately 40 CY and exported earth materials volume by approximately 10,019 121 CY. Although Alternative 3 would result in these reduced earthwork volumes, impacts to existing drainage patterns of the site would still occur. Therefore, MM-WAT-1, MM-WAT-2, MM-WAT-3, and MM-WAT-4 would continue to be required. Therefore, impacts to utilities and service systems would be similar under Alternative 3.

Relation to Project Objectives
Given that Alternative 3 would employ substantially the same alignment as the proposed project and would incorporate an identical trail width the same as, or similar to, the project (the Alternative 3 trail would continue to have a paved width of 16 feet for the segments north of the UPRR corridor, but would employ a paved width of 14- feet south of the UPRR corridor). Alternative 3 would also be ADA compliant in the segments north of the UPRR corridor but would marginally exceed the 5% maximum allowable trail surface by 1% for a 690 foot segment of the trail south of the UPRR corridor. This alternative would be equivalent substantially comparable to the project in meeting all the stated project objectives, with the exception of an intent to ensure that the entire trail length would be accessible to individuals that have impaired mobility. It should be noted, according to USAB guidelines, segments of the trail may qualify for an exception to the maximum surface slope, where compliance is not practicable due to terrain. Not practicable may be defined as requiring extensive cuts or fills that are difficult to construct and maintain, cause drainage or erosion impacts, or create other adverse environmental impacts; If this exception were to be 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-69
granted for the 690-foot segment with 6% ground slope, the entire trail could potentially be considered ADA compliant.

The incorporation of a 6% slope for a 690 foot portion of the trail segment south of the UPRR crossing would still support use of the entire project trail alignment by cyclists and pedestrians, while preservation of the trail surface slope at no greater than 5% for the remainder segments would allow access from Rincon Bluffs Preserve to the trail overlook on the south side of the UPRR bridge for visitors that may have mobility limitations. With regard to the project objective of reducing regional greenhouse gas emissions, Alternative 3 would be marginally more successful in meeting this objective, as earthwork exported earth material volumes and therefore haul truck operations would be reduced under this alternative, leading to fewer construction equipment emission contributions to greenhouse gas levels.

6.6.4 Freeway Adjacent Trail Avoiding Bluff Face Alternative (Alternative 4) Project Alternative 4 Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Alternative 4 would overall disturb more area than the proposed project. The proposed project impacts a total of

5.05 acres and this alternative impacts a total of 6.10 acres, resulting in an increase of 1.05 acres. More specifically, the project would result in 4.32 acres of impacts to County ESH and City ESHA and this alternative would result in 5.21 acres of impacts to County ESH and City ESHA, resulting in an increase of 0.89 acres of impacts to County ESH and City ESHA.

Because the vast majority of impacts under the proposed project are occurring within sensitive native vegetation communities identified as County ESH and City ESHA and require mitigation, this alternative would result in more overall impacts and the mitigation measures associated with County ESH and City ESHAs would still be required. While more area is proposed to be impacted under this alternative, similar impacts to special-status wildlife species and nesting birds may occur and would require similar mitigation. Therefore, due to the increased overall direct impacts to sensitive native vegetation communities identified as County ESH and City ESHA, impacts to biological resources would be increased under the Freeway Adjacent Trail Avoiding Bluff Face Alternative, Alternative 4, and MM-BIO-1 through MMBIO-7 would continue to be required to address potentially significant biological resources impacts under Alternative

4. Based on impacts within the biological survey area, this alternative would result in a decrease of impacts to sensitive biological resources. However, since a portion of the trail alignment under this alternative has not been surveyed (vegetation mapping, special-status plant species, wildlife species, and tree assessment) a complete comparison analysis cannot be performed to determine if impacts to sensitive biological resources would be increased or reduced under the Freeway Adjacent Trail Avoiding Bluff Face Alternative. Therefore, additional surveys to detect potential sensitive biological resources would be required, and would include vegetation mapping, special-status plant species surveys, a special-status wildlife species habitat assessment, and a tree assessment. While it is unlikely that additional special-status plant or wildlife species may be present along the new trail alignment, since it is located within similar habitats and along previously disturbed and graded slopes within the proposed project footprint, this alternative may result in greater impacts to sensitive vegetation communities included as County ESH and City ESHA, and qualifying trees. The trail alignment under Alternative 4 is longer as compared to the proposed project resulting in more permanent impacts to undeveloped land, and may require removal of eucalyptus trees 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-70
located at the eastern terminus of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot, which are qualifying trees and require mitigation for removal under Santa Barbara County Article II Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Alternative 4 may require additional mitigation for impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, including County ESH and City ESHA. More specifically, Alternative 4 may result in greater areas of impacts to vegetation communities and therefore require greater mitigation acreages, outlined in a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (see MM-BIO-5). Mitigation for removal of any qualifying trees impacted would also be required under Alternative 4. Similar impacts to specialstatus wildlife species and nesting birds are anticipated and would require similar mitigation.

Cultural Resources
Alternative 4 would result in greater ground disturbance compared to the proposed project, due to the longer length of the trail. It is anticipated that impacts to existing cultural resources would still occur, and that potential impacts to undiscovered cultural resources, including archaeological resources and human remains would be greater due to greater the increased area of development. However, the presence of cultural resources within the area expanding the project footprint southeast, past the Rincon Beach County Park, and terminating at Bates Road, are unknown at this time.

Although the proposed additional ground disturbance for Alternative 4 extends into a previously recorded archaeological site, there is significant evidence that the proposed ground disturbance would occur within previously disturbed soils and imported fill soils. The area unique to Alternative 4 area proposed, or expanding the project footprint southeast, past the Rincon Beach County Park, and terminating at Bates Road, has been subject to significant ground disturbances including massive cut and fill grading and construction of the following: original UPRR railroad, original and widening of Highway 2, Highway 101 road and ramp construction, and the Bates Road overcrossing. Evidence of ground disturbance is documented in as-built plans for Highway 101 and the archaeological site record for CA-SBA-1 and associated field notes.

The full potential presence and extent of cultural resources within the area expanding the project footprint are not fully known at this time since evidence points to any existing native soils being buried by several feet of disturbed and fill soils.

Therefore, development in this area would require additional investigation to appropriately determine the presence of existing cultural resources and potential impacts to these resources. MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 would still be required. Due to the longer length of the trail under Alternative 4, impacts to cultural resources would be slightly greater than the proposed project and additional , but would be appropriately addressed through implementation of MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4. mitigation may be required.

Section 8, References
Section 3.3 Biological Resources
Calflora. 2021. Search for Plants. https://www.calflora.org//. Accessed. June 3, 2021 LSA Associates Inc. 1997. Evaluation Report Carpinteria Bluffs Biological Resources and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. Prepared for: City of Carpinteria. May 29.

Magney, David L. 2020. Checklist of Ventura County Rare Plants. California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program, Locally Rare Project. Updated September 21, 2020. http://www.cnpsci.org/html/PlantInfo/ChecklistofVenturaCountyRarePlants-24thEdition-20200921.pdf 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-71
NatureServe. 2020. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Arlington, Virginia: NatureServe.

Accessed December 2020. https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/Statuses.

USFWS. 2021. Listed Plants. Environmental Conservation Online System. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/adhoc-speciesreport?kingdom=P&status=E&status=T&status=EmE&status=EmT&status=EXPE&status=EXPN&status= SAE&status=SAT&mapstatus=3&fcrithab=on&fstatus=on&fspecrule=on&finvpop=on&fgroup=on&ffamily =on&header=Listed+Plants. Accessed June 3, 2021.

USDOI, BLM. (U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management). 2015. BLM Special Status Plants under the jurisdiction of the California State Office as of May 28, 2015. programs-natural-resourcesnative-plants-california-special-status-plants-concise-list_1.pdf (blm.gov). Accessed June 3, 2021.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2005. Forest Service Sensitive Species that are not listed or proposed under the ESA.

Copy of publicFinal_USFS_SS_list_updates_2005.xls. Accessed June 3, 2021 Section 3.8 Recreation
The Climbing Cyclist. 2013 Gradients and Cycling. http://theclimbingcyclist.com/gradients-and-cycling-anintroduction/. Accessed November 1, 2021.

Ventura County Trails. 2004. Trail Difficulty Rating System. https://www.venturacountytrails.org/TrailMaps/TrailSymbols.htm. Accessed November 1, 2021 3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-72

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

CYS, BP
ORN
RUD

CS-PS, ARC

CS-PS, ARC
CSPS, ARC

PTMG, ML/AD

QS, ATL

QS, ATL
QS,
ATL

QS, ATL

QS, ATL
ECAC
EC-AC
EC-AC
US/SB
US/SB

CBB-ABS,
ENCA
CBBABS,
ENCA

CBB-ABS, ENCA

CBB-ABS,
ENCA
DEV
DEV
DEV
DEV
DH
DH
DH
DH
EUC-THBL, EUC
EUC-THBL, EUC
EUC-THBL, EUC
EUC-THBL, EUC
EUC-THBL, EUC

IPM, CE IPM, CE IPM, CE

LBS, RI

LBS, RI
LBS,
RI

LBS, RI

LBS, RI
Rincon Beach Park
Parking Area and Coastal Access Point

C A R P I N T E R I A A V
150
101
2 50
75 301
1 2
4 10 50 45
100
100 45
70 120
40 40
200
200
45 5
1 1
1 1
2 3
FIGURE 3.3-1
Biological Resources

0 100 200
Feet
Biological Survey
Rincon Beach Park Boundary
Proposed Project Impacts
Permanent Impact Area
California Native Plant Society California Rare
Plant Rank 3 and 4 Plant Species (individuals
count)
Cliff malacothrix (Malacothrix saxatilis var.
saxatilis)
South coast branching phaceliae (Phacelia
ramosissima var. austrolitoralis)
Woolly seabite (Suaeda taxifolia)
Cliff malacothrix (Malacothrix saxatilis var.
saxatilis)
Vegetation Communities and Land Cover
Types (CDFW Code - Alliance, Association)

!

"

#$%

$%&

#
'(%

#

! Encelia california $$

)!

"

#$%

)#

#

! Artemisia california $$

)

&

#$%

#

! Baccharis
pilularis $$

#$%

$%&

#
'(%

#

! Encelia california - Artemisia californica
$$

+
!

#
&#$

"
+ ,

, $

!
#
&#$ (globulus,
camaldulensis) $$

)-!

)
-$

!

#$ (edulis)
$$

.
/

&

#

! Rhus
integrifolia $$

)-
!
-01

)

-&

#.

, $

! Myoporum laetum / Arundo donax $$

2!

2##$%

#

! Atriplex lentiformis
$$

,
/
$
0%

#/

)'$
/
.
)
$
1+

1$# /
+
13

1 ,
/
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-74

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
FIGURE 6.2
Concept Design Alternative 3
Carpinteria Rincon Trail EIR
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-76

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-77
Appendix C1, Plant and Wildlife Species Compendium
ASTERACEAE—SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Artemisia douglasiana—Douglas’ sagewort
BRASSICACEAE—MUSTARD FAMILY
* Sisymbrium altissimum—tall tumblemustard
CRASSULACEAE—STONECROP FAMILY
Dudleya edulis—fingertips
LAMIACEAE—MINT FAMILY
* Salvia mellifera—black sage
RUBIACEAE—MADDER FAMILY
Galium aparine— stickywilly
Appendix C2, Plant and Wildlife Species Not Expected to Occur within the Biological Survey Area
Special-Status Plant Species Not Expected to Occur within the Biological Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Status1 Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur within
the BSA
Arenaria
paludicola
marsh
sandwort
FE/SE/1B.1 Marshes and swamps
(freshwater or
brackish); sandy,
openings/perennial
stoloniferous
herb/May–Aug/10–
560
Not expected to occur.

Suitable marsh or swamp
habitat is not present.

Astragalus
pycnostachyus
var.
lanosissimus
Ventura marsh
milk-vetch
FE/SE/1B.1 Coastal dunes, Coastal
scrub, Marshes and
swamps (edges, coastal
salt or
brackish)/perennial
herb/(June)Aug–
Oct/3–115
Not expected to occur.

While suitable coastal
scrub habitat is present,
this species rarely occurs
on sandy bluffs as
compared to within coastal
salt marsh margins or
coastal dunes (CDFW
2020). There is only one
occurrence in the region2
which is considered
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-78
Special-Status Plant Species Not Expected to Occur within the Biological Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Status1 Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur within
the BSA
possibly extirpated (CDFW
2020).

Calochortus
fimbriatus
late-flowered
mariposa lily
None/None/1B.3 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Riparian
woodland; often
serpentinite/perennial
bulbiferous herb/June–
Aug/902–6,250
Not expected to occur. The
site is outside of the
species’ known elevation
range. Additionally, suitable
habitat is not present.

Calochortus
palmeri var.
palmeri
Palmer's
mariposa lily
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Lower
montane coniferous
forest, Meadows and
seeps; mesic/perennial
bulbiferous herb/Apr–
July/2,325–7,840
Not expected to occur. The
site is outside of the
species’ known elevation
range. Additionally, suitable
habitat is not present.

Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh
bird's-beak
FE/SE/1B.2 Coastal dunes,
Marshes and swamps
(coastal salt)/annual
herb
(hemiparasitic)/May–
Oct(Nov)/0–100
Not expected to occur.

Suitable dune, marsh, or
swamp habitat is not
present.

Delphinium
umbraculorum
umbrella
larkspur
None/None/1B.3 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland/perennial
herb/Apr–June/1,310–
5,245
Not expected to occur. The
site is outside of the
species’ known elevation
range. Additionally, suitable
habitat is not present.

Fritillaria
ojaiensis
Ojai fritillary None/None/1B.2 Broadleafed upland
forest (mesic),
Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Lower
montane coniferous
forest; rocky/perennial
bulbiferous herb/Feb–
May/738–3,270
Not expected to occur. The
site is outside of the
species’ known elevation
range. Additionally, suitable
habitat is not present.

Lasthenia
glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Coulter's
goldfields
None/None/1B.1 Marshes and swamps
(coastal salt), Playas,
Vernal pools/annual
herb/Feb–June/3–
4,000
Not expected to occur.

Suitable vernal pool, playa,
marsh, or swamp habitat is
not present.
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-79
Special-Status Plant Species Not Expected to Occur within the Biological Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Status1 Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur within
the BSA
Layia
heterotricha
pale-yellow
layia
None/None/1B.1 Cismontane woodland,
Coastal scrub, Pinyon
and juniper woodland,
Valley and foothill
grassland; alkaline or
clay/annual herb/Mar–
June/984–5,590
Not expected to occur. The
site is outside of the
species’ known elevation
range. Additionally, only
marginally suitable habitat
is present.

Monardella
hypoleuca ssp.
hypoleuca
white-veined
monardella
None/None/1B.3 Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland/perennial
herb/(Apr)May–
Aug(Sep–Dec)/164–
5,000
Not expected to occur. No
suitable chaparral or
woodland habitat present.

Although this species is
mapped along Rincon
Creek all the way to the
ocean just behind the
project site, it is associated
with the riparian habitat of
the creek which is not
present on site (CDFW
2020).

Nasturtium
gambelii
Gambel's
water cress
FE/ST/1B.1 Marshes and swamps
(freshwater or
brackish)/perennial
rhizomatous herb/Apr–
Oct/16–1,080
Not expected to occur.

Suitable marsh or swamp
habitat is not present.

Navarretia
fossalis
spreading
navarretia
FT/None/1B.1 Chenopod scrub,
Marshes and swamps
(assorted shallow
freshwater), Playas,
Vernal pools/annual
herb/Apr–June/98–
2,145
Not expected to occur.

Although chenopod scrub
habitat is present, vernal
pools are absent within the
project site. This species is
not known to occur within
the region2 (CDFW 2020).

Navarretia
ojaiensis
Ojai navarretia None/None/1B.1 Chaparral (openings),
Coastal scrub
(openings), Valley and
foothill
grassland/annual
herb/May–July/902–
2,030
Not expected to occur. The
site is outside of the
species’ known elevation
range.
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-80
Special-Status Plant Species Not Expected to Occur within the Biological Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Status1 Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur within
the BSA
Navarretia
peninsularis
Baja
navarretia
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral (openings),
Lower montane
coniferous forest,
Meadows and seeps,
Pinyon and juniper
woodland;
mesic/annual
herb/(May)June–
Aug/4,920–7,545
Not expected to occur. The
site is outside of the
species’ known elevation
range. Additionally, suitable
habitat is not present.

Nolina
cismontana
chaparral
nolina
None/None/1B.2 Chaparral, Coastal
scrub; sandstone or
gabbro/perennial
evergreen
shrub/(Mar)May–
July/459–4,180
Not expected to occur. The
site is outside of the
species’ known elevation
range.

Orcuttia
californica
California
Orcutt grass
FE/SE/1B.1 Vernal pools/annual
herb/Apr–Aug/49–
2,165
Not expected to occur.

Suitable vernal pool habitat
is absent within the project
site. Additionally, this
species is not known to
occur within the region2
(CDFW 2020).

Sagittaria
sanfordii
Sanford's
arrowhead
None/None/1B.2 Marshes and swamps
(assorted shallow
freshwater)/perennial
rhizomatous herb
(emergent)/May–
Oct(Nov)/0–2,130
Not expected to occur.

Suitable marsh or swamp
habitat is not present.

Additionally, the only one
occurrence in the region2 is
considered extirpated
(CDFW 2020).

Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom
None/None/2B.2 Chaparral, Coastal
scrub, Lower montane
coniferous forest,
Mojavean desert scrub,
Playas; alkaline,
mesic/perennial
herb/Mar–June/49–
5,015
Low potential to occur.

Suitable coastal scrub
habitat is present, however
mesic habitats such as
springs or marshes are
absent. The only
occurrence in the region2
was last confirmed in 1962
and is located in Oak View
(CDFW 2020). This species
was not detected during
2018, 2019, or 2021
special-status plant species
surveys.
3 - Changes to the Draft EIR
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11032 December 2021 3-81
Special-Status Plant Species Not Expected to Occur within the Biological Survey Area Scientific Name
Common
Name
Regulatory
Status1 Habitat Requirements
Potential to Occur within
the BSA
Streptanthus
campestris
southern
jewelflower
None/None/1B.3 Chaparral, Lower
montane coniferous
forest, Pinyon and
juniper woodland;
rocky/perennial
herb/(Apr)May–
July/2,950–7,545
Not expected to occur. The
site is outside of the
species’ known elevation
range. Additionally, suitable
habitat is not present.

Thelypteris
puberula var.
sonorensis
Sonoran
maiden fern
None/None/2B.2 Meadows and seeps
(seeps and
streams)/perennial
rhizomatous herb/Jan–
Sep/164–2,000
Not expected to occur.

Suitable meadow or seep
habitat is not present.
1 Status Legend:

FE: Federally listed as endangered
SE: State listed as endangered
CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California
CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere CRPR 2A: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but common elsewhere CRPR 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere CRPR 3: Plants about which more information is needed – a review list CRPR 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
.1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly endangered in California (20% to 80% of occurrences threatened) .3 Not very endangered in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known). 2 Region: “Region” refers to species recorded in the USGS 7.5-minute White Ledge Peak quadrangle, as well as the surrounding coastal quadrangles including Carpinteria, Pitas Point, Ventura, and Matilija (CDFW 2020; CNPS 2020).

Attachment C
Exhibit 2: Draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022
DRAFT
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report Prepared for:

City of Carpinteria Community Development Department
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, California 93013
Contact: Nick Bobroff, Principal Planner
Prepared by:
621 Chapala Street
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Contact: Jonathan Leech
MARCH 2021
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled material.

Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 TOC-i
Table of Contents
Section Page No.

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................................................................... ACR-1 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Project Location and Project Site ...................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.2.1 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................. 1-2

1.2.2 Discretionary Actions ............................................................................................................ 1-3

1.3 Areas of Controversy .......................................................................................................................... 1-3

1.4 Issues to Be Resolved by the City Planning Commission ............................................................... 1-3

1.5 Project Alternatives ............................................................................................................................ 1-4

1.5.1 No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) .................................................................. 1-4

1.5.2 Maximize Existing Benchwork/Topography Alternative (Alternative 2).................................. 1-4

1.5.3 Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative (Alternative 3)........................................ 1-4

1.5.4 Freeway Adjacent Trail Avoiding Bluff Face Alternative (Alternative 4) ............................. 1-5 2 INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Environmental Procedures ................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance............................................................... 2-1

2.1.2 Notice of Preparation and Scoping...................................................................................... 2-1

2.1.3 Overview of the EIR Process................................................................................................. 2-2

2.2 Intended Uses of the EIR ................................................................................................................... 2-2

2.3 Organization and Content of the EIR................................................................................................. 2-3

2.3.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.................................................................... 2-3

2.4 Project Background and Purpose...................................................................................................... 2-4

2.4.1 Background........................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.4.2 Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................ 2-5

2.4.3 Objectives.............................................................................................................................. 2-7

2.5 Location .............................................................................................................................................. 2-8

2.6 Surrounding Land Uses and Environmental Setting ........................................................................ 2-8

2.7 Project Description ............................................................................................................................. 2-9

2.7.1 Earthwork ............................................................................................................................2-10

2.7.2 Bridge Detail........................................................................................................................2-12

2.7.3 Drainage..............................................................................................................................2-13

2.7.4 Trail/Path Features.............................................................................................................2-15

2.7.5 Construction........................................................................................................................2-16

2.7.6 Operation.............................................................................................................................2-17

2.7.7 Acquisition of Right-of-Ways...............................................................................................2-17

2.8 Discretionary Actions........................................................................................................................2-18 Table of Contents
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 TOC-ii
3 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................3.1-1

3.1.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................3.1-2

3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................3.1-6

3.1.4 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................3.1-6

3.1.5 Mitigation .........................................................................................................................3.1-10

3.1.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .............................................................................3.1-10

3.2 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................3.2-1

3.2.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances......................................................................3.2-10

3.2.3 Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................................3.2-17

3.2.4 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................3.2-19

3.2.5 Mitigation .........................................................................................................................3.2-26

3.2.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .............................................................................3.2-26

3.3 Biological Resources .......................................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................3.3-1

3.3.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances......................................................................3.3-26

3.3.3 Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................................3.3-31

3.3.4 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................3.3-32

3.3.5 Mitigation .........................................................................................................................3.3-40

3.3.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .............................................................................3.3-44

3.4 Cultural Resources ..........................................................................................................................3.4-1

3.4.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................3.4-1

3.4.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................3.4-8

3.4.3 Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................................3.4-14

3.4.4 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................3.4-14

3.4.5 Mitigation .........................................................................................................................3.4-16

3.4.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .............................................................................3.4-18

3.5 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................3.5-1

3.5.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................3.5-5

3.5.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................3.5-9

3.5.4 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................3.5-10

3.5.5 Mitigation .........................................................................................................................3.5-13

3.5.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .............................................................................3.5-14

3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions............................................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................3.6-1

3.6.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................3.6-8

3.6.3 Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................................3.6-24

3.6.4 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................3.6-26 Table of Contents
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 TOC-iii

3.6.5 Mitigation .........................................................................................................................3.6-29

3.6.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .............................................................................3.6-29

3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................3.7-1

3.7.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................3.7-1

3.7.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................3.7-2

3.7.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................3.7-8

3.7.4 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................3.7-8

3.7.5 Mitigation .........................................................................................................................3.7-10

3.7.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .............................................................................3.7-11

3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality...........................................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................3.8-1

3.8.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................3.8-3

3.8.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................3.8-6

3.8.4 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................3.8-8

3.8.5 Mitigation .........................................................................................................................3.8-14

3.8.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .............................................................................3.8-17

3.9 Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................................3.9-1

3.9.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................3.9-1

3.9.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................3.9-1

3.9.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................3.9-5

3.9.4 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................3.9-5

3.9.5 Mitigation Measures..........................................................................................................3.9-6

3.9.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation ...............................................................................3.9-6

3.10 Noise and Vibration.......................................................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................3.10-1

3.10.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances......................................................................3.10-4

3.10.3 Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................................3.10-7

3.10.4 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................3.10-8

3.10.5 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 3.10-12

3.10.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................................... 3.10-13

3.11 Recreation......................................................................................................................................3.11-1

3.11.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................3.11-1

3.11.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances......................................................................3.11-4

3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................................3.11-7

3.11.4 Impact Analysis ...............................................................................................................3.11-7

3.11.5 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 3.11-10

3.11.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................................... 3.11-10

3.12 Transportation ...............................................................................................................................3.12-1

3.12.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................3.12-1

3.12.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances......................................................................3.12-2

3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................................3.12-4 Table of Contents
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 TOC-iv

3.12.4 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................3.12-6

3.12.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation.........................................................................3.12-8

3.13 Tribal Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................3.13-1

3.13.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................3.13-1

3.13.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances......................................................................3.13-5

3.13.3 Thresholds of Significance ........................................................................................... 3.13-10

3.13.4 Impact Analysis ............................................................................................................. 3.13-11

3.13.5 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 3.13-11

3.13.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .......................................................................... 3.13-12

3.14 Utilities and Services Systems......................................................................................................3.14-1

3.14.1 Existing Conditions...........................................................................................................3.14-1

3.14.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances......................................................................3.14-1

3.14.3 Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................................3.14-6

3.14.4 Impact Analysis .................................................................................................................3.14-7

3.14.5 Mitigation .........................................................................................................................3.14-8

3.14.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation .............................................................................3.14-8 4 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT ................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ...............................................................................................4.1-1

4.1.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................4.1-1

4.1.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................4.1-1

4.1.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................4.1-4

4.1.4 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................4.1-5

4.1.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation...........................................................................4.1-6

4.1.6 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................4.1-6

4.2 Energy ..............................................................................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................4.2-1

4.2.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................4.2-2

4.2.3 Thresholds of Significance ..............................................................................................4.2-11

4.2.4 Impact Analysis ................................................................................................................4.2-11

4.2.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation.........................................................................4.2-16

4.2.6 Conclusion........................................................................................................................4.2-16

4.3 Mineral Resources ..........................................................................................................................4.3-1

4.3.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................4.3-1

4.3.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................4.3-1

4.3.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................4.3-4

4.3.4 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................4.3-4

4.3.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation...........................................................................4.3-5

4.3.6 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................4.3-5

4.4 Population and Housing..................................................................................................................4.4-1

4.4.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................4.4-1 Table of Contents
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 TOC-v

4.4.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................4.4-1

4.4.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................4.4-2

4.4.4 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................4.4-3

4.4.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation...........................................................................4.4-3

4.4.6 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................4.4-3

4.5 Public Services ................................................................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................4.5-1

4.5.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................4.5-2

4.5.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................4.5-6

4.5.4 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................4.5-6

4.5.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation...........................................................................4.5-8

4.5.6 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................4.5-8

4.6 Wildfire .............................................................................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.1 Existing Conditions.............................................................................................................4.6-1

4.6.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances........................................................................4.6-1

4.6.3 Thresholds of Significance ................................................................................................4.6-7

4.6.4 Impact Analysis ..................................................................................................................4.6-7

4.6.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation...........................................................................4.6-8

4.6.6 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................4.6-8 5 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts ................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Growth Inducement Due to Population Growth .................................................................. 5-1

5.1.2 Growth Inducement Due to Economic Growth.................................................................... 5-2

5.1.3 Growth Inducement Due to Additional Housing.................................................................. 5-2

5.1.4 Growth Inducement Due to Removal of Obstacles............................................................. 5-2

5.2 Significant Irreversible Changes........................................................................................................ 5-2

5.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts................................................................................................ 5-3 6 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Project Objectives............................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.3 Significant Impacts............................................................................................................................. 6-2

6.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected............................................................................................... 6-2

6.4.1 Alternative Location.............................................................................................................. 6-2

6.5 Project Alternatives Under Further Consideration ............................................................................... 6-3

6.6 Alternatives Impact Summary............................................................................................................ 6-3

6.6.1 No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) .................................................................. 6-3

6.6.2 Maximize Existing Benchwork/Topography Alternative (Alternative 2).................................. 6-7

6.6.3 Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative (Alternative 3)......................................6-12

6.6.4 Freeway Adjacent Trail Avoiding Bluff Face Alternative (Alternative 4) ...........................6-17

6.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative..............................................................................................6-23 Table of Contents
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 TOC-vi
7 LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................................................... 7-1 8 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................. 8-1 Appendices
A NOP and Comment Letters
B Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations C1 Plant and Wildlife Compendium
C2 Plant and Wildlife Species Not Expected to Occur within the Biological Study Area D Cultural Appendix – CONFIDENTIAL
E Geotechnical Report
F EnviroStor and GeoTracker Database Maps
G Drainage System Feaibility Discsusion
H Noise
I Airflow Analysis
J Transportation Memorandum
K County Connector Trail Proposal – Rincon Park Project Components Study L Tribal Cultural Resources – CONFIDENTIAL
Figures
2-1 Regional Location.................................................................................................................2-19 2-2 Project Vicinity ......................................................................................................................2-21 2-3 Existing Trail Network...........................................................................................................2-23 2-4 Site Plan................................................................................................................................2-25

3.1-1 Existing Conditions of Proposed Trail Alignment .............................................................3.1-11

3.1-2 Visual Simulations .............................................................................................................3.1-13

3.3-1 Example of Figure Slipsheet .............................................................................................3.3-45

4.1-1 Williamson Act Land Contracts in Project Vicinity .............................................................4.1-7 6-1 Proposed Alternatives ..........................................................................................................6-27 Exhibits

3.5-1 Topography of the Northern Trail Portion...........................................................................3.5-1

3.5-2 Topography at the Proposed UPRR Bridge Crossing .........................................................3.5-2

3.5-3 Topography of the Southern Trail Portion ..........................................................................3.5-3

Table of Contents
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 TOC-vii
Illustrations
2-1 Rincon Trail Cross Section - Widths of Components....................................................................................2-10 2-2 Pathway Grading Profile Adjacent to U.S. Highway 101..............................................................................2-11 2-3 Pathway Grading Profile South of UPRR Alignment .....................................................................................2-11 2-4 Representative Steel Framed Bike Path Bridge...........................................................................................2-12 2-5 Approximate Profile and Location for Rincon Trail Bridge...........................................................................2-13 2-6 Major Storm Drainage Components of the Project .....................................................................................2-14

3.8-1 Major Storm Drainage Components of the Project...................................................................................3.8-10

3.8-2 Design Details for Storm Drain Outlets #1 - #33......................................................................................3.8-11

3.8-3 Design Details for Storm Drain Outlets #4 - #63......................................................................................3.8-11 6-1 Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative (Alternative 3) Trail Cross Section.................................6-13 Tables
1-1 Summary of Project Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 1-6

3.2-1 SCCAB Attainment Classification .................................................................................................................3.2-6

3.2-2 Local Ambient Air Quality Data.....................................................................................................................3.2-8

3.2-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards ...................................................................................................................3.2-11

3.2-4 Construction Scenario Assumptions..........................................................................................................3.2-21

3.2-5 Estimated Annual Construction Emissions................................................................................................3.2-22

3.2-6 Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions ...................................................................................3.2-23

3.3-1 Survey Dates, Times, Personnel, and Conditions for Biological Surveys...................................................3.3-3

3.3-2 Summary of Existing Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types .....................................................3.3-7

3.3-3 Special-Status Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur within the Biological Survey Area ................................................................................................................................3.3-15

3.3-4 Special-Status Wildlife Species Observed or with Potential to Occur within the Biological Survey Area ................................................................................................................................3.3-20

3.3-5 Temporary and Permanent Impacts to Sensitive Native Vegetation Communities ................................3.3-34

3.6-1 Six Top GHG Producer Countries and the European Union........................................................................3.6-4

3.6-2 GHG Emissions Sources in California ..........................................................................................................3.6-5

3.6-3 GHG Emissions Sources in the County of Santa Barbara...........................................................................3.6-5

3.6-4 Estimated Annual Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................3.6-26

3.6-5 Estimated Annual Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................3.6-28

3.9-1 Definitions of Acoustical Terminology........................................................................................................3.10-2

3.9-2 Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels.......................................................................................3.10-8

3.9-3 Outdoor Construction Noise Levels by Phase at Nearest Receptors.......................................................3.10-9

3.9-4 Vibration Velocities for Typical Construction Equipment....................................................................... 3.10-11

3.13-1 Assembly Bill 52 Native American Tribal Outreach Results .....................................................................3.13-4

4.2-1 Construction Equipment Diesel Demand ..................................................................................................4.2-12 Table of Contents
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 TOC-viii

4.2-2 Construction Worker Vehicle Gasoline Demand .......................................................................................4.2-13

4.2-3 Construction Vendor Diesel Demand.........................................................................................................4.2-13

4.2-4 Construction Haul Truck Diesel Demand...................................................................................................4.2-14 6-1 Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts Comparison ...........................................................................6-23 Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 ACR-i
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Acronym or Abbreviation Definition
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
AB Assembly Bill
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADL aerially deposited lead
ADT average daily trip
AFY acre-feet per year
amsl above mean sea level
APE area of potential effect
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ARB Architectural Review Board
AST aboveground storage tank
ATCM Airborne Toxic Control Measure
BAR Board of Architectural Review
Basin Plan Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin BMPs Best Management Practices
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalARP California Accidental Release Prevention Program CalEEMOD California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards Code
CalOES Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CAWet California Waste Extraction Test
CBC California Building Code
CCIC Central Coast Information Center
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDB coastal development permit
CDD/P&D Community Development Department/Planning & Development CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFC California Fire Code
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CIDH cast-in-drilled hole
City City of Carpenteria
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 ACR-ii
Acronym or Abbreviation Definition
CGP Construction General Permit
CLUP Coastal Land Use Plan
CNCL California Natural Community List
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL community noise equivalent level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNRA California Natural Resources Agency
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
County County of Santa Barbara
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CRTP Cultural Resource Treatment Plan
CSFPD Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District
CUP conditional use permit
CUPAs Certified Unified Program Agencies
CVWD Carpenteria Valley Water District
CY cubic yards
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel
DOC California Department of Conservation
DOT U.S. Department of Transportation
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DVP development plan permit
ECAP Energy and Climate Action Plan
EERP Enforcement and Emergency Response Program
EIA U.S. Energy Information Administration
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EISA Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
EO Executive Order
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESH environmentally sensitive habitat
ESHA environmentally sensitive habitat area
EV electric vehicle
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulation
FE federally endangered
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FP fully protected
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 ACR-iii
Acronym or Abbreviation Definition
FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FT federally threatened
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
HCFCs hydrochlorofluorocarbons
HERO Human and Ecological Risk Office
HFC hydrofluorocarbons
HHRA Human Health Risk Assessment
Hz Hertz
IEPR Integrated Energy Policy Report
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
kBTU thousand British thermal units
LCP local coastal plan
Ldn average A-weighted noise level
Leq equivalent noise level
Lmax maximum A-weighted sound level
Lmin minimum A-weighted sound level
LOS Level of Service
LUDC Land Use Development Code
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MCV2 Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd edition
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
MLD most likely descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT million metric ton
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
MT metric ton
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OES Office of Emergency Services
O3 ozone
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research
PCRs Post Construction Requirements
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PGA peak ground acceleration
PM2.5 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns Acronyms and Abbreviations
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 ACR-iv
Acronym or Abbreviation Definition
PM10 particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns ppm parts per million
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC California Public Resources Code
Preserve Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve
PSR Project Study Report
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFS Renewable Fuel Standard
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
RMS root mean square
ROC reactive organic compound
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RSLs Residential Screening Levels
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAB State Allocation Board
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SB Senate Bill
SBCAG Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
SBCAPCD Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District SBCCO Santa Barbara County Code of Ordinance
SCCAB South Central Coast Air Basin
SBCOEM Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Management SCE Southern California Edison
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SDL state delisted
SE state endangered
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SLF Sacred Lands File
SLPC short-lived climate pollutants
SLRVA Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment
SLs screening levels
SNA state not applicable
SNR state no rank
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SOx sulfur oxides
SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSC Species of Special Concern
ST state threatened
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminants
TCM Transportation Control Measures
TCR Tribal Cultural Resource
TDM transportation demand management
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 ACR-v
Acronym or Abbreviation Definition
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
UWMP Act Urban Water Management Planning Act
VdB vibration decibel
VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compound
WEAP Workers Environmental Awareness Program
WL Watch List
WQO water quality objectives
ZEV zero emissions vehicle
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 ACR-vi

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-1
1 Executive Summary
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is an informational document intended for the use by the City of Carpinteria (City), other public agencies, and members of the general public in evaluating the potential environmental effects of the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project (project).

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 21002 requires that an EIR identify the significant effects of a project on the environment and provide measures or alternatives that can mitigate or avoid these effects. This Draft EIR evaluates the environmental effects associated with development of the project and discusses the manner in which the project’s significant effects can be reduced or avoided through the implementation of mitigation measures or feasible alternatives to the proposed project. In accordance with Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines, this EIR also includes an examination of the effects of cumulative development.

This summary provides a brief synopsis of (1) the proposed project, (2) results of the environmental analysis contained within this environmental document, (3) alternatives to the proposed project that were considered, and (4) major areas of controversy and issues to be resolved by decision makers. This summary does not contain the extensive background and analysis found throughout the individual chapters within the EIR. Therefore, the reader should review the entire document to fully understand the proposed project and its environmental consequences.

1.1 Project Location and Project Site
The project is located on lands within the jurisdiction of the City and the County of Santa Barbara (Figure 2-1, Project Location). Carpinteria is a quaint seaside town located about 12 miles east of Santa Barbara; the project site is near the intersection of Highway 150 and U.S. Highway 101, at the eastern end of Carpinteria and near the Ventura County line.

The proposed trail would provide a dedicated connection from Carpinteria Avenue to Rincon Beach County Park.

The trail would begin near the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue, and would proceed eastward along the existing benched slope adjacent to U.S. Highway 101. However, to achieve compliance with pathway surface slope limitations under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), the existing benched slope would be regraded. The trail would then cross the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) alignment on a proposed new bridge. South of the UPRR alignment, the trail would be aligned along another existing benched slope/bluff face adjacent to the Pacific Ocean; again, to achieve compliance with ADA standards, the existing benched slope would be regraded. Figure 2-2 illustrates the overall alignment of the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail. The trail would terminate at the western terminus of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot.

U.S. Highway 101 is located to the north of the proposed trail alignment, the Pacific Ocean is located to the south below the Carpinteria bluffs; the UPRR rail corridor bisects the central portion of the trail alignment. Currently undeveloped bluff open space designated for visitor-serving commercial use (City of Carpinteria 2003) is located adjacent to the western end of the trail on Carpinteria Avenue, with the Rincon Beach County Park and Rincon Point residential community located adjacent the eastern terminus of the trail. Surrounding land uses are shown in Figure 2-2. Figure 2-2 also illustrates jurisdictional boundaries for the City of Carpinteria, County of Santa Barbara, Ventura County, and Caltrans right-of-way relative to the trail alignment.

The majority of the proposed trail route is located on old terraced road and rail cuts. Most of the area’s natural landforms have been mechanically manipulated over the years as a result of road, highway and railroad construction activities dating back to at least the late 1800s. A small unsanctioned trail exists in some areas of the proposed trail, including the portion of the proposed trail from the railroad crossing to the Rincon Beach County 1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-2
Park parking lot. At both ends of the trail are pre-existing parking areas; Rincon Beach County Park has a paved lot and at Carpinteria Avenue there is an existing dirt lot, which would continue to provide informal parking for the proposed project. On-street parking near the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue is also present and can serve the proposed project. The southerly shoulder of Carpinteria Avenue from SR 150 to the terminus is approximately 600 feet in length, which could accommodate approximately 24 passenger cars or light trucks.

1.2 Project Description
The proposed project consists of a 16-foot-wide (10-foot-wide path with a 3-foot-wide paved shoulder along both sides) and approximately 2,800-foot-long shared-use trail that would provide safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling from Carpinteria Avenue in the City of Carpinteria to Rincon Beach County Park in Santa Barbara County at the Ventura County line. A bridge is also proposed over the UPRR alignment to accommodate the trail. Figure 2-4 illustrates the proposed trail alignment.

The initial approximately 850 feet of the trail alignment (starting from the eastern Carpinteria Avenue terminus and heading east) is within the City of Carpinteria jurisdiction. The remaining approximately 1,950 feet of the trail alignment, including the bridge crossing over the railroad corridor, is located within the County of Santa Barbara jurisdiction.

A safety fence would also be proposed to prevent users from encountering the slope below the trail. The proposed fencing would be approximately 3.5 feet in height, and consisting either of three-rail post and rail with a concrete base, chain link or other design of similar dimensions consistent with trail fencing in the community. A 6-foot-wide swale would also be provided along the path where cut slopes are present to capture and convey stormwater.

1.2.1 Project Objectives
The proposed trail was identified by the City to meet critical safety and public access needs. Objectives of the proposed project include:
• Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety, as well as vehicular safety, by significantly reducing unsafe and/or illegal use of the railway corridor and the U.S. Highway 101 shoulder. • Enhance regional mobility for cyclists and pedestrians, while enhancing support of regional initiatives to promote alternative transportation modes between Carpinteria, Santa Barbara County and Ventura County, by providing a continuous bike and pedestrian path connecting Santa Barbara County to Ventura County. • Reduce air pollution from vehicle-related air quality emissions and traffic congestion on local and regional transportation systems by promoting pedestrian and bicycle access to coastal resources and recreation opportunities via a scenic multi-use trail, as an alternative to use of motorized vehicles to access and experience such coastal resources.
• Improve the local coastal bluff environment through improved water quality of surface water run-off through stabilization of bluff slope faces that are currently eroding into the Pacific Ocean, and enhancement of sensitive coastal bluff scrub habitats in the project area. Also, avoid deposits of petroleum fuels or lubricants associated with typical motor vehicle use for transportation in close proximity to the ocean, preventing such pollutants from stormwater run-off entering the adjacent marine environment. • Complete a critical missing link in the California Coastal Trail consistent with the goals of Senate Bill 908, including provision of a continuous trail as close to the ocean as possible, with connections to the shoreline at appropriate intervals and sufficient access to encourage public use. The California Coastal Trail is intended to offer scenic coastal vistas, wildlife viewing areas, recreational or interpretive facilities, and 1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-3
other points of interest, and is recognized in regions throughout the state as a key resource or opportunity for these coastal-oriented experiences.
• Provide a coastal-oriented pathway that supports the broadest use by the public through a design that complies with standards established via the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). • Provide new scenic coastal access and coastal tourism opportunities in the City of Carpinteria, Santa Barbara County, and Ventura County.

1.2.2 Discretionary Actions
A discretionary action is an action taken by an agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve or how to carry out a project. The proposed project would require consideration of the following discretionary actions by the City and by the County:
• City of Carpinteria: A conditional use permit (CUP) and coastal development permit (CDP) for the portion of the trail within the City of Carpinteria.
• County of Santa Barbara: A development plan permit (DVP), CUP and CDP for the portion of the trail within the County of Santa Barbara.

1.3 Areas of Controversy
Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) dated October 30, 2020, to begin a 30-day public scoping period, to interested agencies, organizations, and individual parties.

The NOP was also sent to the State Clearinghouse at the California Office of Planning and Research. The State Clearinghouse assigned a state identification number (SCH No. 2020100582) to this EIR.

The NOP is intended to encourage interagency communication regarding the proposed action so that agencies, organizations, and individuals are afforded an opportunity to respond with specific comments and/or questions regarding the scope and content of the EIR. A public scoping meeting was held on November 17, 2020, to gather additional public input.

Comments received during the NOP public scoping period were considered during the preparation of this EIR. The NOP and comments are included in Appendix A to this EIR. In response to the NOP and public scoping meeting, 76 comment letters were received. Comments covered a variety of topics, including aesthetics, biology, cultural resources, geology, hydrology/water quality, land use/policy, noise, public services, recreation, and transportation.

1.4 Issues to Be Resolved by the City
Planning Commission
The issues to be resolved by the decision-making body are whether to approve the proposed project and whether the potential significant impacts of the project with respect to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, and tribal cultural resources have been fully mitigated below a level of significance, or if additional measures are required. Lastly, the City would determine whether any alternative might meet the key objectives of the project while reducing its environmental impact.
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-4

1.5 Project Alternatives
Pursuant to the CEQA, Guidelines, EIRs are required to “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives” (14 CCR 15126.6[a]). This EIR “must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation” (14 CCR 15126.6[a]). The consideration of alternatives is required even if the alternatives “would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly” (14 CCR 15126.6[b]).

1.5.1 No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1)
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 requires the inclusion of a No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) to be analyzed. Under Alternative 1, no development would occur on the project site. Accordingly, the site characteristics of this alternative would be equivalent to the existing conditions for each category analyzed in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR.

1.5.2 Maximize Existing Benchwork/Topography Alternative (Alternative 2)
The Maximize Existing Benchwork/Topography Alternative (Alternative 2) would involve development of the originally proposed trail, as described and analyzed in the 2015 Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). Per the 2015 MND, development under Alternative 2 would consist of a 12-foot wide and approximately 4,000-foot-long pedestrian and bicycle shared use trail, that would also extend from the eastern end of Carpinteria Avenue, in the City of Carpinteria (City), to the Rincon Beach County Park in Santa Barbara County (see Figure 6-1, Proposed Alternatives), but following a different alignment than the proposed project. The trail alignment under Alternative 2 was configured to largely follow existing topographic benches that were originally created (and since abandoned) for previous railroad and highway alignments within the project site. Using the existing benches for the alignment was assumed to minimize the need for topographic modification and earthwork volumes. Under Alternative 2, the northern portion of the trail, from the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) corridor, which crosses the middle of the site, traverses an engineered slope, cut during construction of the U.S.

Highway 101. The trail proposed under Alternative 2 would cross the UPRR tracks in an area that consists of engineered slopes cut during construction of the UPRR. On the southern side of the UPRR alignment, new grading not associated with an existing bench was proposed, accompanied by extensive retaining walls, to connect the trail to an existing informal trail on an existing cut bench extending westward from Rincon Beach County Park that was abandoned by the UPRR in the late 1960s. The Alternative 2 trail route would be relatively flat in this area.

1.5.3 Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative (Alternative 3) Under the proposed project, to achieve compliance with pathway surface slope limitations under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), the existing benched slope would be regraded along the entire trail alignment. On some portions of the trail, the proposed project also includes creation of a second earthwork bench on the new slope above the trail to reduce erosion potential. The Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative (Alternative 3) would remove one of the earthwork benches that was originally proposed on the slope above the trail alignment, for a 1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-5
portion of the trail length. The cross sections proposed under Alternative 3 are shown in Illustration 6-1, Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative (Alternative 3) Trail Cross Section. Alternative 3 would result in 15,000 less cubic yards of earthwork, compared to the proposed project. Under Alternative 3, the proposed alignment would be the same as the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, a bridge would be provided to provide safe crossing for trail users over the UPRR. However, the cross section of the trail south of the UPRR crossing, on the eastern portion of the trail alignment, would be different. More specifically, Alternative 3 would not provide benches above the trail (to control drainage and rockfall).

1.5.4 Freeway Adjacent Trail Avoiding Bluff Face Alternative (Alternative 4)
Under the Freeway Adjacent Trail Avoiding Bluff Face Alternative (Alternative 4), the proposed trail alignment would be the same as the proposed project in the area north of UPRR and within the UPRR crossing. However, south of the UPRR crossing, the proposed alignment would be shifted to the north to remain on the north side of the ridge, and adjacent to the U.S. Highway 101 corridor, compared to the proposed project which locates this segment on the slopes on the south side of the same ridge, and facing the Pacific Ocean. Further, the trail proposed under Alternative 4 would extend further to the southeast, past the Rincon Beach County Park, and terminate at Bates Road (see Figure 6-1). The proposed UPRR crossing would not change under Alternative 4 compared to the proposed project. Under Alternative 4, most of the storm water down drains proposed along the southern side of the UPRR trail crossing (see Illustration 2-6, Major Storm Drainage Components of the Project, in Chapter 2, Introduction & Project Description), would not be constructed. 1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-6
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Aesthetics
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Potentially
Significant
MM-AES-1: Board of Architectural Review. The
Owner/Applicant shall obtain City Architectural
Review Board (ARB) and County Board of Architectural
Review (BAR) approval for project design. All project
elements (e.g., design, scale, character, colors,
materials, and landscaping shall be compatible with
vicinity development and shall conform in all
respects to ARB/BAR approval. Plan Requirements
and Timing: The Owner/Applicant shall submit
architectural drawings of the project including photo
renditions from the beach of the storm drains
proposed along the bluff face for review and shall
obtain final City ARB and County BAR approval prior
to issuance of the Development Plan, Conditional
Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit.

Grading plans, if required, shall be submitted to the
City’s Planning Department concurrent with or prior
to ARB/BAR plan filing with the Carpinteria
Community Development Department or County
Planning and Development. Monitoring: The
Owner/Applicant shall demonstrate to Community
Development Department staff and Planning &
Development Department compliance monitoring
staff that the project has been built consistent with
approved ARB/BAR design and landscape plans
prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance.

Less than Significant
Would the project substantially damage
scenic resources including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
Potentially
Significant
MM-AES-1 (see above) Less than Significant
In non-urbanized areas, would the project
substantially degrade the existing visual
Potentially
Significant
MM-AES-1 (see above) Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-7
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
character or quality of public views of the
site and its surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from a publicly
accessible vantage point). If the project is in
an urbanized area, would the project conflict
with applicable zoning and other regulations
governing scenic quality?
Would the project create a new source of
substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project have a cumulative effect
on aesthetic resources?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Would the project convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production (as
defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
No Impact None required No Impact
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-8
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Would the project result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest land to nonforest use?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project involve other changes in
the existing environment which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion
of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project have a cumulative effect
on agriculture and forestry resources?
No Impact None required No Impact
Air Quality
Would the project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air quality
plan?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project result in other emissions
(such as those leading to odors) adversely
affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project have a cumulative effect
on air quality resources?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Biological Resources
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
Potentially
Significant
MM-BIO-1: Workers Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP). The City shall fund an approved
biologist to prepare and implement a worker
education and awareness program (WEAP) specific
Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-9
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
to the project. The program shall be presented to all
individuals involved in the construction of the
project. The program shall include information
focused on sensitive vegetation communities,
sensitive wildlife and plant species, and common
wildlife species and their habitats and shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
• Description of sensitive vegetation communities.
• Workers shall be provided with photographs of
sensitive biological resources including sensitive
wildlife and plant species.
• Workers shall be informed verbally and in writing
of the various project tasks that require biological
surveys and monitoring for resource protection.
• Workers shall be provided with a photograph or
description of the markers for active bird nests,
trees, or other mitigation areas, so that they shall
know these are not to be disturbed without a
biological monitor present.
• Workers shall be informed not to litter. All trash
and litter shall be picked up and removed from the
construction sites at the end of each day.
• Workers shall be informed to obey a speed limit of
15 miles per hour while traveling on the project
site to avoid collisions with wildlife.
• Workers shall avoid driving over or otherwise
disturbing areas outside the designated
construction areas.

Plan Requirements and Timing: The applicant shall
submit the WEAP to the City of Carpinteria (City) and
County of Santa Barbara (County) for review and
approval prior to implementation. All workers,
contractors, and visitors shall attend the WEAP prior
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-10
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
to entering the project site and performing any work.

The applicant shall provide copies of the training
attendance sheets to City of Carpinteria and County
staff as a record of compliance with this measure on
a monthly basis. The WEAP shall be reviewed and
approved by the City of Carpinteria and County prior
to Zoning Clearance approval. Implementation of the
WEAP training shall occur prior to the start of
construction and as new crew members are added
to the project.

Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County
permit compliance staff will ensure compliance with
the WEAP throughout construction by review of
attendance sheets and hardhats, inspection of the
site, and interviewing workers, as appropriate.

MM-BIO-2: Fencing. To prevent inadvertent impacts
on adjacent sensitive vegetation communities
including County ESH and City ESHA, native
vegetation, special-status species, and common
wildlife species and their habitats, construction
limits will be fenced with highly visible fencing and
staked. Wildlife-safe highly visible construction
fencing shall be installed to identify the limits of
grading/disturbance, which would reduce potential
human trampling outside of the construction limits
and minimize the potential spread of non-native
weeds or invasive plant species. Wildlife-safe
construction fencing and flagging shall remain in
place during construction and replaced as needed.

Plan Requirements and Timing: The detailed fencing
plan, showing the location of required fencing shall
be reviewed and approved by City of Carpinteria and
County staff prior to Zoning Clearance approval. This
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-11
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
condition shall be printed on all project plans. The
detailed fencing plan, showing the location of
fencing shall be submitted to City of Carpinteria and
County staff for review and approval prior to Zoning
Clearance approval. The fence shall be installed
prior to the start of ground disturbing activities.

Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County staff
will inspect the project plans and site, to ensure
compliance with this measure as appropriate.

MM-BIO-3: Pre-construction California Legless Lizard
Survey and Relocation. Prior to initiation of
construction, capture and relocation efforts for
California legless lizards shall be conducted.

Trapping shall be conducted by a qualified biologist
and shall include the following steps:

1. Prior to initiation of capture and relocation, a
suitable receptor site shall be located. This site
shall include areas with loose, moist soils
occurring in scrub habitat with high coverage of
deerweed (Lotus scoparius) or California
goldenbush, in arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis)
thickets or in other suitable scrub or woodland
habitat.

2. Capture and relocation shall take place no more
than five days prior to the initiation of
construction.

3. These surveys shall be performed by lightly
raking loose soil, sand and leaf litter with a
wooden rake for a sufficient period to determine
that no legless lizards are present, or all legless
lizards have been captured.
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-12
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

4. Any lizards found shall be placed in a receptacle
with sand and a wet towel and relocated to the
previously designated receptor site.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to initiation of
construction, capture and relocation efforts for
California legless lizards shall be conducted where
appropriate. Trapping shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist.

Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County staff
shall ensure the pre-construction survey and
relocation efforts, if required, are completed prior to commencement of any earth-moving activities.

MM-BIO-4: Pre-construction Woodrat Survey and
Relocation. Prior to initiation of construction, capture and relocation efforts for woodrat shall be
conducted. Trapping shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist and shall include the following
steps:

1. Prior to initiation of capture and relocation, a
suitable receptor site shall be located. This site
shall be within similar habitat and an adequate
distance away from any locations that might be
subject to increased human disturbance, such
as adjacent to a walking path.

2. These pre-construction surveys shall be
performed searching all coastal sage scrub or
coastal bluff scrub within the disturbance area
for middens or other sign of the species.

3. Any middens and woodrats found shall be livetrapped and relocated to the pre-determined receptor site. The midden shall be dismantled
and the materials placed at the relocation site.
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-13
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to initiation of
construction, capture and relocation efforts for
woodrat shall be conducted where appropriate.

Trapping shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.

Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County staff
shall ensure the pre-construction survey and
relocation efforts, if required, are completed prior to commencement of any earth-moving activities.

Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified
in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Potentially
Significant
MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-3 (see above)
MM-BIO-5: Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.

Prior to approval of a coastal development permit,
the City shall contract with a qualified biologist to
develop a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring
Reporting Plan (Plan) to mitigate for impacts to
County ESH/City ESHA vegetation communities. The
Plan shall outline efforts to restore or enhance
coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub
communities, and, therefore, preserve or provide
wildlife habitat, in areas temporarily impacted by
construction of the trail and within similar habitats
adjacent to the impacted biological resources. The
Plan may focus on the following:
• In-kind, on-site restoration of areas where coastal
sage scrub or coastal bluff scrub has been
removed;
• Enhancement of temporarily impacted areas on
site currently occupied by ornamental, disturbed
or developed areas;
• Restoration of areas occupied by non-native
habitats or native habitats with large components
of non-native vegetation, within similar habitats
adjacent to the impacted biological resources.

Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-14
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Under the Plan, a total of 3.55 acres of County
ESH/City ESHA native vegetation communities
temporarily impacted by vegetation clearance shall
be restored on site in kind at 1:1. A total of 0.76
acres of County ESH/City ESHA native vegetation
communities permanently impacted shall be
mitigated on site in kind at 3:1. As mitigation
potential within the project area may be insufficient
for mitigating 0.76 acres of permanent impacts to
County ESH/City ESHA native vegetation
communities at 3:1, any additional mitigation
required shall be carried out on areas within
adjacent land controlled by the City or County,. Offsite mitigation for permanent impacts shall be implemented in-kind at 3:1.

A qualified biologist/botanist shall develop the Plan,
which shall provide specific measures to restore or
enhance habitat to replace the loss of coastal sage
scrub and coastal bluff scrub communities. This
Plan shall be focused on adaptive management
principles, and shall identify detailed enhancement
areas and strategies based on the parameters
outlined below, with long-term timing and monitoring
requirements. The Plan shall:

1. Provide an up-to-date inventory of on-site native
vegetation resources.

2. Define attainable and measurable goals and
objectives to achieve through implementation of
the Plan. Goals and objections shall focus on
replacement of coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff
scrub and rare plants removed during
construction.

3. Provide site selection and justification.
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-15
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

4. Detail a restoration work plan including
methodologies, restoration schedule, plant
materials (seed and container plant) sourcing –
locally genetic stock, and implementation
strategies.

5. Provide a detailed maintenance plan to include
removal of invasive non-native species.

6. Define performance standards.

7. Provide a monitoring plan to include methods
and analysis of results. Also, include goal
success or failure criteria, and an adaptive
management plan and suggestions for failed
restoration efforts.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of
a grading permit, the City of Carpinteria shall
contract with a qualified biologist to develop a Plan.

The Plan shall outline efforts to restore or enhance
coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub
communities in areas temporarily and permanently
impacted by construction of the project.

Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County staff
shall ensure development of the Plan and
adherence to Plan measures are completed prior to
commencement of any earth-moving activities. City
and County staff shall periodically conduct site
inspections to ensure compliance on site. Restored
areas shall be monitored for five years following
planting. Annual reports and the final report shall be
submitted to the City and County.
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-16
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project interfere substantially with
the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Potentially
Significant
MM-BIO-1, and MM-BIO-2 (see above)
MM-BIO-6: Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys.

Within 30 days prior to any vegetation clearing or
ground disturbance associated with construction or
grading that would occur during the
nesting/breeding season of native bird species
potentially nesting on the site (typically mid-February through August in the project region, or as
determined by a qualified biologist), the City shall
have weekly surveys conducted by a qualified
biologist to determine if active nests of specialstatus bird species, or of any bird species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the California Fish and Game Code, are present in the disturbance
zone or within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the
area to be disturbed. The surveys shall occur on a
weekly basis, with the last survey being conducted
no more than seven days prior to initiation of
disturbance work. If ground disturbance is delayed,
then additional pre-disturbance surveys shall be
conducted such that no more than seven days will
have elapsed between the survey and ground
disturbance activities. The City or contractor shall
provide the biologist with plans detailing the extent
of proposed ground disturbance prior to the survey
effort.

Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-17
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
If active nests are found, including any nests for
Cooper’s hawk, clearing and construction within 300
feet of the nest (500 feet for raptors) shall be
postponed or halted, at the discretion of the
biologist, until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged, as determined by the biologist, and there is
no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. Limits
of construction to avoid an active nest shall be
established in the field with highly visible
construction fencing, and construction personnel
shall be instructed on the sensitivity of nest areas.

The results of the surveys, including graphics
showing the locations of any nests detected, and
any avoidance measures recommended, shall be
submitted to the City and County within 14 days of
completion of the pre-construction surveys to
document compliance with applicable state and
federal laws pertaining to the protection of native
birds.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Pre-construction
nesting bird surveys shall be completed within 30
days prior to any vegetation clearing or ground
disturbance associated with construction or grading
during the bird nesting season (typically midFebruary to August). The surveys shall occur on a weekly basis, with the last survey being conducted
no more than seven days prior to initiation of
disturbance work.

Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County staff
shall ensure the pre-construction nesting bird
surveys and any avoidance requirements are
completed prior to commencement of any earthmoving activities. 1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-18
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Would the project conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy
or ordinance?
Potentially
Significant
MM-BIO-1, MM-BIO-2 and MM-BIO-5 (see above) Less than Significant Would the project conflict with the provisions
of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project have a cumulative effect
on biological resources?
Potentially
Significant
MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6 (see above) Less than Significant Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
Potentially
Significant
MM-CR-1: Cultural Resource Treatment and
Inadvertent Discovery Plan. Potential impacts to
cultural resources shall be minimized through
development of protocols for practical adherence of
mitigation measures CR-2 and CR-3 prior to and
after ground disturbing construction activities
associated with the proposed project. These
protocols shall be outlined in a Cultural Resource
Treatment Plan (CRTP). The CRTP shall be developed
by a City-qualified archaeologist, meeting the
Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
standards, prior to the implementation of ground
disturbing activities and include wording of each
mitigation measure CR-2-4, specific and detailed
explanation for implementation of each mitigation
measure and contact protocol. The CRTP shall be
provided to all agency personnel, consulting tribes,
Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-19
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
contractors and archaeological personnel. The
existence and necessity for adherence to the CRTP
shall be noted on plans, handbooks, or the like
associated with tasks that may incur ground
disturbance either intentionally or inadvertently.

Monitoring: City of Carpinteria/County of Santa
Barbara staff shall review and authorize the CRTP
prior to the commencement of ground disturbance
activities to ensure that the CRTP adheres to the
criteria established in CR-1.

MM-CR-2: Workers Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP) Training. All personnel participating
in tasks that may incur ground disturbance either
intentionally or inadvertently shall be briefed
regarding unanticipated discoveries prior to the start
of said activities. A basic presentation shall be
prepared by a City-qualified archaeologist, meeting
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards to inform all personnel
working on the project about the archaeological
sensitivity of proposed project areas. The purpose of
the WEAP training is to provide specific details on
the kinds of archaeological materials that may be
identified during project activities and explain the
importance of and legal basis for the protection of
cultural resources. Each personnel shall also be
instructed on the proper procedures to follow in the
event that cultural resources or human remains are
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-20
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
encountered. These procedures include work
curtailment or redirection, and the immediate
contact of the site supervisor, qualified
archaeologist and if human remains are
encountered, the County coroner.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of
a grading permit, the City of Carpinteria/County of
Santa Barbara shall contract with a Countyqualified/City-approved archaeologist to develop and conduct the required WEAP Training in
accordance with the above criteria. Monitoring: City
of Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara staff shall
ensure the required WEAP training has been
conducted by attending the WEAP Training and
documenting attendance of required personnel by
means of a sign in sheet completed by all attendees
of the WEAP Training.

MM-CR-3: Initial ground disturbing activities shall be
monitored by a County-qualified/City-approved
archaeologist in accordance with the following
specifications:

Temporary Impact Areas (equipment staging and
materials storage outside trail alignment) - a Countyqualified/City-approved archaeologist shall monitor transport and placement activities until such time
that it is reasonable to ascertain that no additional
prehistoric archaeological/cultural resources are
located within areas of temporary disturbance of the
proposed project site.

Permanent Impact Areas not including bridge piling
installation (all areas of the trail alignment excepting the bridge approach areas on both sides of the
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-21
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
UPRR alignment) – a County-qualified /City-approved
archaeologist shall monitor project implementation
during the initial grading and excavation activities
until such time as sufficient subsurface soil has
been uncovered/excavated to ascertain that no
additional prehistoric archaeological/cultural
resources are located on the proposed project
improvement area.

Bridge piling installation – a County-qualified/Cityapproved archaeologist shall monitor the installation of bridge pilings within intact soils and/or any soils
deeper than 10 feet below current ground surface to
ascertain that no additional prehistoric
archaeological/cultural resources are located on the
proposed project improvement area.

The monitor shall immediately inform equipment
operators in the event archaeological resources are
encountered, and shall be empowered to
immediately halt construction activity in the area of
the discovery until assessment can be completed,
and materials recovered as appropriate (refer to CR2 for additional detail). Monitoring reports shall be provided to the City of Carpinteria/County of Santa
Barbara on a monthly basis during construction, with
a final monitoring report produced at the conclusion
of construction activities and provided to both the
City and County.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of
a grading permit, the City of Carpinteria/County of
Santa Barbara shall contract with a Countyqualified/City-approved archaeologist to monitor initial ground disturbance activities in accordance
with the above criteria. Monitoring: City of
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-22
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara staff shall
ensure the contracted archaeologist provides
monitoring of initial ground disturbance activities in
accordance with the above criteria through receipt
of field documentation describing each day of
monitoring, construction activity occurring during the
monitoring, and observed soil profile conditions
related to the potential for presence of
archaeological resources.

MM-CR-4: In the event cultural resources are
encountered, construction shall be redirected to
another area of the project while data/resource
assessment and recovery is accomplished.

Grading/construction shall be immediately
suspended in the immediate area (no less than 50
feet from the area of the discovery) where cultural
resources are encountered and temporarily
redirected to another portion of the project area to
allow the archaeologist to assess the nature, extent
and significance of any discoveries and develop
appropriate management recommendations for
archaeological resource treatment consistent with
Santa Barbara County Guidelines for the
Implementation of California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970 (as amended May 25, 2010). It is
anticipated that recovery of artifacts would occur
where project elements (such as pilings) would
conflict with in situ artifact locations, and such
artifacts would be properly archived in accordance
with the project CEQA, City of Carpinteria and Santa
Barbara County guidelines and the CRTP protocol.

Identified remedial action for the discovery shall be
completed prior to allowing construction to re-
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-23
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
commence in the area, no less than 50 feet from
the area of the discovery. The project sponsors shall
be responsible for funding the assessment of
archaeological resources encountered during
construction, and for the proper archiving or
preservation of such resources. A Phase 3
Archaeological Resources Assessment and Data
Recovery Report shall be prepared to document any
archaeological resources encountered during
construction.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of
a grading permit, the City of Carpinteria/County of
Santa Barbara shall contract with a Countyqualified/City-approved archaeologist to provide archaeological assessment and recovery of any
archaeological resources encountered during project
construction, in accordance with the above criteria.

Monitoring: City of Carpinteria/County of Santa
Barbara staff shall ensure the contracted
archaeologist assess the nature, extent and
significance of any archaeological discoveries
occurring during project construction and develop
appropriate management recommendations for
archaeological resource treatment in accordance
with the project CEQA, City of Carpinteria and Santa
Barbara County guidelines and the CRTP protocol..

The contracted archaeologist shall assess the
nature, extent and significance of any archaeological
discoveries occurring during project construction
and develop appropriate management
recommendations for archaeological resource
treatment.
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-24
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Would the project disturb any human
remains, including those interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project have a cumulative effect
on cultural resources?
Potentially
Significant
MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4 Less than Significant
Energy
Would the project result in a potentially
significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during
project construction or operation?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project have a cumulative effect
on energy resources?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Geology and Soils
Would the project directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
a. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42?
b. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Potentially
Significant
MM-GEO-1: Seismicity. The pedestrian bridge shall
adhere to the recommendation identified in Appendix E
to this Environmental Impact Report to withstand a peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the site of 0.8g generated by an earthquake of moment magnitude Mw=7.4. Plan
Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the City of Carpinteria/County of
Santa Barbara shall verify the engineering plans include this bridge design specification. Monitoring: City of
Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara public works staff
or construction inspector retained for the project shall inspect bridge construction to verify conformance with
this specification.

Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-25
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
c. Seismic related ground failure
including liquefaction?
d. Landslides?
MM-GEO-2: Differential Settlement of Pedestrian Bridge
Foundations. Bridge foundation construction shall
adhere to the recommendation identified in Appendix E
to this Environmental Impact Report, which specifies a
deep foundation employing cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH)
piles. Based on the anticipated loadings, Caltrans
Standard Plan 24” CIDH Concrete Piles with 200 kips
design capacity are recommended in the geotechnical
report. Should hard cemented bedrock be encountered
during the installation of the CIDH piles, coring may be necessary. Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to
issuance of a grading permit, the City of
Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara shall verify the
engineering plans include this bridge foundation
specification. Monitoring: City of Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara public works staff or construction
inspector retained for the project shall inspect
foundation construction to verify conformance with this specification.

MM-GEO-3: Soil Erosion/Slope Stability. Slope
construction shall adhere to the recommendations in
the geotechnical report, summarized below.

1. All new fills placed along the trail alignment shall be placed as engineered geotextile-reinforced soils
with subsurface/back drains. Manufactured slope
profiles shall be no steeper than as specified in the
Bengal 2019 geotechnical report (Appendix E), or
any updated version thereof which has been
prepared to address final trail design.

2. Install adequate surface drainage facilities to collect and dispose of surface runoff properly, consistent
with the drainage system designs included in 30%
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-26
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Project Plans for Rincon Multi-Use Trail (Appendix E),
or as updated to address final trail design.

3. Hydro-seed the exposed newly cut and fill surfaces.

Periodic watering and re-application of hydro-seed
shall occur as necessary until vegetation on slope
surfaces has been successfully established.

These measures, in conjunction with the slope flattening and load reduction resulting from the proposed slope
cutbacks, should substantially reduce the hazards
associated with both slope erosion and local/surficial
slope instability under both static and seismic loading conditions.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of a
grading permit, the City of Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara shall verify the engineering plans include the
above specifications. Monitoring: City of
Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara public works staff
or construction inspector retained for the project shall inspect slope and drainage system construction to verify conformance with these specifications.

Would the project result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Potentially
Significant
MM-GEO-3 (see above)
Would the project be located on a geologic unit
or soil that is unstable, or that would become
unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
Potentially
Significant
MM-GEO-3 (see above)
Would the project be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant 1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-27
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Would the project have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal
systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
No impact None required No impact
Would the project directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project have a cumulative effect
on geology and soils resources?
Potentially
Significant
MM-GEO-1 to MM-GEO-3 (see above) Less than Significant
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Would the project generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that
may have a significant impact on the
environment?
Less than Significant None required. However, MM-BIO-3 (see above) would further reduce emissions related to
sequestrated carbon.

Less than Significant
Would the project conflict with an applicable
plan, policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
Less than Significant None required. However, MM-BIO-3 (see above) would further reduce emissions related to
sequestrated carbon.

Less than Significant
Would the project have a cumulative effect
on greenhouse gas emissions?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Potentially
Significant
MM-WAT-2 (see Hydrology and Water Quality, below) Less than Significant 1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-28
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Would the project emit hazardous emissions
or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project be located on a site that is
included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment?
Potentially
Significant
MM-HAZ-1: Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL). Surface
soils within the trail alignment segment north of the
UPRR corridor shall be tested for potential ADL
presence to determine if such soils may be used as
fill, or must be disposed in a properly licensed
landfill. Using the risk based screening levels
developed by California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), excavated soils
with a lead concentration less than or equal to 80
mg/kg total lead (analyzed by USEPA Method 6010
or 6020) would be acceptable for reuse without
restrictions, including as fill material within the
Rincon Trail project. Excavated soils that are
considered a California hazardous waste (total lead
concentration greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/kg
or a soluble lead concentration greater than or equal
to 5 milligrams per liter [mg/L] as determined by the
California Waste Extraction Test [CAWet]) or are a
RCRA hazardous waste and must be disposed of in a
Class I hazardous waste landfill. Excavated soils with
lead concentrations below 1,000 mg/kg but above
80 mg/kg total lead may be eligible for reuse with
specific restrictions to reduce or eliminate exposure,
with prior written approval from DTSC, or may be
disposed of at an appropriately permitted landfill.

Plan Requirements: ADL testing requirements and
soil re-use restrictions according to identified ADL
concentration shall be shown on grading and
Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-29
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
building plans. Since excess soil material would be
generated through proposed grading activities, soils
containing greater than 80 mg/kg total lead shall
not be used as fill material for the project but shall
be exported off site. Soil containing total lead
greater than 1,000 mg/kg shall be disposed in a
Class I hazardous waste landfill. Timing: Condition
shall be adhered to throughout all grading and
construction activities. Monitoring: City of
Carpinteria and County staff shall ensure measures
are on plans. City and County Grading Inspectors
shall spot check and ensure compliance on site.

For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the project result
in a safety hazard or excessive noise for
people residing or working in the project
area?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project impair implementation of
or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project expose people or
structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving wildland fires?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project have a cumulative effect
on hazards or hazardous materials?
Potentially
Significant
MM-HAZ-1 and MM-WAT-1 Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-30
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Would the project violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements
or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
Potentially
Significant
MM-WAT-1 : Obtain Coverage Under Construction
General Permit. The project shall obtain coverage
under a Construction General Permit via the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (Water
Quality Order 99-08-DWQ).

Plan Requirements: The requirement to obtain
coverage from the SWRCB under a Construction
General Permit shall be indicated on grading plans.

Timing: Evidence of coverage under a Construction
General Permit shall be provided to the City of
Carpinteria Public Works Department and County of
Santa Barbara Public Works Division prior to the
initiation of grading. Monitoring: City and County
Public Works staff shall confirm evidence of the
Construction General Permit issuance prior to
issuance of grading permits.

MM-WAT-2: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

The construction contractor shall prepare a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that includes
Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be
implemented and monitored prior to and during
construction. The following BMPs shall be
incorporated into the SWPPP to minimize potential
construction-related water quality impacts:

1. Disturbed areas shall be stabilized or revegetated prior to the start of the rainy season.

The work area shall be flagged to identify its
limits. Vegetation shall not be removed or
intentionally damaged beyond these limits.

2. Construction materials shall be placed in
designated areas where they could not enter
Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-31
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
water bodies or storm drains due to spillage or
erosion.

3. Waste and debris generated during construction
shall be stored in designated waste collection
areas and containers away from watercourses
and shall be disposed of regularly.

4. During construction, washing of concrete trucks,
paint, equipment, or similar activities shall occur
only in areas where polluted water and materials
can be contained for subsequent removal from
the site. Wash water shall not be discharged to
the storm drains, street, drainage ditches,
creeks, or wetlands. The concrete washout area
shall be isolated from water bodies, and wash
water and waste shall be removed from the
project site. The location of the washout area
shall be clearly noted at the construction site
with signs.

5. All fueling of heavy equipment shall occur in a
designated area removed from water bodies and
other drainages, such that any spillage would
not enter surface waters. The designated
refueling area shall include a drain pan or drop
cloth and absorbent materials to clean up spills.

The location of the fueling area shall be clearly
noted at the construction site with signs.

6. Vehicles and equipment shall be maintained
properly to prevent leakage of hydrocarbons and
coolant and shall be examined for leaks on a
daily basis. All maintenance shall occur in a
designated off-site area. The designated area
shall include a drain pan or drop cloth and
absorbent materials to clean up spills.
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-32
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation

7. Any accidental spill of hydrocarbons or coolant
that may occur on the construction site shall be
cleaned up immediately. Absorbent materials
shall be maintained on the construction site for
this purpose.

8. Special considerations for work during the rainy
season: stockpiled soils should be covered at
the end of the work day, and concrete pouring
shall be avoided within 15 days of a forecasted
rain event to allow full curing, due to its toxic
nature until it has fully cured.

Plan Requirements: A Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and
implemented prior to construction and shall include
the above elements. The SWPPP shall be submitted
to City and County Public Works for review and
approval prior to the issuance of grading permits for
the project. Timing: The stormwater features and
BMPs shall be installed and operational prior to
initiation of grading. Monitoring: City and County
Public Works staff shall site inspect for installation
and maintenance in accordance with the approved
plan and periodically thereafter to ensure proper
maintenance over the duration of construction
activities.

MM-WAT-3: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. Best
available erosion and sediment control measures
shall be implemented and maintained during
grading and construction. Best available erosion and
sediment control measures may include, but are not
limited to use of sediment basins, gravel bags, silt
fences, geo-bags or gravel and geotextile fabric
berms, erosion control blankets, coir rolls, jute net
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-33
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
and straw bales. Construction access points shall be
stabilized using gravel beds, rumble plates or other
measures to prevent sediment from being tracked
onto adjacent roadways. Any sediment or other
materials tracked off site shall be removed the same
day as they are tracked using dry cleaning methods.

Plan Requirements and Timing: An erosion and
sediment control plan shall be submitted to and
approved by City and County Public Works prior to
issuance of a grading permit. The plan shall be
designed and implemented to address erosion and
sediment control during all phases of development
of the site. Monitoring: City and County Public Works
shall perform site inspections throughout
construction.

MM-WAT-4: Planting of Vegetation. As soon as
practicable following the completion of trail
construction, the contractor shall install native
plantings for biological restoration and hydro-seed
slope areas with an appropriate native plant seed
mix, in order to provide long-term stabilization of
soils disturbed during construction . Periodic
watering and re-application of hydro-seed shall occur
as necessary until vegetation on slope surfaces has
been successfully established.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Landscaping plans
including biological restoration areas and hydroseeding of manufactured slope areas submitted to Community Development Department/Planning &
Development (CDD/P&D) for review prior to approval
of a coastal development permit. Monitoring:

CDD/P&D shall site inspect vegetation plantings and
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-34
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
hydro-seed application before issuing final clearance
and acceptance of the trail project.

MM-WAT-5: Periodic Inspection and Maintenance of
Storm Drain Components. Staff from City and County
Parks/Public Works departments shall perform an
annual inspection of stormwater components
annually, prior to the on-set of the rainy season
(November 1) to ensure all components are in good
repair and are not blocked by debris or sediment.

Any materials found to be obstructing flow in the
drainage system shall be removed prior to
November 1 each year. The exposed vertical portion
of each of the corrugated metal pipe drains shall be
examined annually for signs of corrosion, damage or
openings in the drain pipe wall. Corrosion visible on
the exterior pipe wall shall be treated and sealed
promptly, any holes through the pipe wall shall be
patched, or the damaged/affected segment shall be
replaced or modified.

Plan Requirements and Timing: The applicant shall
include these inspection and maintenance
requirements in the final drainage system design
plans. The plans shall be submitted to Community
Development Department/Planning & Development
(CDD/P&D) and City and County Public Works for
review prior to approval of a grading permit.

Monitoring: A memo with the annual inspection
notes and corrective maintenance performed shall
be prepared and submitted to the City and County
Public Works Departments.

MM-WAT-6: To minimize pollutants impacting the
ocean, storm drain filters/inserts shall be installed
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-35
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
in the project area storm drain inlets. The
filters/inserts shall be maintained in working order.

Plan Requirements: Prior to approval of Grading or
Building Permits, the applicant shall submit plans
identifying the type and location of filters/inserts to Community Development Department/Planning &
Development (CDD/P&D) and City and County Public
Works for review and approval. The location of such
filters/inserts shall be noted on grading and building
plans Filters/inserts shall be installed prior to final clearance and shall be cleaned using approved
methods at least twice a year, once immediately
prior to November 1 (before the start of the rainy
season) and once in January. Monitoring: CDD/P&D
and City and County Public Works shall site inspect
periodically throughout the construction phase to
ensure proper installation. Records of maintenance
shall be maintained by City/County and shall be
submitted to CDD/P&D and City and County Public
Works on an annual basis prior to the start of the
rainy season and for five years thereafter. After the
fifth year, the records shall be maintained by the
City/County. CDD/P&D and Public Works shall
review the maintenance records and site inspect as
needed following completion of construction to
ensure periodic cleanout
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-36
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Would the project substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area, including
through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious
surfaces, in a manner which would:
a. result in substantial erosion or siltation on
or off site;
b. substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would
result in flooding on or off site;
c. create or contribute runoff water which
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
d. impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant MM-WAT-1 (see above)
MM-WAT-2 (see above)
MM-WAT-3 (see above)
MM-WAT-5 (see above)
Less than Significant
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones,
would the project risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality control
plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project have a cumulative effect
on hydrology or water quality resources?
Potentially
Significant
MM-WAT-1 through MM-WAT-5 (see above) Less than Significant 1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-37
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Land Use and Planning
Would the project physically divide an
established community?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
Potentially
Significant
MM-AES-1; MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6 ; MM-CR-1
through MM-CR-4; MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-3;
MM-HAZ-1; MM-WAT-1 through MM-WAT-6; MM-NOI1 through MM-NOI-2; MM-TCR-1 (see above) Less than Significant
Would the project have a cumulative effect
on land use resources?
Potentially
Significant
MM-AES-1; MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-6 ; MM-CR-1
through MM-CR-4; MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-3;
MM-HAZ-1; MM-WAT-1 through MM-WAT-6; MM-NOI1 through MM-NOI-2; MM-TCR-1 (see above) Less than Significant
Mineral Resources
Would the project result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral resource that
would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project result in the loss of
availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use
plan?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project have a cumulative effect
on mineral resources?
No Impact None required No Impact
Noise
Would the project result in generation of a
substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the
vicinity of the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise
Potentially
Significant
MM-NOI-1: Construction Hours. Construction activity
for site preparation and for future development shall
be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday. No construction shall
occur on State holidays (e.g. Thanksgiving, Labor
Day) or weekends. Construction equipment
Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-38
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
ordinance, or applicable standards of other
agencies?
maintenance shall be limited to the same hours.

Non-noise generating construction activities are not
subject to these restrictions.

Plan Requirements: Two signs stating these
restrictions shall be posted on-site at each end of
the proposed trail. Timing: Signs shall be in place
prior to the beginning of and throughout all grading
and construction activities. Monitoring: City and
County Grading Inspectors shall spot check and
respond to complaints.

MM-NOI-2: Construction Equipment. All construction
equipment with engines must have original
manufacturer’s approved muffling devices. All
stationary equipment shall be physically buffered
from nearby sensitive receptors.

Plan Requirements: Plans shall indicate the
requirement of OEM muffled equipment. Timing:

This condition applies when any engine driven
equipment is in use at the project site during
construction.

Monitoring: City and County Grading Inspectors shall
spot check and respond to complaints.

Would the project result in generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant For a project located within the vicinity of a
private airstrip or an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
No Impact None required No Impact
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-39
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Would the project have a cumulative effect
on noise resources?
No Impact None required No Impact
Population and Housing
Would the project induce substantial
unplanned population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project displace substantial
numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project have a cumulative effect
on housing and/or population resources?
No Impact None required No Impact
Public Services
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Police protection? Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Schools? No Impact None required No Impact
Parks? Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Other public facilities? No Impact None required No Impact Would the project have a cumulative effect
on public services resources?
No Impact None required No Impact
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-40
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Recreation
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project have a cumulative effect
on recreation resources?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Transportation
Would the project conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project conflict or be inconsistent
with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project substantially increase
hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project result in inadequate
emergency access?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project have a cumulative effect
on transportation resources?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant 1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-41
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Tribal Cultural Resources
Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a tribal
cultural resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size
and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported
by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significance of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe?
Potentially
Significant
MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4 (see above)
MM-TCR-1: Initial ground disturbing activities shall
be monitored by a Native American observer in
accordance with the following specifications:

Temporary Impact Areas (equipment staging and
materials storage outside trail alignment) - a Native
American observer, ancestrally affiliated with the
area, shall monitor transport and placement
activities until such time that it is reasonable to
ascertain that no additional prehistoric
archaeological/cultural resources are located within
areas of temporary disturbance of the proposed
project site.

Permanent Impact Areas not including bridge piling
installation (all areas of the trail alignment excepting the bridge approach areas on both sides of the
UPRR alignment) – a Native American observer,
ancestrally affiliated with the area, shall monitor
project implementation during the initial grading and
excavation activities until such time as sufficient
subsurface soil has been uncovered/excavated to
ascertain that no additional prehistoric
archaeological/cultural resources are located on the
proposed project improvement area.

Bridge piling installation – a Native American
observer, ancestrally affiliated with the area, shall
monitor the installation of bridge pilings within intact soils and/or any soils deeper than 10 feet below
current ground surface to ascertain that no
additional prehistoric archaeological/cultural
Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-42
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
resources are located on the proposed project
improvement area.

The monitor/observer shall immediately inform
equipment operators in the event archaeological
resources are encountered, and shall be empowered
to immediately halt construction activity in the area
of the discovery until assessment can be completed,
and materials recovered as appropriate (refer to CR2 for additional detail). Monitor reports shall be provided to the City of Carpinteria/County of Santa
Barbara on a monthly basis during construction, with
a final monitoring report produced at the conclusion
of construction activities and provided to the City
and County.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of
a grading permit, the City of Carpinteria shall
contract with a Native American observer,
ancestrally affiliated with the area, to monitor initial ground disturbance activities in accordance with the
above criteria. Monitoring: City of Carpinteria/County
of Santa Barbara staff shall ensure the Native
American observer, ancestrally affiliated with the
area, provide monitoring of initial ground
disturbance activities in accordance with the above
criteria through receipt of field documentation
describing each day of monitoring, construction
activity occurring during the monitoring, and
observed soil profile conditions related to the
potential for presence of archaeological resources.

Would the project have a cumulative effect
on tribal cultural resources?
Potentially
Significant
MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 (see above)
MM-TCR-1 (see above)
Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-43
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project require or result in the
relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
Potentially
Significant
MM-WAT-1, MM-WAT-2, MM-WAT-3, and MM-WAT-4
(see above)
Less than Significant
Would the project have sufficient water
supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project result in a determination
by the wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project generate solid waste in
excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure,
or otherwise impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project comply with federal, state,
and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Less than Significant None required Less than Significant Would the project have a cumulative effect
on utilities and/or service systems
resources?
Potentially
Significant
MM-WAT-1, MM-WAT-2, MM-WAT-3, and MM-WAT-4
(see above)
Less than Significant
1 – Executive Summary
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 1-44
Table 1-1. Summary of Project Impacts
Environmental Topic Impact? Mitigation Measure(s)
Level of Significance
After Mitigation
Wildfire
Would the project substantially impair an
adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact None required No Impact
Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby expose project occupants
to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project require the installation or
maintenance of associated infrastructure
(such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines, or other utilities)
that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project expose people or
structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire
slope instability, or drainage changes?
No Impact None required No Impact
Would the project have a cumulative effect
on wildfire?
No Impact None required No Impact
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-1
2 Introduction and Project Description
This chapter of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) describes the purpose, scope and legislative authority of the EIR, the intent of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other pertinent environmental rules and regulations, and the environmental review process. The section also includes the structure, required contents, and relationship of the EIR to other potential responsible or trustee agencies. The section closes with the detailed project description, including purpose and objectives of the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project (project).

2.1 Environmental Procedures

2.1.1 California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
The California Public Resources Code (Section 21000 et seq.) requires the preparation and certification of an EIR for any project that a lead agency determines may have a significant effect on the environment. This EIR has been prepared in compliance with all criteria, standards, and procedures of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15000 et seq.).

2.1.2 Notice of Preparation and Scoping
CEQA establishes mechanisms whereby the public and decision makers can be informed about the nature of a proposed project, and the extent and types of impacts that the project and its alternatives would have on the environment, should the project or alternatives be implemented. Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) dated October 30, 2020 to begin a 30-day public scoping period, to interested agencies, organizations, and parties. The NOP was also sent to the State Clearinghouse at the California Office of Planning and Research. The State Clearinghouse assigned a state identification number (SCH No. 2020100582) to this EIR.

Based on the scope of the proposed project as described in the NOP, the following issues were determined to be potentially significant and are addressed in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Emissions
• Hydrology and Water Quality
2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-2
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
In addition, the following issues were determined to be not significant and are addressed in Chapter 4, Effects Found Not to be Significant, of this EIR:
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Energy
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Wildfire

2.1.3 Overview of the EIR Process
This EIR will be made available to members of the public, public agencies, and interested parties for a 45-day public comment period in accordance with Section 15105 of the CEQA Guidelines. Public comment of the EIR is intended to focus “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated” (14 CCR 15204). The Notice of Completion of the EIR will be filed with the State Clearinghouse as required by Section 15085 of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the Notice of Availability of the EIR will be distributed pursuant to Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines. Interested parties may provide comments on the EIR in written form. This EIR and all related technical appendices are available for review upon request during the 45-day public comment period. Due to COVID 19 shelter-in-place restrictions, all documents are available online at the City’s website (https://carpinteria.ca.us/ public-works/engineering-division/rincon-multi-use-trail/).

Once the 45-day public comment period has concluded, the City will review all public comments on the EIR, provide written responses to comments, and authorize revisions to the EIR text, if necessary. The final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) will be incorporated into the Final EIR. Mitigation measures contained in the EIR consider future monitoring requirements and are written in sufficient detail to address impacts of the proposed project, referencing the appropriate implementing permits and plans. If one or more significant environmental impacts are determined, written findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by an overriding justification and rationale for each finding in the form of a statement of overriding considerations will also be included in the Final EIR, if necessary. The Final EIR includes all comment letters received, final written response to comments, a Final EIR preface, if applicable, edits made to the EIR as a result of public review/comment, and findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations, if necessary.

2.2 Intended Uses of the EIR
According to Section 21002.1(a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA), “[t]he purpose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.” This EIR provides relevant information concerning the potential environmental effects associated with construction and operation of the proposed project and identifies and evaluates potentially significant effects that may result from implementation of the proposed project. It is intended for use by decision makers and the public. 2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-3
As the designated lead agency, the City has assumed responsibility for preparing this EIR. When deciding whether to approve the proposed project, the City will use the information provided in this EIR to consider potential impacts to the physical environment associated with the proposed project. The City will consider all written comments received on the EIR during the 45-day public comment period in making its decision to certify the EIR as complete and in compliance with CEQA and in making its determination whether to approve or deny the project. In the final review of the document, environmental considerations, and economic and social factors will be weighed to determine the most appropriate course of action.

After certification of the Final EIR, agencies with permitting authority over all or portions of the project, such as the County of Santa Barbara, will use the Final EIR as the basis for their evaluation of environmental effects related to the project and approval or denial of other applicable permits or authorizations.

2.3 Organization and Content of the EIR
This EIR is organized to provide a tiered project-level analysis of the potentially significant environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives for the proposed project. To describe the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives for the proposed project, this EIR is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1, Executive Summary, outlines the conclusions of the environmental analysis and a summary of the project as compared to the alternatives analyzed in the EIR. This section also includes a table summarizing all environmental impacts identified in this EIR along with the associated mitigation measures proposed to reduce or avoid each impact.
• Chapter 2, Introduction & Project Description, serves as a foreword to this EIR, introducing the project background and objectives, applicable environmental review procedures, and format of the EIR; describes the project location and physical environmental setting; and provides a thorough description of the proposed project and required discretionary approvals.
• Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, provides an analysis of the potentially significant environmental impacts identified, and proposed mitigation measures to reduce or avoid any potentially significant impacts. • Chapter 4, Effects Found Not to be Significant, address impacts that were determined to not be significant during the scoping process.
• Chapter 5, Other CEQA Considerations, discusses the project’s potential Growth-Inducing Impacts, Significant and Irreversible Impacts, and Significant and Unavoidable Impacts. • Chapter 6, Alternatives, analyzes a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project that would lessen or avoid significant environmental effects of the proposed project. • Chapter 7, List of Preparers, provides a list of persons that contributed to the preparation of this EIR. • Chapter 8, References, provides a compiled list of references cited in each section of the EIR.

2.3.1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The City will prepare a MMRP prior to project approval. The MMRP will include all mitigation measures outlined in the EIR, the responsible entity for implementation, implementation timing (prior to construction, during construction, post-construction), and any follow-up reporting requirements (such as submittal of materials to regulatory agencies). The City, as the designated lead agency, is responsible for enforcing and verifying that each mitigation measure is implemented as required.
2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-4

2.4 Project Background and Purpose

2.4.1 Background
The City of Carpinteria is situated along the California coast where the Santa Ynez Mountains meet the Pacific Ocean.

California State Highway 150 (Highway 150), U.S. Highway 101, and the coastal railroad all intersect in the southeastern entrance to the Carpinteria Valley. The transportation infrastructure improvements at this location have not included planning for or installation of a needed Class I bicycle route or pedestrian trail linking the urban area of the City of Carpinteria with the coastal resources of the County and State Beach Parks at Rincon Point as well as a connection to the newly opened bike path to Mussel Shoals. The proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail will provide an important and desirable connection in this area and also serve as a link in the larger California Coastal Trail.

A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared for a proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail in 2015. The 2015 MND analyzed a multi-use (shared-use) trail extending from the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue to Rincon Beach County Park, 12–feet in width and approximately 4,000 feet in length. The design of the proposed trail analyzed in the 2015 MND would have necessitated approximately 1,000 feet of retaining wall, with a maximum height of 14 feet. Several look-out points, a stormwater cistern, and pathway lighting at sharp horizontal grade changes and within the parking areas for the trail were also proposed. Further investigation into the original design revealed that its constructability as originally designed was questionable due to unstable geologic conditions and critical US Highway 101 storm drain infrastructure in the vicinity of the original trail alignment’s long switchback turn within the UPRR alignment. Further study also suggested that the entire trail alignment could not be designed to achieve an Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) compliant slope. Therefore, a Subsequent MND was prepared in 2019, which analyzed a simplification of the originally proposed design, including elimination of the long switch-back section within the alignment for the UPRR railway, elimination of parking lot improvements at the western trail terminus at Carpinteria Avenue, and elimination of the storm water cistern and any trail lighting. The Draft Subsequent MND was circulated for public comment, and a hearing was held by the Carpinteria Planning Commission to consider certification of the document. The Planning Commission voted to certify the Subsequent MND, and that decision was appealed to the City Council. Although the appeal of the Planning Commission’s certification of the Subsequent MND was never heard by the City Council, the City Council decided to move forward with the preparation of this Focused EIR as the appropriate CEQA environmental review document in order to allow for a more in-depth analysis of key issue areas identified during consideration of the Subsequent MND.

Access between the City of Carpinteria and Rincon Beach County Park has primarily been provided by U.S. Highway 101, though the distance between the two destinations is less than one mile. The use of U.S. Highway 101 requires a bicyclist or pedestrian to travel along the highway shoulder. Many bicyclists and pedestrians use the railroad corridor as an alternative route, as evidenced by the unsanctioned trails that are present along the bluff face and along the railroad tracks connecting the City of Carpinteria with Rincon Beach County Park. Use of the unsanctioned trails in and along the railroad corridor, however, presents a public access and safety concern.

The proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail would extend from the eastern end of Carpinteria Avenue, in the City of Carpinteria, to Rincon Beach County Park, in unincorporated Santa Barbara County. The new, shared-use trail would provide a strategic addition to Carpinteria's Coastal Vista Trail that upon completion, will connect Padaro Lane to the west and Rincon Beach County Park to the east. In addition to providing critical improvements in public safety, the completion of this trail segment would provide improved public coastal access and recreational opportunities, and enhancement of non-vehicular travel alternatives to the region’s significant coastal resources. Completion of 2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-5
the trail will also fill in a long-standing gap in the statewide California Coastal Trail. The trail further is a requirement of the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit No. 09-1522-CUP/CDP granted to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to construct the Linden Avenue and Casitas Pass Road Interchanges and Via Real Extension Project in order to promote regional alternative transportation objectives and to enhance recreation opportunities within the coastal zone and access to coastal resources. Regional vicinity and project site location are presented in Figures 2-1 and 2-2.

2.4.2 Purpose and Need

2.4.2.1 Purpose Statement
The fundamental purpose of the Carpinteria Rincon Trail is to establish a scenic, coastal trail offering a nonmotorized ADA accessible recreational and alternative transportation trail option between the Carpinteria Bluffs and Rincon Beach County Park, consistent with the intent of the California Coastal Trail and as required by the California Department of Transportation’s conditions of approval for the Linden Avenue and Casitas Pass Road Interchanges project (Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit No. 09-1522-CUP/CDP). In addition, the Carpinteria Rincon Trail shall be designed to achieve the purposes and objectives described further below.

2.4.2.2 Public Safety
Due to the lack of a direct, non-vehicular access corridor, the most traveled route to hike or bike to Rincon Beach County Park from the City of Carpinteria is along the railroad corridor, which presents a known safety risk. The railroad corridor in the City of Carpinteria is a major north-south rail route with freight and passenger trains running frequently each day. The continuous rail tracks that the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) recently installed are quieter than previous segmented rail track; thereby increasing safety hazards as rapidly approaching trains may not be audible. The geography of the area also constrains visual line of sight along the rail corridor such that it can be difficult to see oncoming trains far in advance. Despite these safety concerns, it is common to see individuals and groups walking and biking along the tracks from the City to Rincon Beach County Park or points in between. Many trail users are carrying surfboards and day packs, making them vulnerable to the speed of oncoming trains. Soaring recreationalists (such as parasailers and paragliders) also fly over and sometimes land on, or utilize the rail corridor to return to the launch point located on the bluff promontory above the railroad corridor. From 2015 to 2019, the Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety records indicate that there were 25 rail incidents in Santa Barbara County, including 18 deaths and 7 injuries (FRA 2020). According to a grand jury report on rail incidents within Santa Barbara County, one railway fatality occurred within Carpinteria in the period from 2015 through 2018 (Santa Barbara County Grand Jury 2019).

2.4.2.3 Local Environmental Enhancement
Bicycling and walking are cost effective, energy efficient and provide an alternative means of travel to the use of motorized vehicles. The City of Carpinteria's mild Mediterranean climate coupled with its scenic coastal bluffs provide a favorable environment for bicycling and walking year-round. Bicycles also provide easy mobility for residents and tourists, and the proposed trail would offer a new direct, safe and efficient access route to Rincon Beach County Park, as well as a connection between Ventura and Santa Barbara counties.

Near the east end of the Coastal Vista Trail is the Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve, which provides visitors with a unique overlook along one of the last remaining undeveloped coastal regions along the South Coast. In addition, 2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-6
the 21 acre parcel adjacent to the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue (formerly known as Carpinteria Bluffs Area III) has recently been purchased by the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County and subsequently deeded to the City of Carpinteria to be preserved in perpetuity as a public open space preserve (Rincon Bluffs Preserve) that will provide additional passive recreation and scenic enjoyment opportunities. Commonly seen from the bluffs are white-tailed kites, turkey vultures, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, brush bunnies, bottlenose and common dolphins, California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, California brown pelicans, western gulls, and migrating gray whales (City of Carpinteria 2009). Views of the Northern Channel Islands and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary are also afforded. The proposed trail provides an extension to the Carpinteria Bluffs trail system, allowing hikers and bicyclists to continue along the coastal bluffs into neighboring coastal resource areas of interest.

2.4.2.4 Recreational Opportunities
The City of Carpinteria is a popular year-round tourist attraction, with close to two million visitors a year (City of Carpinteria 2009). The City’s beach is recognized as one of the safest and cleanest beaches in Santa Barbara County. Northeast of the City beach is the Carpinteria Salt Marsh Nature Park, which is one of the few remaining healthy coastal wetland systems in California, and a well-used hiking area. East of the City beach is Carpinteria State Beach Park, one of California’s most popular camping and recreation areas.

Within the State Beach Park, Carpinteria Creek flows out to the ocean. This creek is currently the focus of a successful steelhead restoration effort. East of the State Beach, the coastal bluffs begin where the Casitas Pier is located. Part of the coastal bluff is also located within the Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve and the newly created Rincon Bluffs Preserve. Located just east of the Casitas Pier is the Pacific harbor seal sanctuary, a natural haul out and pupping rookery where over 500 of these pinnipeds have been observed on shore at once (City of Carpinteria 2009).

Just east of the City of Carpinteria, Rincon Beach County Park exists and offers picnic areas, beach access, and parking areas for beach-goers and cyclists using the regional coastal bike path that connects to the City of Ventura.

Rincon Beach County Park is operated by the County of Santa Barbara. Visitors to the City of Carpinteria, including campers at the State Beach, often travel to the Rincon Beach County Park for recreational activities and to view the world-famous Rincon surf break. The ocean bluffs along the eastern portion of the City and extending into the Rincon Beach County Park area also produce updrafts from ocean related winds, which create soaring opportunities generally above the top of the ocean bluffs alignment for paragliders and other soaring recreationalists. Offshore, the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and Channel Islands National Park provide additional recreation opportunities. The City aims to complete the Carpinteria Coastal Vista Trail for the recreational use of the surrounding communities and to provide public access and connections to these natural places.

The proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail would close a gap in the California Coastal Trail at a critical location. The function of the Carpinteria Rincon Trail as the local segment of the California Coastal Trail means the proposal must also align with the goals established for the California Coastal Trail. Some of the introductory information in the Senate Bill 908 Report (Completing the California Coastal Trail) is informative, and includes the stated goals for the trail, importantly the following:

1. Provide a continuous trail as close to the ocean as possible, with connections to the shoreline at appropriate intervals and sufficient transportation access to encourage public use.

5. Design the CA Coastal Trail to provide a valuable experience for the user by protecting the natural environmental and cultural resources while providing public access to beaches, scenic vistas, wildlife viewing areas, recreational or interpretive facilities, and other points of interest. 2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-7

6. Create linkages to other trail systems and to units of the State Park system, and use the Coastal Trail system to increase accessibility to coastal resources from urban population centers. (Source: http://californiacoastaltrail.info/cms/pages/trail/done.html) The proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail would link the Carpinteria Bluffs and Rincon Beach County Park, and would also extend the Pacific Coast Bikeway, thereby improving recreation opportunities along the South Coast.

Eventually, upon completion of other segments, the Carpinteria Coastal Vista Trail will connect to Carpinteria State Beach Park and the Carpinteria Salt Marsh Preserve and on to Padaro Lane, west of the City. The Pacific Coast Bikeway currently extends east to Seaside and eventually to Ventura’s Seaside Wilderness Park and Emma Wood State Park. From Emma Wood State Park, cyclists and pedestrians can join the California Coastal Trail to the Ventura County Fairgrounds and the City of Ventura waterfront. Figure 2-3, Existing Trail Network, presents the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail segment in the context of the Carpinteria Coastal Vista Trail.

2.4.3 Objectives
The proposed trail was identified by the City to meet critical safety and public access needs. Objectives of the proposed project include:
• Improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety, as well as vehicular safety, by significantly reducing unsafe and/or illegal use of the railway corridor and the U.S. Highway 101 shoulder. • Enhance regional mobility for cyclists and pedestrians, while enhancing support of regional initiatives to promote alternative transportation modes between Carpinteria, Santa Barbara County and Ventura County, by providing a continuous bike and pedestrian path connecting Santa Barbara County to Ventura County. • Reduce air pollution from vehicle-related air quality emissions and traffic congestion on local and regional transportation systems by promoting pedestrian and bicycle access to coastal resources and recreation opportunities via a scenic multi-use trail, as an alternative to use of motorized vehicles to access and experience such coastal resources.
• Improve the local coastal bluff environment through improved water quality of surface water runoff through stabilization of bluff slope faces that are currently eroding into the Pacific Ocean, and enhancement of sensitive coastal bluff scrub habitats in the project area. Also, avoid deposits of petroleum fuels or lubricants associated with typical motor vehicle use for transportation in close proximity to the ocean, preventing such pollutants from stormwater runoff entering the adjacent marine environment. • Complete a critical missing link in the California Coastal Trail consistent with the goals of Senate Bill 908, including provision of a continuous trail as close to the ocean as possible, with connections to the shoreline at appropriate intervals and sufficient access to encourage public use. The California Coastal Trail is intended to offer scenic coastal vistas, wildlife viewing areas, recreational or interpretive facilities, and other points of interest, and is recognized in regions throughout the state as a key resource or opportunity for these coastal-oriented experiences.
• Provide a coastal-oriented pathway that supports the broadest use by the public through a design that complies with standards established via the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). • Provide new scenic coastal access and coastal tourism opportunities in the City of Carpinteria, Santa Barbara County, and Ventura County.
2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-8

2.5 Location
The project is located on lands within the jurisdiction of the City of Carpinteria and the County of Santa Barbara (Figure 2-1). Carpinteria is a quaint seaside town located about 12 miles east of Santa Barbara near the intersection of Highway 150 and U.S. Highway 101, near the Ventura County line.

The proposed trail would provide a dedicated connection from Carpinteria Avenue to the Ventura County line through Rincon Beach County Park. The trail would begin near the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue, and would proceed eastward along the existing benched slope adjacent to U.S. Highway 101. However, to achieve compliance with pathway surface slope limitations under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), the existing benched slope would be regraded.

The proposed trail design includes a clear-span bridge over the UPRR alignment. The bridge would be approximately 160- feet-long, with a width of between 14-feet and 16-feet (clear width, measured inside the bridge rails).

At the south end of the UPRR bridge, the trail would continue eastward along a benched slope on the ocean-facing side of the bluff. The benched slope would be graded to be in compliance with ADA pathway slope requirements, and to provide long-term stability for the trail in accordance with engineering safety standards. Figure 2-2 illustrates the overall alignment of the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail. The proposed route is grade and horizontally separated from the U.S. Highway 101 freeway and the railroad corridor.

2.6 Surrounding Land Uses and Environmental Setting
Carpinteria and its surrounding area contain important natural resources, including outstanding beaches, the Carpinteria Salt Marsh Preserve, Carpinteria Reef, a Pacific harbor seal sanctuary, and coastal bluff, foothill and creek habitats supporting numerous plant communities and wildlife species.

The majority of the proposed trail route is located along and above U.S. Highway 101, and the alignment is completely within terrain that has been previously modified for transportation projects, which are now represented by old terraced road and rail cuts. Most of the area’s natural landforms have been mechanically manipulated over the years as a result of road, highway and railroad construction activities dating back to at least the late 1800s. A small unsanctioned trail exists in some areas of the proposed trail, including the portion of the proposed trail from the railroad crossing to the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot. At both ends of the trail are pre-existing parking areas; Rincon Beach County Park has a paved lot and at Carpinteria Avenue there is an existing dirt lot, which would continue to provide informal parking for the proposed project.

The first portion of the trail, from the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue to the UPRR corridor, traverses an engineered slope, cut during construction of U.S. Highway 101. The trail would cross the UPRR tracks in an area that 2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-9
consists of engineered slopes cut during construction of the current railroad corridor. The second portion of the trail, from the UPRR crossing to the westernmost end of Rincon Beach County Park, is currently occupied by an existing informal trail on an existing cut bench that was abandoned by the railroad in the late 1960’s. This informal trail is mostly flat in this area and its surface is mostly dirt; however, some original asphalt paving associated with the previous rail use remains in some areas. The top of the bluff formation in this area was also used for the previous alignment of State Route 2 (precursor to the current U.S. Highway 101 alignment) and abandoned in the 1960s. Remnants of the abandoned road alignment are still visible along the top of the bluff formation and overhang the existing informal trail. A few abandoned and current underground utilities and infrastructure exist in or nearby the proposed route, including but not limited to fiber optic lines, a sewer main, and storm drain infrastructure.

2.7 Project Description
The proposed project consists of a 16-foot wide (10-foot wide path with a 3-foot wide paved shoulder along both sides) and approximately 2,800-foot long shared-use trail that would provide safe access for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling from Carpinteria Avenue in the City of Carpinteria to Rincon Beach County Park in Santa Barbara County at the Ventura County line. Figure 2-4, Site Plan, illustrates the proposed trail alignment.

The Rincon Trail is planned to function as the local section of the California Coastal Trail, connecting on the south end to the recently completed bicycle and pedestrian path constructed with the Caltrans HOV project from Carpinteria to the Mobil Pier in Ventura County. On the north, the Rincon Trail would currently connect with Carpinteria Avenue, which provides continuous bicycle and pedestrian travel from the eastern to western end of Carpinteria City limits. From Carpinteria Avenue an alternate route exists for cyclists and pedestrians south along Linden Avenue to 4th Street eastward through Carpinteria State Beach, and connecting with the Carpinteria Bluffs Trail, which is nearly continuous to the location of the Rincon Trail western trail head. The City is in the process of acquiring an easement over two parcels that would complete the Carpinteria Bluffs Trail from the Carpinteria State Beach to the Rincon Trail. In the near term, the City will also be completing additional trail and public parking improvements in conjunction with the recent acquisition of the Rincon Bluffs Preserve property, which is located immediately adjacent to the western terminus of the proposed Rincon Trail. The Rincon Bluffs Preserve improvements will serve to further enhance public recreational and alternative transit options in the area.

A cross-section illustrating the proposed trail configuration is provided below (following page). Note that the “travel” area of the path is intended to be 10 feet in width, but a paved 3-foot shoulder is provided along both sides (which allows additional space for pedestrians or cyclists to pass other trail users or navigate when opposite direction travelers are present). The paved 3-foot shoulder also improves access for emergency service and maintenance vehicles.

A safety fence is also illustrated (on the left) to prevent users from encountering the slope below the trail. The proposed fencing would be approximately 3.5 feet in height and consisting either of three-rail post and rail with a concrete base, chain link or other design of similar dimensions consistent with trail fencing in the community. A 6- foot wide swale would also be provided along the path where cut slopes are present to capture and convey stormwater, as shown in Illustration 2-1.
2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-10
SOURCE: Bengal Engineering
Illustration 2-1 Rincon Trail Cross Section - Widths of Components

Legend for Illustration 2-1:

CRT Center of Route Travel
ETW Edge of Travel Way
ES Edge of Shoulder
HP High Point (of drain swale adjacent to path)
PG Path Guide

2.7.1 Earthwork
The trail design has been engineered to incorporate pathway travel slopes that are consistent with ADA standards.

The design also avoids an area with deep landslides, south and west of the crossing point over the UPRR alignment, which were identified in geotechnical testing. The majority of project earthwork will occur on existing engineered slopes that were constructed as part of past road, highway and railroad projects; these manufactured slope faces in many instances are steeper than natural conditions, leading to increased erosion potential, which the project intends to correct though re-contouring to reduce slope angles. Construction of the proposed path design would involve a total of 107,386 cubic yards of cut, a total of 14,860 cubic yards of fill, and the export of a total of 92,526 cubic yards of earth material. The re-contouring of existing engineered topography along the path alignment to achieve more stable conditions is described in more detail below.

2.7.1.1 Pathway Slope Profiles Adjacent to U.S. Highway 101 (North of UPRR Alignment)
Cut slopes above the trail would have a slope ratio of 1.25:1, fill slopes (which would be present only adjacent to the bridge over the UPRR corridor) are proposed to have slope ratios between 2:1 and 4:1. The earthwork would alter the elevation of the bench on which the trail would be aligned, but would not alter the top elevation of the 2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-11
existing hill/ridge as it remains from previous earthwork modification in this section of the alignment. Illustration 2- 2 presents the existing versus proposed slope profile for earthwork modifications above and below the trail.

SOURCE: Bengal Engineering
Illustration 2-2 Pathway Grading Profile Adjacent to U.S. Highway 101 Note in Illustration 2-2 that the proposed cut-slopes are similar in profile to those created during the U.S. Highway 101 construction. Some portions of the trail along the north side of the UPRR alignment would not have the upper bench shown above, where Carpinteria Avenue is in close proximity to U.S. Highway 101.

SOURCE: Bengal Engineering
Illustration 2-3 Pathway Grading Profile South of UPRR Alignment 2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-12
Note in Illustration 2-3 that the proposed cut-slopes are less-steep than those constructed for the railroad alignment in this area (illustrated as “OG” above) in order to provide an adequate margin of safety for the long-term stability of the slopes. Note there is also a proposed bench above the trail that would intercept rainwater and also prevent rock fall on the path below. The bench would also provide maintenance access for the manufactured slopes and path.

2.7.2 Bridge Detail
The bridge design includes a clear-span bridge over the UPRR alignment. The bridge would be approximately 160-feet-long, with a width of between 14-feet and 16-feet (clear width, measured inside the bridge rails). The bridge would be supported on foundations using deep piles. The bridge would be a factory-built steel structure, painted to protect it from corrosion because of the proximity to the ocean. The bridge would be delivered substantially complete, likely in 2 sections. After the two “halves” of the bridge are bolted together this unit would be lifted into place, likely using two cranes, one situated on either side of the UPRR tracks. Once the “factory made” portion of the bridge is in place, a concrete bridge deck would be cast-in-place, and the wing walls and abutment back walls would be completed. Illustration 2-4 provides an example of a similar scale pre-fabricated steel bike path bridge. Note the bridge for the Carpinteria Rincon Trail will have some similar characteristics, except that UPRR requires high “safety fences“ for the full length of the bridge to protect the trains from potential objects thrown from the bridge platform.

SOURCE: Bengal Engineering
Illustration 2-4 Representative Steel Framed Bike Path Bridge The approximate location of the Carpinteria Rincon Trail bridge over the UPRR alignment (the magenta colored line) is shown in Illustration 2-5. The relative elevation of the bridge can be compared to the U.S. Highway 101 bridge over the UPRR corridor (just above the elevation of the pictured train). 2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-13
SOURCE: Bengal Engineering
Illustration 2-5 Approximate Profile and Location for Rincon Trail Bridge

2.7.3 Drainage
The proposed trail project includes an integrated storm drainage system to ensure stormwater runoff from the recontoured bluff face and the trail surface is conveyed to the ocean efficiently, avoiding potential erosion of slopes along the trail alignment. Along the portion of the trail north of the UPRR alignment, a concrete swale (v-ditch) would convey water along the trail edge, where it would be released into an existing surface drainage swale now serving U.S. Highway 101. This swale connects to an existing storm drain that crosses underneath the UPRR alignment, and then descends to the beach level. This storm drain is labelled as “1” in Illustration 2-6. No improvements are proposed to storm drain 1, and the trail storm drain volumes contributed to this storm drain would be negligible compared to existing flows already contributed from portions of U.S. Highway 101. 2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-14
SOURCE: Bengal Engineering
Illustration 2-6 Major Storm Drainage Components of the Project On the south side of the UPRR alignment, a concrete drainage swale would also carry surface runoff from the recontoured bluff face and trail, conveying such drainage along the side of the trail until it reaches one of the storm drain inlets lower in elevation. A total of 5 vertical storm drains would convey this stormwater from the trail to the beach elevation, for the trail segment south of the UPRR alignment (refer to Illustration 2-6). Drains No. 3 and No. 6 (shown in light blue in Illustration 2-6) are existing and would be re-used, including rehabilitation of existing piping; drains No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 (shown in magenta in Illustration 2-6) would be newly developed for the project.

The new vertical storm drains would be installed during earth work for the trail and adjacent slopes, and would be buried to cross beneath the trail and then descend on the slope face to outlet at the beach elevation. Buried portions of the storm drain would be constructed of high-density plastic, transitioning to galvanized steel for the aboveground portions.

The majority of the length of the proposed trail is outside of the City of Carpinteria’s and Santa Barbara County’s respective 2013 Statewide Phase II Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) General Permit (2013 General Permit) boundaries, and thus the majority of the project is exempt from the Post Construction Requirements (PCRs) of the 2013 General Permit. Because the project is not regulated by the 2013 General Permit and PCRs therein, the project may not fully avoid potential water quality impacts unless it achieves compliance with active construction and post‐construction requirements of the Statewide Construction General Permit (CGP). The proposed Rincon Trail drainage facilities are focused on the efficient collection and delivery of stormwater runoff from the trail surface to the ocean, no stormwater treatment components are included. 2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-15

2.7.4 Trail/Path Features
The trail would be constructed of concrete to ensure longevity and low maintenance, including a concrete surface on the proposed bridge structure over the UPRR alignment. The trail width would be wide enough for bicyclists and hikers to easily ride and walk side-by-side, and pass others headed in the opposite direction. The 16-foot trail would also accommodate emergency and maintenance vehicle access to the project area. The bridge over the UPRR alignment would provide safe crossing for trail users over the railway and reduce the risk of accidents or fatalities associated with unsanctioned rail crossings. Additionally, the project would feature native plantings designed to transition to natural communities and restored native plant areas along the trail alignment. Vegetation and landscaping would consist of native trees and low-lying, native shrubs and groundcover. Native vegetation that would be removed along the immediate side of the trail for grading and improvements would be restored, and additional plantings to offset permanent removal of native vegetation beneath the trail alignment would be accomplished. Existing plant species in the project area that would have the potential to be restored include quail bush (Atriplex lentiformis), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California bush sunflower (Encelia californica) and lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia).

Security fencing and/or railings would be provided along portions of the trail for safety and route guidance, and would also inhibit users from deviating off the designated path to ensure protection of adjacent native restoration plantings. The proposed fencing would be either three-rail post and rail with a concrete base, chain link or other design of similar dimensions consistent with trail fencing in the community, approximately 42 inches in height. A fence may be required along one or both sides of the trail depending on the characteristics of that segment’s location, such as adjacency to bluff or slope features. As mentioned above, the bridge crossing would include chain link fence and a safety rail along both sides of the trail that lead up to the bridge.

Vehicle parking at the trailhead on the western end would be provided via an existing dirt lot adjacent to the Carpinteria Avenue terminus; no improvements to the informal dirt parking lot are proposed. The southern shoulder of Carpinteria Avenue, from SR 150 to the existing cul-de-sac terminus, provides parking for approximately 24 vehicles, and would be a short walk from the proposed western trail head. Signage would be installed to delineate parking and direct users toward the trail. Visitors traveling both northbound and southbound on U.S. Highway 101 would access Carpinteria Avenue from exit 84 for Highway 150 towards Ojai/Lake Casitas. Carpinteria Avenue is paved for approximately one-tenth of a mile past the existing dirt parking lot. The Rincon Beach County Park parking lot is also accessible from U.S. Highway 101 to the east. Exit 83 for Bates Road off of Highway 101 provides access to Rincon Point Road. Parking facilities and other park amenities are currently provided at Rincon Beach County Park; as such, no additional amenities are proposed in that location. A public parking lot within the eastern portion of the newly acquired Rincon Bluffs Preserve (a separate, future project in the same vicinity) would also serve both the open space preserve and the Rincon Trail once completed.

A sign providing a map of the trail and trail rules (including on-leash requirements for dogs) would be placed near the existing dirt parking lot at the western end of the trail. Additional wayfinding signs would be provided along the trail and up to four interpretive nature signs to illustrate surrounding biology, local geography and history of the area would also be provided.

Fire hydrants are currently provided at Rincon Beach County Park; no additional fire hydrants would be provided along the proposed trail. In the event of a wildfire, Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District crews could access the trail from the west via Carpinteria Avenue or from the east via Rincon Beach County Park parking lot.

Restrooms are also available at Rincon Beach County Park, which would serve users of the proposed trail as no additional restrooms would be provided along the trail. Restrooms are also contemplated as part of the future improvements to the Rincon Bluffs Preserve.
2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-16

2.7.5 Construction
The shared-use trail would be 16 feet in paved width, including 10-feet for the travel lanes and a three-foot paved shoulder along each side (which would be available as additional travel way for navigating around pedestrians or cyclists that are within the main travel lanes). During construction of the trail, an additional one to four feet of area may be potentially impacted during grading for a total impact width of up to 20 feet depending on the trail location.

However, virtually the entire trail length would be located on abandoned road or railway cuts or existing terraces that have been disturbed previously rather than on natural landforms and slopes.

To prepare the site for trail construction, the trail bench and slopes above and below the trail alignment would be rough graded to meet the proposed finished grade surface. The first stage would involve separate crews performing earthwork on the north side and south side of the UPRR alignment; the northern crew would use the Carpinteria Avenue extension for access, while the southern crew would access the earthwork areas from the Rincon Beach County Park parking area. Storm drain construction would be integrated with the rough grading activities. The second stage would involve bridge construction. Construction would begin with the bridge foundations, using deep piles. The bridge would be a factory-built steel structure. The bridge would be delivered substantially complete but in two sections. After the two “halves” of the bridge are bolted together this unit would be lifted into place using two cranes, one situated on either side of the UPRR tracks. Once this “factory made” portion of the bridge is in place, the concrete bridge deck will be cast-in-place, and the wing walls and abutment back walls will be completed. After the bridge is in place, finish grading of the path will occur. Next, the path surfacing, consisting of aggregate base under concrete paving would be completed. The final major stage would include the landscaping installation, habitat restoration activities, and erosion protection. Other final touches would include fencing, signing, and the path striping
Cut material on site would be utilized for the necessary fill material, as feasible. Excess cut volume would be exported from the site by haul trucks and transferred to the closest available receiver site. The quality of the excess graded material is anticipated to be suitable for fill material, which could be utilized by local on-going and future construction projects; several landowners in close proximity to the project site have also expressed interest in receiving soil.

However, if at the time of project construction there are no local receiver sites for fill material, the project graded material would be transported to the closest transfer station or transported directly to the regional landfill.

It is anticipated that construction of the proposed project would commence in March 2022 and reach completion by March 2024, for a total construction window of approximately two years. The trail would be constructed using common earthwork equipment such as a dozer, excavator, dump truck, and roller. Removal of vegetation located within or adjacent to the proposed trail route would be conducted using a crawler tractor or similar small loader or backhoe. A haul truck would transport removed vegetation to the Marborg Construction and Demolition Recycling Center, located at 119 N. Quarantina Street in Santa Barbara, California or other green waste collection facility; construction waste would also be delivered to Marborg or another similar recycling facility in Ventura County.

Temporary fencing would be installed where necessary and would be removed after construction activity in the area is complete. Permanent safety rails and fencing would consist of wood and cement for the post and rail fences and steel for the chain link fences and would be installed using small tractors, such as a skid steer, and other hand tools. A small excavator would also be used to construct the proposed concrete v-trench that would guide runoff water to the proposed storm drain system. Paving of the proposed trail would take approximately one to three weeks and would require use of medium-sized tractors and trucks. 2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-17
The proposed bridge structure would be fabricated off site. The bridge would be delivered by truck and installed using cranes, also delivered by truck. Additional smaller pieces of equipment, including welders and concrete saws, may also be utilized to link the bridge to the trail ramps. Construction of the overhead bridge would not interfere with railroad use in accordance with UPRR requirements, and may occur at night if required by UPRR to avoid daily train operations.

Signs would be installed after completion of the trail and bridge. Signs would be installed using a jackhammer and hand tools. Landscaping along the proposed trail would also occur after completion of trail construction.

Revegetation of native plants and planting of the new slope faces would be achieved by hydroseeding using hydroseed trucks. Container plants would also be incorporated in the landscape palette. To ensure successful establishment of plantings, the planted vegetation would be watered weekly or bi-monthly depending on the season during the first two years of project operation through use of a water truck.

2.7.6 Operation
The proposed trail would accommodate multiple users including bicyclists and pedestrians. With the exception of “power-driven mobility devices” for persons with disabilities and maintenance or emergency vehicles, motorized vehicles would be prohibited on the proposed trail.

As with the majority of public trails in the City, access to the trail would be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Trail closure would occur, however, during unsafe or emergency conditions, such as the unlikely event of a landslide or for some maintenance operations. No additional staffing for maintenance would be needed; instead, any trail maintenance needs would be accommodated by existing City of Carpinteria or County of Santa Barbara work crews on their respective portions of the trail.

Trash and recycling cans would be provided in the existing dirt parking lot at the western trail terminus. Waste collection services would be provided by E. J. Harrison and Sons or other local service provider and would occur weekly. As on-leash dogs would be allowed on the proposed trail, a dog waste bag dispenser and waste receptacle would be provided at the western end of the trail near the proposed parking lot. The dispenser would be similar to those currently provided by the City of Carpinteria’s dog waste disposal bag program. Trash and recycling cans, and dog waste bag dispensers are currently available in Rincon Beach County Park and would serve trail users.

2.7.7 Acquisition of Right-of-Ways
The proposed trail route crosses several parcels of land owned by public agencies. The trail parking lot location on Carpinteria Avenue is owned by the City of Carpinteria; trail implementation would require no easements for this portion. Heading east, the next portion of the trail, which courses down a hill parallel to the highway, is owned by the State of California as part of the U.S. Highway 101 right-of-way. For this portion of the route Caltrans will transfer in fee title these two parcels to accommodate placement of the trail and bridge structure on this property. 1 From
there, the proposed trail route crosses two parcels of land owned by UPRR (APN 001-010-032 and APN 001-220- 092); an encroachment permit and approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) are in process for construction and maintenance of the bridge structure within the UPRR parcels. The trail then connects to a parcel of land owned by the County of Santa Barbara as part of Rincon Beach County Park; trail implementation would also require no easements for this portion.
1 The process for transferring ownership interest in real property from Caltrans to another public entity typically entails several months, and is subject to approval by the California Transportation Commission. Transfer of the two parcels would be completed prior to any construction commencing on the trail and in compliance with CEQA. 2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-18

2.8 Discretionary Actions
A discretionary action is an action taken by an agency that calls for the exercise of judgment in deciding whether to approve or how to carry out a project. The proposed project would require consideration of the following discretionary actions by the City and by the County:
• City of Carpinteria: A conditional use permit (CUP) and coastal development permit (CDP) for the portion of the trail within the City of Carpinteria.
• County of Santa Barbara: A development plan permit (DVP), CUP and CDP for the portion of the trail within the County of Santa Barbara.

SOURCE: USGS 1:24,000 Topological Survey
Project Site
FIGURE 2-1
Regional Location
Carpinteria Rincon Trail (,5
01 Miles
MAPPED
AREA
2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-20

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
Rincon Point
Santa
Barbara
County
Ventura
County
City of
Carpinteria
AERIAL SOURCE: CIRGIS 2017 FIGURE 2-2
Project VicinLty
Carpinteria Rincon Trail EIR
0 500 1,000
Feet
Trail Corridor
Santa Barbara County
Caltrans
Ventura County
2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-22

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Rincon
Point
192
33 150
1 City of Carpinteria
City of
Ventura
Santa
Barbara
County
Ventura
County
AERIAL SOURCE: ESRI World Imagery FIGURE 2-3
Existing Trail Network
Carpinteria Rincon Trail EIR
01 Miles
Lake
Casitas
Proposed Trail
Existing Trail Network
Future Trail

PACIFIC
OCEAN
SANTA

VENTURA
COUNTY

BARBARA COUNTY
Santa
Barbara
County
Ventura
County
150
224
City of
Carpinteria
2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-24

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
Proposed
Parking Area
Pedestrian Bridge

CARPINTERIA AVE

RINCON RD

BATES ROAD

RINCON BEACH COUNTY PARK
S. VIA REAL
AERIAL SOURCE: CIRGIS 2017
ENGINEERING SOURCE: Dudek 2010
FIGURE 2-4
Site Plan
Carpinteria Rincon Trail EIR
0 500
Feet
Trail Corridor
2 – Introduction and Project Description
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 2-26

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3-1
3 Environmental Analysis
The following sections analyze the potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project (project). Each issue analysis section includes a description of existing conditions, the criteria for the determination of impact significance, evaluation of potential project impacts including mitigation measures (if applicable), and a conclusion of significance after mitigation for impacts identified as requiring mitigation (if applicable).

The environmental issues addressed in this chapter include the following:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Emissions
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Noise
• Recreation
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems
3 – Environmental Analysis
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3-2

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3.1 -- Aesthetics
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.1-1

3.1 Aesthetics
This section describes the existing visual conditions of the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project (project) site and vicinity, identifies associated regulatory requirements, evaluates potential impacts, and identifies mitigation measures related to implementation of the project.

3.1.1 Existing Conditions

3.1.1.1 Existing On-Site Conditions
The project site is currently mostly undeveloped and includes seven vegetation communities and areas that are developed or otherwise unvegetated. Five of the seven vegetation communities found are native scrub communities that qualify as coastal sage scrub or coastal bluff scrub. Long stretches of the proposed shared-use trail are dominated by native scrub vegetation. Between Rincon Beach County Park, located directly to the southeast of the project alignment site, and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) pedestrian bridge crossing, which traverses the middle of the project alignment, native quail bush (Atriplex lentiformis) dominates much of the project alignment. Additional native vegetation borders the parking lot in the Rincon Beach County Park and occupies portions of the proposed trail alignment. Between the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue, located to the northwest of the proposed alignment, and the UPRR crossing, California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and quail bush are the dominant plants.

3.1.1.2 Surrounding Land Uses
The project site is located within the City of Carpinteria (City), and within the County of Santa Barbara (County). The City’s coastal location affords visual and recreational opportunities not readily available to inland communities. In addition, the City and surrounding area are situated against the Santa Ynez Mountain range that further contributes to the aesthetic appeal of the community. The creeks that are formed out of the hills, as well as the wetlands that they feed are valuable as visual resources, as well as functioning as recreational and open space areas.

Carpinteria's streams, beaches, open spaces, foothills, agricultural lands, urbanized areas, landscapes and landforms all contribute to scenic views.

The City’s bluffs provide visitors with a unique overlook along one of the few remaining undeveloped coastal bluffs of the South Coast of Santa Barbara County. Commonly seen from the bluffs are white-tailed kites, turkey vultures, red-tailed hawks, American kestrels, brush bunnies, bottlenose and common dolphins, California sea lions, Pacific harbor seals, California brown pelicans, western gulls, and migrating gray whales (City of Carpinteria 2009). Views of the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and the Northern Channel Islands are also afforded from the proposed trail alignment.

The majority of the proposed trail alignment is located along abandoned roadways, or old terraced road and railroad cuts, and most of the area has been mechanically manipulated over the years. The informal existing trail extending north from Rincon Beach County Park has been graded flat and is currently mostly dirt, with original asphalt associated with the previous rail use remaining in some areas. Figure 3.1-1 provides photographs of the entire trail alignment illustrating existing visual conditions within and adjacent to the alignment.

3.1 -- Aesthetics
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.1-2

3.1.1.3 Scenic Vistas and Resources
The City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan designates the Carpinteria Bluffs as both scenic vistas and resources, for providing outstanding views of the Pacific Ocean and Channel Islands (City of Carpinteria 2003). In addition, the proposed project alignment, is located within a Scenic Corridor Overlay Designation for the County (County of Santa Barbara 2009), which is intended to give additional protection to areas where there are views from a major coastal road to the Pacific Ocean.

3.1.1.4 Scenic Highways
Currently there are no officially designated scenic highways in the City or within the project area located within the County (Caltrans 2020a). Designation of “Official Scenic Highways” is governed by Article 2.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code and pertains to State Highway Routes. Section 263.1 and 263.6 of the California Streets and Highways Code identifies Highway 150, which extends east from the northernmost portion of the proposed trail alignment, and US Highway 101, located directly to the east of the site, as eligible for designation as state scenic highways (Caltrans 2020a; City of Carpinteria 2003; County of Santa Barbara 2009). Lastly, as discussed under Section 3.1.1.3, Scenic Vistas and Resources, US Highway 101 adjacent to the project is located within the Scenic Corridor Overlay Designation for the County (County of Santa Barbara 2009), which is intended to provide development restrictions to avoid the blockage of important scenic views afforded from a highway or major roadway corridor.

3.1.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances

3.1.2.1 Federal
There are no federal regulations related to aesthetics relevant to the proposed project.

3.1.2.2 State
California Coastal Act
Facilities proposed within the state’s coastal zone are subject to the visual resources policies of the Coastal Act, as described in the Public Resources Code (PRC) Division 20, California Coastal Act, Article 6, Development (2018) and summarized below. Each municipality within the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission is required to have a certified local coastal plan (LCP) in place that guides development in coastal zones to ensure compliance with Sections 30251.

Section 30251 Scenic and Visual Qualities
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

3.1 -- Aesthetics
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.1-3
California State Scenic Highway Program
The California Scenic Highway Program was created in 1963 with the intent “to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through special conservation treatment.” The state laws that govern the Scenic Highway Program are Sections 260 through 263 of the Streets and Highways Code.

A highway may be designated scenic based on the natural landscape visible by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which development intrudes upon the views of the highway. The Scenic Highway Program includes both officially designated scenic highways and highways that are eligible for designation. It is the responsibility of local jurisdictions to apply for scenic highway approval, which requires the adoption of a Corridor Protection Program (Caltrans 2020b). In addition, once a scenic highway is designated, the local jurisdiction is responsible for regulating development within the scenic highway corridor. As discussed under Section 3.1.1.4, Scenic Highways, there are no officially designated scenic highways in the City or within the project area located within the County (Caltrans 2020a). However, Highway 150, which extends east from the northernmost portion of the alignment, and US Highway 101, located directly to the east of the site, are eligible for designation as state scenic highways (Caltrans 2020a; City of Carpinteria 2003).

3.1.2.3 Local
City of Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan City objectives and policies related to visual resources and aesthetics are provided in the Open Space, Recreation & Conservation Element, and Community Design Element of the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan.

Applicable objectives and policies are as follows:

Objective OSC-13 Preserve Carpinteria’s visual resources.

Policy OSC-13a Preserve broad, unobstructed views from the nearest public street to the ocean, including but not limited to Linden Avenue, Bailard Avenue, Carpinteria Avenue, and U.S. Highway 101. In addition, design and site new development on or adjacent to bluffs, beaches, streams, or the Salt Mash to prevent adverse impacts on these visual resources. New development shall be subject to the following measures:

Height and siting restrictions to avoid obstruction of existing views of visual resources from the nearest public areas.

In additional to the bluff setback required for safety, additional bluff setbacks may be required for oceanfront structures to minimize or avoid impacts on public views from the beach. Blufftop structures shall be set back from the bluff edge sufficiently far to ensure that the structure does not infringe on views from the beach except in areas where existing structures already impact public views from the beach.

Special landscaping requirements to mitigate visual impacts.

Policy OSC-13c Other than permitted development, discourage activities which could damage or destroy open space areas, including off-road vehicle use and unauthorized collecting of natural objects.

Policy OSC-13e Promote the safety of the community through the use of open space lands.

3.1 -- Aesthetics
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.1-4
Policy OSC-13f Where appropriate, use open space lands as buffers for noise and visual nuisances and as transitions between incompatible uses.

Policy OSC-13g Require new development to protect scenic resources by utilizing natural landforms and native vegetation for screening structures, access roads, building foundations, and cut and fill slopes in project design which otherwise complies with visual resources protection policies.

Policy OSC-13h Plans for development shall minimize cut and sill operations. Plans that do not minimize cut and fill shall be denied.

Policy OSC-13i Design all new development to fit the site topography, soils, geology, hydrology, and other existing conditions and be oriented so that grading and other site preparations is kept to an absolute minimum. Preserve all-natural landforms, natural drainage systems, and native vegetation. Require all areas on the site not suited to development, as evidenced by competent soils, geology and hydrology investigations and reports remain as open space.

Policy OSC-13j Establish a “night-sky” ordinance that provides standards for the reduction of direct and ambient light in the night sky.

Objective CD-13 Ensure that lighting of new development is sensitive to the character and natural resources of the City and minimizes photo pollution to the maximum extent feasible.

Policy CD-13b Lighting shall be low intensity and located and designed so as to minimize direct view of light sources and diffusers and to minimize halo and spillover effects.

Additionally, the northern portion of the proposed project site falls within Bluffs Area 3 of Subarea 6, also known as the Bluffs, of the City’s Community Design Subareas. The following objectives and policies for Subarea 6 are relevant to the proposed project and its potential aesthetic impacts:

Objective CDS6-1 Maintain the Carpinteria Bluffs Access, Recreation & Open Space Master Program as the coordinated plan for the Carpinteria Bluffs area that will allow development of uses identified in the Land Use Plan herein, so as to complement one another and preserve and enhance the site’s coastal environment. The plan should be maintained so as to include information adequate to define the environmental resources and hazards within the Carpinteria Bluffs, and to delineate precise and appropriate policies for their management.

Policy CDS6-a Provide a clear direction for the future development of the Carpinteria Bluffs that:

1. Protects unique and sensitive environmental resources within the Bluffs.

2. Is compatible with the small-town character of Carpinteria, enhances the community’s image, and contributes to a pleasant visual experience for travelers entering Carpinteria on U.S. 101 from the south.

3. Provides appropriate development opportunities for landowners within the Carpinteria Bluffs.

Objective CDS6-2 Ensure that development is controlled to avoid impacts to significant viewsheds, vistas, and view corridors.

Policy CDS6-b Development on the Bluffs shall not obstruct existing view corridors of the ocean and bluff top edge. In addition, views of the ocean and mountains for

3.1 -- Aesthetics
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.1-5
users of the Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Park and coastal trail(s), for bluffs area property owners and visitors, and for passing motorists, shall be maintained.

Implementation Policy 59 Development that is located on or adjacent to bluffs, beaches, or streams shall be designed and sited to prevent adverse impacts on the visual quality of these resources.

Implementation Policy 60 New development shall maintain existing topographic variations of the Carpinteria Bluffs, such as the ridgeline in Bluffs I and the terracing of Bluffs III. Development of Bluffs I should be designed to respect the viewshed from the bluff trail looking north toward the mountains and from the Bluffs Nature Park looking west. Location and design of buildings shall respect the topography and follow topographic forms whenever possible, visible variations in the ground plane are to be retained, avoiding a flat, mass graded appearance. These variations in the ground plane are also to be reflected in variations in the roof lines of individual buildings.

Policy 65 As a part of development project plan submittals for the bluffs, tools such as physical or computer models, perspectives, or photographs, shall be included in order to demonstrate compliance with these measures and more generally the protection of Bluffs visual resources.

County of Santa Barbara Coastal Land Use Plan
The County of Santa Barbara’s Coastal Land Use Plan guides planning and development in the coastal areas of the county, and is intended to protect coastal resources while still allowing for development. Where there is conflict between the Coastal Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan takes precedence.

Applicable policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan include:

Policy 4-1 Areas within the coastal zone which are now required to obtain approval from the County Board of Architectural Review, because of the requirements of the “D”- Design Supervision Combining Regulations or because they are within the boundaries of Ordinance #453, shall continue to be subject to design review.

In addition, developments in all areas designated on the land use plan maps as Commercial, Industrial, or Planned Development and residential structures on bluff top lots shall be required to obtain plan approval from the County Board of Architectural Review.

Policy 4-3: In areas designated as rural on the land use plan maps, the height, scale, and design of structures shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding natural environment, except where technical requirements dictate otherwise.

Structures shall be subordinate in appearance to natural landforms; shall be designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape; and shall be sited so as not to intrude into the skyline as seen from public viewing places.

3.1 -- Aesthetics
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.1-6

3.1.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to aesthetics are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to aesthetics would occur if the project would:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. b) Substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. e) Result in cumulatively considerable impacts with regard to aesthetic and visual considerations.

3.1.4 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? As discussed under Section 3.1.1.4, the City’s General Plan and Local Coastal Plan designates the Carpinteria Bluffs as scenic vistas, for providing outstanding views of the Pacific Ocean and Channel Islands (City of Carpinteria 2003). In addition, the proposed trail alignment, is located within a Scenic Corridor Overlay Designation for the County, which is intended to give additional protection to areas where there are views from a major coastal road to the ocean (County of Santa Barbara 2009). However, the proposed trail is designed to take advantage of the area’s scenic views and is set into the existing major ridge element present in this vicinity.

The project would provide pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along the trail expansive views of the Santa Ynez mountain range backdrop (from trail sections north of the UPRR alignment), and of the Pacific Ocean, the local coastline and the Northern Channel Islands in the Santa Barbara Channel (from trail segments south of the UPRR alignment). Fencing along the trail would be only the maximum height necessary to provide safety (anticipated to be no more than three feet six inches), would be visually permeable (anticipated to be composed of a post and three rail fence with vinyl-clad chain link backing, that has often been used in local recreation areas to restrict access as necessary), and would use materials and colors that would blend with the natural environment. In addition, the proposed trail would be required to comply with County Policy, which requires that all development in these areas shall be reviewed by the County Board of Architectural Review. Nonetheless, due to the project’s location within a scenic vista, impacts to a scenic vista would be potentially significant. In order to ensure compliance with this policy requirement for all segments of the trail, implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-1 would be required (see Section 3.1.5, Mitigation, for details), and would reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant with mitigation.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? As discussed in Section 3.1.1.4, currently there are no officially designated scenic highways in the City of Carpinteria or within the project area located within the County (Caltrans 2020a). However, both Highway 150, which extends east from the northernmost portion of the alignment, and US Highway 101, located directly to the

3.1 -- Aesthetics
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.1-7
east of the site, are eligible for designation as state scenic highways (Caltrans 2020a; City of Carpinteria 2003; County of Santa Barbara 2009). In addition, the trail alignment and adjacent US Highway 101 are located within a Scenic Corridor Overlay Designation for the County. The Scenic Corridor Overlay designation is a special tool, which is intended to give additional protection to areas where there are views from a highway or major road to important visual resources, including mountains, ocean, and unspoiled open spaces. US Highway 101, which parallels the ocean throughout much of the South Coast, affords many thousands of traveler’s scenic mountain and ocean vistas. Lastly, there are no historic buildings within the project area and the proposed project would not remove trees that contribute to the overall aesthetic character of the project area.

Motorists traveling along US Highway 101 northbound have brief (a few seconds) glimpses of blue water views of the Pacific Ocean between the terraced and vegetated hillsides flanking the UPRR corridor. The ocean bluffs dominate this view toward the south, while mountains are visible in the distance to the north. Travelers headed southbound would need to glance over their shoulder to capture the same brief glimpses of the ocean between the hillsides along the UPRR Corridor. The proposed shared use trail would be visible to travelers in both directions as it would initially traverse the highway side of the terraced hill above the US Highway 101 southbound shoulder before turning northwest along the existing cut to connect with the proposed pedestrian bridge.

With implementation of the proposed project this southward view from US Highway 101, which currently contains steeper vegetated slopes and minimal visible development (namely a chain link fence, and highway lights and signage), would contain human-scale activity, including pedestrians and bicyclists as well as brief views of the concrete pathway and safety fencing, as well as the more notable pedestrian bridge spanning the UPRR corridor as indicated in the conceptual visual simulation presented in Figure 3.1-2. More specifically, Photos 2, 3, and 4, shown on Figure 3.1-2, illustrate the UPRR bridge feature, including perspectives looking toward the ocean and toward US Highway 101. Although the deck of the bridge would be at the same height as the US Highway 101 bridge over the UPRR corridor, the open metal truss structure would span the middle-ground view. However, these views are considered short duration and as shown in Figure 3.1-2, the new trail and bridge would not substantially modify or block any significant vistas or blue water ocean views. In addition, to the extent feasible, fencing and other man-made elements along the trail would be composed of materials and/or painted colors that would blend with the natural environment. The trail has been designed to be subordinate to the natural context and environment surrounding it and to enhance the scenic views and resources available in the area. Nonetheless, because the proposed project would result in alterations of a highly scenic resource, impacts to scenic resources would be potentially significant. County Policy requires that all development in View Corridor Overlay designation areas shall be reviewed by the County Board of Architectural Review. In order to ensure compliance with this policy requirement for all segments of the trail, MM-AES-1 would be required and would reduce impacts to less than significant with mitigation.
c) In non-urbanized areas, would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
The CEQA Guidelines define “urbanized area” as an incorporated city that meets either of the following criteria:
(1) Has a population of at least 100,000 persons.
(2) Has a population of less than 100,000 persons if the population of that city and not more than two contiguous incorporated cities combined equals at least 100,000 persons.

3.1 -- Aesthetics
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.1-8
The City has a population of 13,385 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020) and is surrounded by unincorporated Santa Barbara and Ventura County areas. Therefore, the project site is considered non-urbanized for CEQA purposes and this section analyzes whether or not the project would substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

As discussed above, the proposed trail would be visible from public areas such as US Highway 101 and would be partially visible from the public beach located directly west of the proposed trail. Although the proposed trail would be designed to be subordinate to the natural context and environment surrounding it, the view southward from US Highway 101, which currently contains steeper vegetated slopes and minimal visible development (namely a chain link fence, and highway lights and signage), would be transformed to contain human-scale activity, including pedestrians and bicyclists as well as brief views of the concrete pathway and safety fencing, as well as the more notable pedestrian bridge spanning the UPRR corridor as indicated in the conceptual visual simulation presented in Figure 3.1-2. In addition, under the proposed project, approximately 0.75 acres of the vegetation communities located within the proposed trail alignment would be permanently removed, while an additional 9.01 acres would be temporarily disturbed during construction. Additional plants occurring within the proposed trail alignment could also be accidentally destroyed during construction or damaged from runoff and erosion caused by construction.

In general, it should be noted the proposed trail alignment is situated on slopes that were previously graded to accommodate the construction of either US Highway 101 or the Union Pacific Railroad. Figure 3.1-2 provides low altitude aerial photograph exhibits of the entire trail alignment. As illustrated in the Figure 3.1-2, the existing slopes along the trail alignment have the common characteristic appearance of a manufactured slope, where the slope face is relatively planar and at a uniform slope angle, rather than a more undulating form normally present in natural slopes. With regard to the proposed trail design, the western portion of the trail (beginning at the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue and extending to the UPRR alignment), would involve creation of an 18-foot wide bench for the trail, and re-grading of the existing slope above the trail to produce a shallower (more stable) slope.

A second bench above the trail elevation would also be created on the eastern portion of this segment, to reduce erosion over the slope face of this segment with higher relative slope elevation (i.e., longer vertical face). Refer to Appendix G for earthwork cross-sections/profiles illustrating the slope re-working. The top elevation of this ridge would not be affected by the re-grading, and the overall area would continue to have the same general appearance as the existing condition (i.e., a manufactured slope along a road cut).

Under the proposed trail alignment, the location for the railroad crossing bridge would be located in close proximity to US Highway 101, consolidating bridge structures in one area, thereby lowering the noticeability of this new structure. Refer to Figures 3.1-2 for renderings of the bridge crossing shown from several different perspectives.

The eastern portion of the proposed trail would involve regrading of the slope above the former UPRR track alignment, to include a fill slope below the new trail bench, and a cut slope with mid-elevation bench above the trail bench (Refer to Appendix G for earthwork cross-sections/profiles illustrating the slope re-working). Again, the top elevation of the ridge within this segment of the trail alignment would not be modified and the overall area would continue to have the same general appearance as the existing condition (i.e., a manufactured slope along the original cut made for the railroad alignment).

3.1 -- Aesthetics
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.1-9
Due to the size of the proposed above ground components, the visibility of the above ground storm drain system would be minimal and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

Temporary adverse effects during construction due to the loss of mature vegetation would occur over a limited time period, given new landscaping and restoration of native plants are proposed as part of the project. The project would enhance area aesthetics via native landscape installations along the perimeter of the trail and ongoing landscape maintenance. Where feasible, the project would remove the invasive weeds along the proposed trail alignment that could suppress native plants. Native plants, once established, would live without need for supplemental water, helping to ensure their ongoing success. The reduction of slope angle (making the slope gentler) would slow water runoff, improve soil water retention, and support more extensive vegetation cover on the sloped areas, compared to existing conditions. Nonetheless, the project would have a potentially significant adverse impact on visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings because of the removal of mature vegetation and addition of new human-scale development. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. MM-AES-1, which requires County Board of Architectural Review, and MM-BIO-5, which requires restoration or enhancement of coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub communities in areas temporarily impacted by construction of the trail or adjacent area, would be required. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Materials used in the construction of the proposed trail, including metal railings for the bridge structure, would be finished in non-reflective coatings. No lighting is incorporated in the proposed trail design. Therefore, the project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant.
e) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable impacts with regard to aesthetic and visual considerations? Future development throughout the Carpinteria Valley has the potential to convert open space and natural landforms into built environment including structures, parking areas, roadways, etc., thereby adversely impacting the visual quality of scenic resources in the City of Carpinteria and County of Santa Barbara. With respect to the visual quality within the US Highway 101 corridor in the Carpinteria Valley, Caltrans concluded that proposed improvements under the South Coast 101 High Occupancy Vehicle project would result in substantial visual changes throughout much of the highway corridor due to loss of vegetation, increased paving and potential soundwalls, and because of the inherent alteration of scale, increase of hard surface, and loss of vegetative character, visual impacts would be significant and unavoidable (Caltrans 2014).The proposed project would not result in the blockage of available views to the ocean from US Highway 101, would incrementally change the character of the manufactured slopes upon which it would be placed, and is subject to architectural review and required restoration of existing vegetation. As such, limited visual impacts of the proposed project would be mitigated to less than significant levels, and the project would not have a considerable contribution to identified cumulatively significant visual impacts in the project region.

3.1 -- Aesthetics
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.1-10

3.1.5 Mitigation
The project would require the implementation of MM-AES-1 to reduce impacts to scenic vistas, scenic resources, and visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

MM-AES-1 Board of Architectural Review. The Owner/Applicant shall obtain City Architectural Review Board (ARB) and County Board of Architectural Review (BAR) approval for project design. All project elements (e.g., design, scale, character, colors, materials, and landscaping shall be compatible with vicinity development and shall conform in all respects to ARB/BAR approval. Plan Requirements and Timing:

The Owner/Applicant shall submit architectural drawings of the project including photo renditions from the beach of the storm drains proposed along the bluff face for review and shall obtain final City ARB and County BAR approval prior to issuance of the Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit. Grading plans, if required, shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department concurrent with or prior to ARB/BAR plan filing with the Carpinteria Community Development Department or County Planning and Development. Monitoring: The Owner/Applicant shall demonstrate to Community Development Department staff and Planning & Development Department compliance monitoring staff that the project has been built consistent with approved ARB/BAR design and landscape plans prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance.

The project would require the implementation of MM-BIO-5 to reduce impacts to visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.

MM-BIO-3 See Section 3.3.5.

3.1.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
After implementation of MM-AES-1 and MM-BIO-3 impacts to aesthetics would be less than significant.

Photo 1: Existing Conditions from the Middle of the Proposed Alignment Looking SouthHDVW Photo 2: Existing Conditions Looking 6RXWKHDVW Photo 3: Existing Conditions Looking Southeast Towards the Proposed Alignment Photo 4: Existing Conditions Looking 6RXWKHDVW from the Middle of the Proposed Alignment FIGURE 3.1-
Existing Conditions of Proposed Trail Alignment
Carpinteria Rincon Trail EIR
SOURCE: Carpinteria Rincon Trail MND Appendix A
Path: Z:\Projects\j1103200\MAPDOC\EIR

3.1 -- Aesthetics
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.1-12

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Photo 1: Proposed Trail As Seen from Across the U.S. 101 Looking Northwest Photo 2: Proposed Trail Looking Towards the Pacific Ocean Across the UPRR Bridge Photo 3: Proposed Trail Looking Towards the U.S. 101 Across the UPRR Bridge Photo 4: Proposed Trail Looking Southeast from the North FIGURE 3.1-
Visual Simulations
Carpinteria Rincon Trail EIR
SOURCE: Carpinteria Rincon Trail MND
Path: Z:\Projects\j1103200\MAPDOC\EIR

3.1 -- Aesthetics
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.1-14

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-1

3.2 Air Quality
This section describes the existing air quality conditions of the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project (project) site and vicinity, identifies associated regulatory requirements, and evaluates potential impacts related to implementation of the project.

3.2.1 Existing Conditions

3.2.1.1 Climate and Topography
The weather of the Santa Barbara region, as in most of Southern California, is influenced by the Pacific Ocean and its semi-permanent high-pressure systems that result in dry, warm summers and mild, occasionally wet winters.

The average temperature ranges (in degrees Fahrenheit) from the mid-40s to the mid-70s. Most of the region’s precipitation falls from November to April, with infrequent (approximately 10%) precipitation during the summer.

The average seasonal precipitation along the coast is approximately 10 inches; the amount increases with elevation as moist air is lifted over the mountains (WRCC 2020).

The topography in the Santa Barbara region varies greatly, from beaches on the south to mountains and valleys in the north; along with local meteorology, it influences the dispersal and movement of pollutants in the basin. The mountains to the north prohibit dispersal of pollutants in that direction and help trap them in inversion layers.

The interaction of ocean, land, and the Pacific High Pressure Zone maintains clear skies for much of the year and influences the direction of prevailing winds. Local terrain is often the dominant factor inland, and winds in inland mountainous areas tend to blow through the valleys during the day and down the hills and valleys at night.

3.2.1.2 Criteria Air Pollutants
Criteria air pollutants are defined as pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards (criteria) for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. The federal and state standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive persons from illness or discomfort. Pollutants of concern include O3, NO2, CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5), and lead. These pollutants, as well as toxic air contaminants (TACs), are discussed in the following paragraphs.1 In California, sulfates, vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility-reducing particles are also regulated as criteria air pollutants.

Ozone. O3 is a strong-smelling, pale blue, reactive, toxic chemical gas consisting of three oxygen atoms. It is a secondary pollutant formed in the atmosphere by a photochemical process involving the sun’s energy and O3 precursors. These precursors are mainly NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). The maximum effects of precursor emissions on O3 concentrations usually occur several hours after they are emitted and many miles from the source. Meteorology and terrain play major roles in O3 formation, and ideal conditions occur during summer and early autumn on days with low wind speeds or stagnant air, warm temperatures, and cloudless skies. O3 exists 1 The descriptions of each of the criteria air pollutants and associated health effects are based on the EPA’s (2016a) Criteria Air Pollutants and the CARB (2016a) Glossary of Air Pollutant Terms.

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-2
in the upper atmosphere O3 layer (stratospheric ozone) and at the Earth’s surface in the troposphere (ozone).2 The O3 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulate as a criteria air pollutant is produced close to the ground level, where people live, exercise, and breathe. Ground-level O3 is a harmful air pollutant that causes numerous adverse health effects and is, thus, considered “bad” O3.

Stratospheric, or “good,” O3 occurs naturally in the upper atmosphere, where it reduces the amount of ultraviolet light (i.e., solar radiation) entering the Earth’s atmosphere. Without the protection of the beneficial stratospheric O3 layer, plant and animal life would be seriously harmed.

O3 in the troposphere causes numerous adverse health effects; short-term exposures (lasting for a few hours) to O3 at levels typically observed in Southern California can result in breathing pattern changes, reduction of breathing capacity, increased susceptibility to infections, inflammation of the lung tissue, and some immunological changes (EPA 2013). These health problems are particularly acute in sensitive receptors such as the sick, the elderly, and young children.

Nitrogen Dioxide and Oxides of Nitrogen. NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban atmospheres. The major mechanism for the formation of NO2 in the atmosphere is the oxidation of the primary air pollutant nitric oxide, which is a colorless, odorless gas. NO2 can irritate the lungs, cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and lower resistance to respiratory infections (EPA 2016b).

NOx plays a major role, together with VOCs, in the atmospheric reactions that produce O3. NOx is formed from fuel combustion under high temperature or pressure. In addition, NOx is an important precursor to acid rain and may affect both terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The two major emissions sources of NOx are transportation and stationary fuel combustion sources, such as electric utility and industrial boilers.

Carbon Monoxide. CO is a colorless, odorless gas formed by the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon, or fossil fuels. CO is emitted almost exclusively from motor vehicles, power plants, refineries, industrial boilers, ships, aircraft, and trains. In urban areas, automobile exhaust accounts for the majority of CO emissions. CO is a nonreactive air pollutant that dissipates relatively quickly; therefore, ambient CO concentrations generally follow the spatial and temporal distributions of vehicular traffic. CO concentrations are influenced by local meteorological conditions—primarily wind speed, topography, and atmospheric stability. CO from motor vehicle exhaust can become locally concentrated when surface-based temperature inversions are combined with calm atmospheric conditions, which is a typical situation at dusk in urban areas from November to February. The highest levels of CO typically occur during the colder months of the year, when inversion conditions are more frequent.

In terms of adverse health effects, CO competes with oxygen, often replacing it in the blood, reducing the blood’s ability to transport oxygen to vital organs. The results of excess CO exposure can include dizziness, fatigue, and impairment of central nervous system functions.

Sulfur Dioxide. SO2 is a colorless, pungent gas formed primarily from incomplete combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels. The main sources of SO2 are coal and oil used in power plants and industries; as such, the highest levels of SO2 are generally found near large industrial complexes. In recent years, SO2 concentrations have been reduced by the increasingly stringent controls placed on stationary source emissions of SO2 and limits on the sulfur content of fuels.
2 The troposphere is the layer of the Earth’s atmosphere nearest to the surface of the Earth. The troposphere extends outward about five miles at the poles and about 10 miles at the equator.

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-3
SO2 is an irritant gas that attacks the throat and lungs and can cause acute respiratory symptoms and diminished ventilator function in children. When combined with particulate matter, SO2 can injure lung tissue and reduce visibility and the level of sunlight. SO2 can also yellow plant leaves and erode iron and steel.

Particulate Matter. Particulate matter pollution consists of very small liquid and solid particles floating in the air, which can include smoke, soot, dust, salts, acids, and metals. Particulate matter can form when gases emitted from industries and motor vehicles undergo chemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM2.5 and PM10 represent fractions of particulate matter. Coarse particulate matter (PM10) consists of particulate matter that is 10 microns or less in diameter (about 1/7 the thickness of a human hair). Major sources of PM10 include crushing or grinding operations; dust stirred up by vehicles traveling on roads; wood-burning stoves and fireplaces; dust from construction, landfills, and agriculture; wildfires and brush/waste burning; industrial sources; windblown dust from open lands; and atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) consists of particulate matter that is 2.5 microns or less in diameter (roughly 1/28 the diameter of a human hair). PM2.5 results from fuel combustion (e.g., from motor vehicles and power generation and industrial facilities), residential fireplaces, and woodstoves. In addition, PM2.5 can be formed in the atmosphere from gases such as sulfur oxides (SOx), NOx, and VOCs.

PM2.5 and PM10 pose a greater health risk than larger-size particles. When inhaled, these tiny particles can penetrate the human respiratory system’s natural defenses and damage the respiratory tract. PM2.5 and PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body’s ability to fight infections. Very small particles of substances such as lead, sulfates, and nitrates can cause lung damage directly or be absorbed into the blood stream, causing damage elsewhere in the body. Additionally, these substances can transport adsorbed gases such as chlorides or ammonium into the lungs, also causing injury.

Whereas PM10 tends to collect in the upper portion of the respiratory system, PM2.5 is so tiny that it can penetrate deeper into the lungs and damage lung tissue. Suspended particulates also damage and discolor surfaces on which they settle and produce haze and reduce regional visibility.

People with influenza, people with chronic respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and the elderly may suffer worsening illness and premature death as a result of breathing particulate matter. People with bronchitis can expect aggravated symptoms from breathing in particulate matter. Children may experience a decline in lung function due to breathing in PM10 and PM2.5 (EPA 2009).

Lead. Lead in the atmosphere occurs as particulate matter. Sources of lead include leaded gasoline; the manufacturing of batteries, paints, ink, ceramics, and ammunition; and secondary lead smelters. Prior to 1978, mobile emissions were the primary source of atmospheric lead. Between 1978 and 1987, the phaseout of leaded gasoline reduced the overall inventory of airborne lead by nearly 95%. With the phaseout of leaded gasoline, secondary lead smelters, battery recycling, and manufacturing facilities are becoming lead-emissions sources of greater concern.

Prolonged exposure to atmospheric lead poses a serious threat to human health. Health effects associated with exposure to lead include gastrointestinal disturbances, anemia, kidney disease, and in severe cases, neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction. Of particular concern are low-level lead exposures during infancy and childhood. Such exposures are associated with decrements in neurobehavioral performance, including intelligence quotient performance, psychomotor performance, reaction time, and growth. Children are highly susceptible to the effects of lead.

Volatile Organic Compounds. Hydrocarbons are organic gases that are formed from hydrogen and carbon and sometimes other elements. Hydrocarbons that contribute to formation of O3 are referred to and regulated as VOCs (also referred to as reactive organic gases). Combustion engine exhaust, oil refineries, and fossil-fueled power

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-4
plants are the primary sources of hydrocarbons. Other sources of hydrocarbons include evaporation from petroleum fuels, solvents, dry cleaning solutions, and paint.

The primary health effects of VOCs result from the formation of O3 and its related health effects. High levels of VOCs in the atmosphere can interfere with oxygen intake by reducing the amount of available oxygen through displacement. Carcinogenic forms of hydrocarbons, such as benzene, are considered TACs. There are no separate health standards for VOCs as a group.

Sulfates. Sulfates are the fully oxidized form of sulfur, which typically occur in combination with metals or hydrogen ions. Sulfates are produced from reactions of SO2 in the atmosphere. Sulfates can result in respiratory impairment and reduced visibility.

Vinyl Chloride. Vinyl chloride is a colorless gas with a mild, sweet odor that has been detected near landfills, sewage plants, and hazardous waste sites, due to the microbial breakdown of chlorinated solvents. Short-term exposure to high levels of vinyl chloride in the air can cause nervous system effects such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches. Long-term exposure through inhalation can cause liver damage, including liver cancer.

Hydrogen Sulfide. Hydrogen sulfide is a colorless and flammable gas that has a characteristic odor of rotten eggs.

Sources of hydrogen sulfide include geothermal power plants, petroleum refineries, sewers, and sewage treatment plants. Exposure to hydrogen sulfide can result in nuisance odors, as well as headaches and breathing difficulties at higher concentrations.

Visibility-Reducing Particles. Visibility-reducing particles are any particles in the air that obstruct the range of visibility. Effects of reduced visibility can include obscuring the viewshed of natural scenery, reducing airport safety, and discouraging tourism. Sources of visibility-reducing particles are the same as for PM2.5, described above.

3.2.1.3 Non-Criteria Air Pollutants
Toxic Air Contaminants. A substance is considered toxic if it has the potential to cause adverse health effects in humans, including increasing the risk of cancer upon exposure, or acute and/or chronic non-cancer health effects.

A toxic substance released into the air is considered a TAC. TACs are identified by federal and state agencies based on a review of available scientific evidence. In the State of California, TACs are identified through a two-step process that was established in 1983 under the Toxic Air Contaminant Identification and Control Act. This two-step process of risk identification and risk management and reduction was designed to protect residents from the health effects of toxic substances in the air. In addition, the California Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, Assembly Bill (AB) 2588, was enacted by the legislature in 1987 to address public concern over the release of TACs into the atmosphere. The law requires facilities emitting toxic substances to provide local air pollution control districts with information that will allow an assessment of the air toxics problem, identification of air toxics emissions sources, location of resulting hotspots, notification of the public exposed to significant risk, and development of effective strategies to reduce potential risks to the public over five years.

Examples include certain aromatic and chlorinated hydrocarbons, certain metals, and asbestos. TACs are generated by a number of sources, including stationary sources, such as dry cleaners, gas stations, combustion sources, and laboratories; mobile sources, such as automobiles; and area sources, such as landfills. Adverse health effects associated with exposure to TACs may include carcinogenic (i.e., cancer-causing) and noncarcinogenic effects. Noncarcinogenic effects typically affect one or more target organ systems and may be experienced on either short-term (acute) or long-term (chronic) exposure to a given TAC.

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-5
Diesel Particulate Matter. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) is part of a complex mixture that makes up diesel exhaust. Diesel exhaust is composed of two phases, gas and particle, both of which contribute to health risks. More than 90% of DPM is less than one micrometer in diameter (about 1/70th the diameter of a human hair) and, thus, is a subset of PM2.5 (CARB 2016a). DPM is typically composed of carbon particles (“soot,” also called black carbon) and numerous organic compounds, including over 40 known cancer-causing organic substances. Examples of these chemicals include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, benzene, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 1,3- butadiene (CARB 2016a). CARB classified “particulate emissions from diesel-fueled engines” (i.e., DPM) (17 CCR 93000) as a TAC in August 1998. DPM is emitted from a broad range of diesel engines, including on-road diesel engines from trucks, buses, and cars; and off-road diesel engines from locomotives, marine vessels, and heavyduty construction equipment, among others. Approximately 70% of all airborne cancer risk in California is associated with DPM (CARB 2000). To reduce the cancer risk associated with DPM, CARB adopted a diesel risk reduction plan in 2000 (CARB 2000). Because it is part of PM2.5, DPM also contributes to the same non-cancer health effects as PM2.5 exposure. These effects include premature death; hospitalizations and emergency department visits for exacerbated chronic heart and lung disease, including asthma; increased respiratory symptoms; and decreased lung function in children. Several studies suggest that exposure to DPM may also facilitate development of new allergies (CARB 2016b). Those most vulnerable to non-cancer health effects are children whose lungs are still developing and the elderly who often have chronic health problems.

Odorous Compounds. Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. Manifestations of a person’s reaction to odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and, overall, is quite subjective. People may have different reactions to the same odor. An odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., coffee roaster). An unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. In a phenomenon known as odor fatigue, a person can become desensitized to almost any odor, and recognition may only occur with an alteration in the intensity. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of receptors.

Valley Fever. Coccidioidomycosis, more commonly known as “Valley Fever,” is an infection caused by inhalation of the spores of the Coccidioides immitis fungus, which grows in the soils of the southwestern United States. The fungus is very prevalent in the soils of California’s San Joaquin Valley, particularly in Kern County. Kern County is considered a highly endemic county (i.e., more than 20 cases annually of Valley Fever per 100,000 people) based on the incidence rates reported through 2019 (California Department of Public Health 2019). The ecologic factors that appear to be most conducive to survival and replication of the spores are high summer temperatures, mild winters, sparse rainfall, and alkaline, sandy soils.

Santa Barbara County is not considered a highly endemic region for Valley Fever as the latest report from the California Department of Public Health listed Santa Barbara County as having 16.5 cases per 100,000 people (California Department of Public Health 2019). Furthermore, according to a Santa Barbara County Department of Public Health study, most of Valley Fever patients lived in North (85%) or Central (9%) Santa Barbara County with only 7% living in South County (Santa Barbara County Public Health Department 2018). Of the cases living in South County, half of them had traveled to areas outside of South County where cases of Valley Fever more commonly occur.

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-6

3.2.1.4 Sensitive Receptors
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the activities involved. People most likely to be affected by air pollution include children, the elderly, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. Facilities and structures where these air pollution-sensitive people live or spend considerable amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. Land uses where air pollution-sensitive individuals are most likely to spend time include schools and schoolyards, playgrounds, daycare centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential communities (sensitive sites or sensitive land uses) (CARB 2005). The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) defines a sensitive receptor as a school, daycare facility, hospital, residence, or care facility (SBCAPCD 2020). The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are residences of the Rincon Point community. The closest residence to the proposed trail is located approximately 180 feet away (55 meters) at the eastern end of the trail.

3.2.1.5 Regional and Local Air Quality Conditions
South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB) Attainment Designation Pursuant to the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments, the EPA classifies air basins (or portions thereof) as “attainment” or “nonattainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been achieved. Generally, if the recorded concentrations of a pollutant are lower than the standard, the area is classified as “attainment” for that pollutant. If an area exceeds the standard, the area is classified as “nonattainment” for that pollutant. As previously discussed, these standards are set by the EPA or CARB for the maximum level of a given air pollutant that can exist in the outdoor air without unacceptable effects on human health or the public welfare. If there is not enough data available to determine whether the standard is exceeded in an area, the area is designated as “unclassified” or “unclassifiable.” The designation of “unclassifiable/attainment” means that the area meets the standard or is expected to be meet the standard despite a lack of monitoring data. Areas that achieve the standards after a nonattainment designation are redesignated as maintenance areas and must have approved Maintenance Plans to ensure continued attainment of the standards.

The California Clean Air Act, like its federal counterpart, called for the designation of areas as “attainment” or “nonattainment,” but based on California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) rather than the NAAQS.

The criteria pollutants of primary concern that are considered in this analysis are O3, NO2, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5.

Although there are no ambient standards for VOCs or NOx, they are important as precursors to O3.The SCCAB is currently designated nonattainment for PM10 under the CAAQS. It is designated attainment for the CAAQS for O3, CO, PM10, NO2, SO2, lead, and sulfates. The SCCAB is designated attainment for all NAAQS.

Table 3.2-1 summarizes the SCCAB’s federal and state attainment designations for each of the criteria pollutants.

Table 3.2-1. SCCAB Attainment Classification
Pollutant Federal Designationa,b State Designationc
O3 (1-hour) Attainmentd Attainment
O3 (8-hour) Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment
CO Attainment (Maintenance) Attainment
PM10 Attainment Nonattainment
PM2.5 Unclassifiable/Attainment Unclassified
NO2 Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-7
Table 3.2-1. SCCAB Attainment Classification
Pollutant Federal Designationa,b State Designationc
SO2 Unclassified Attainment
Leade Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment
Sulfates (no federal standard) Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide (no federal standard) Attainment
Visibility-Reducing Particles (no federal standard) Unclassified Vinyl chloridee No federal standard No designation
Notes:
a EPA 2016c.
b At the time of designation, if the available data does not support a designation of attainment or nonattainment, the area is designated as unclassifiable.
c CARB 2016b.
d The federal 1-hour standard of 0.12 ppm was in effect from 1979 through June 15, 2005. The revoked standard is referenced here because it was employed for such a long period and because this benchmark is addressed in SIPs. e CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined.

Local Ambient Air Quality
CARB, air districts, and other agencies monitor ambient air quality at approximately 250 air quality monitoring stations across the state. The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) monitors local ambient air quality at the project site. Air quality monitoring stations usually measure pollutant concentrations 10 feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. The most recent background ambient air quality data from 2017 to 2019 are presented in Table 3.2-2. The Carpinteria monitoring station, located at Gobernador Canyon Rd., is the nearest air quality monitoring station to the project site, located approximately 2.1 miles northeast from the project site. The data collected at this station are considered representative of the air quality experienced in the project vicinity. Air quality data for O3 and NO2 from the Carpinteria monitoring station are provided in Table 3.2-2. Because CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are not monitored at the Carpinteria monitoring station, CO measurements were taken from the Las Flores Canyon monitoring station located in El Capitan, California, approximately 33.5 miles west of the project site; SO2 measurements were taken from the Isla Vista monitoring station located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, approximately 23.4 miles west of the project site; and PM10 and PM2.5 measurements were taken from the Santa Barbara monitoring station located at 700 East Canon Perdido, Santa Barbara, approximately 12.8 miles north-west of the project site.

The number of days exceeding the ambient air quality standards are also shown in Table 3.2-2.

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-8
Table 3.2-2. Local Ambient Air Quality Data
Monitoring
Station Unit Averaging Time
Agency/
Method
Ambient Air
Quality
Standard
Measured Concentration by Year Exceedances by Year
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019
Ozone (O3)
Carpinteria ppm Maximum 1-hour
concentration
California 0.09 0.072 0.084 0.086 0 0 0
ppm Maximum 8-hour
concentration
California 0.070 0.061 0.070 0.071 0 0 1
National 0.070 0.060 0.070 0.071 0 0 1
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Carpinteria ppm Maximum 1-hour
concentration
California 0.18 0.017 0.029 0.018 0 0 0
National 0.100 0.017 0.029 0.018 0 0 0
ppm Annual
concentration
California 0.030 0.001 0.002 0.001 0 0 0
National 0.053 0.001 0.002 0.001 0 0 0
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Las Flores
Canyon
ppm Maximum 1-hour
concentration
California 20 1.7 0.8 0.6 0 0 0
National 35 1.7 0.8 0.6 0 0 0
ppm Maximum 8-hour
concentration
California 9.0 1.3 0.6 0.5 0 0 0
National 9 1.3 0.6 0.5 0 0 0
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Isla Vista ppm Maximum 1-hour
concentration
National 0.075 0.003 0.002 0.001 0 0 0
ppm Maximum 24-hour
concentration
National 0.14 0.001 0.002 0.0005 0 0 0
ppm Annual
concentration
National 0.030 0.0001 0.0005 0.00001 0 0 0

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-9
Table 3.2-2. Local Ambient Air Quality Data
Monitoring
Station Unit Averaging Time
Agency/
Method
Ambient Air
Quality
Standard
Measured Concentration by Year Exceedances by Year
2017 2018 2019 2017 2018 2019
Coarse Particulate Matter (PM10)
a
Santa Barbara g/m3 Maximum 24-hour
concentration
California 50 355.4 128.3 72.1 —
(18)

11.1 (11)

4.3 (4)
National 150 338.2 123.1 70.6 —
(7)

0.0 (0)

0.0 (0)
g/m3 Annual
concentration
California 20 — 26.6 21.5 — — —
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
a
Santa Barbara g/m3 Maximum 24-hour
concentration
National 35 231.6 37.7 22.5 —
(13)

1.0 (1)

0.0 (0)
g/m3 Annual
concentration
California 12 — 8.5 6.8 — — —
National 12.0 — 8.5 6.8 — — —
Sources: CARB 2020; EPA 2020.

Notes: — = not available; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ND = insufficient data available to determine the value; ppm = parts per million Data taken from CARB iADAM (http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam) and EPA AirData (https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data) represent the highest concentrations experienced over a given year.

Exceedances of national and California standards are only shown for O3 and particulate matter. Daily exceedances for particulate matter are estimated days because PM10 and PM2.5 are not monitored daily. All other criteria pollutants did not exceed national or California standards during the years shown. There is no national standard for 1-hour O3, annual PM10, or 24-hour SO2, nor is there a California 24-hour standard for PM2.5. a Measurements of PM10 and PM2.5 are usually collected every 6 days and every 1 to 3 days, respectively. Number of days exceeding the standards is a mathematical estimate of the number of days concentrations would have been greater than the level of the standard had each day been monitored. The numbers in parentheses are the measured number of samples that exceeded the standard.

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-1

3.2.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances

3.2.2.1 Federal

3.2.2.1.1 Criteria Pollutants
The federal Clean Air Act (CAA), passed in 1970 and last amended in 1990, forms the basis for the national air pollution control effort. The EPA is responsible for implementing most aspects of the CAA, including the setting of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for major air pollutants, hazardous air pollutant standards, approval of state attainment plans, motor vehicle emission standards, stationary source emission standards and permits, acid rain control measures, stratospheric O3 protection, and enforcement provisions.

Under the CAA, NAAQS are established for the following criteria pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead.

The NAAQS describe acceptable air quality conditions designed to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of the nation. The CAA requires the EPA to reassess the NAAQS at least every five years to determine whether adopted standards are adequate to protect public health based on current scientific evidence. States with areas that exceed the NAAQS must prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that demonstrates how those areas will attain the standards within mandated time frames.

3.2.2.1.2 Hazardous Air Pollutants
The 1977 federal CAA amendments required the EPA to identify national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants to protect public health and welfare. Hazardous air pollutants include certain VOCs, pesticides, herbicides, and radionuclides that present a tangible hazard, based on scientific studies of exposure to humans and other mammals. Under the 1990 CAA amendments, which expanded the control program for hazardous air pollutants, 189 substances and chemical families were identified as hazardous air pollutants.

3.2.2.2 State

3.2.2.2.1 Criteria Air Pollutants
The federal CAA delegates the regulation of air pollution control and the enforcement of the NAAQS to the states.

In California, the task of air quality management and regulation has been legislatively granted to the California Air Resources Board (CARB), with subsidiary responsibilities assigned to air quality management districts and air pollution control districts at the regional and county levels. CARB, which became part of the California Environmental Protection Agency in 1991, is responsible for ensuring implementation of the California Clean Air Act of 1988, responding to the CAA and regulating emissions from motor vehicles and consumer products.

CARB has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are generally more restrictive than the NAAQS. The CAAQS describe adverse conditions; that is, pollution levels must be below these standards before a basin can attain the standard. Air quality is considered “in attainment” if pollutant levels are continuously below the CAAQS and violate the standards no more than once each year. The CAAQS for O3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24- hour), NO2, PM10, PM2.5, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. The NAAQS and CAAQS are presented in Table 3.2-3.

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-11
Table 3.2-3. Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time
California Standardsa National Standardsb
Concentrationc Primaryc,d Secondaryc,e
O3 1 hour 0.09 ppm (180 g/m3) — Same as Primary
Standardf 8 hours 0.070 ppm (137 g/m3) 0.070 ppm
(137 g/m3)
f
NO2
g 1 hour 0.18 ppm (339 g/m3) 0.100 ppm
(188 g/m3)
Same as Primary
Standard
Annual Arithmetic
Mean

0.030 ppm (57 g/m3) 0.053 ppm
(100 g/m3)
CO 1 hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) None
8 hours 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
SO2
h 1 hour 0.25 ppm (655 g/m3) 0.075 ppm
(196 g/m3)
—
3 hours — — 0.5 ppm (1,300
g/m3)
24 hours 0.04 ppm (105 g/m3) 0.14 ppm (for certain
areas)g
—
Annual — 0.030 ppm (for certain
areas)g
—
PM10i 24 hours 50 g/m3 150 g/m3 Same as Primary
Annual Arithmetic Standard
Mean
20 g/m3 —
PM2.5i 24 hours — 35 g/m3 Same as Primary
Standard
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
12 g/m3 12.0 g/m3 15.0 g/m3
Leadj,k 30-day Average 1.5 g/m3 — —
Calendar Quarter — 1.5 g/m3 (for certain
areas)k
Same as Primary
Standard
Rolling 3-Month
Average
— 0.15 g/m3
Hydrogen
sulfide
1 hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) — —
Vinyl
chloridej
24 hours 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) — —
Sulfates 24 hours 25 µg/m3 — —
Visibility
reducing
particles
8 hour (10:00 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. PST)
Insufficient amount to
produce an extinction
coefficient of 0.23 per
kilometer due to the
number of particles when
the relative humidity is
less than 70%
— —
Source: CARB 2016b; EPA 2016d.

Notes: O3 = ozone; ppm = parts per million by volume; g/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; CO = carbon monoxide; mg/m3= milligrams per cubic meter; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns. a California standards for O3, CO, SO2 (1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, suspended particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California Ambient Air Quality Standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-12
b National standards (other than O3, NO2, SO2, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once per year. The O3 standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 µg/m3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98% of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard.
c Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
d National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. e National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
f On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. g To attain the national 1-hour standard, the three-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the one-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 parts per billion (ppb). Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of ppb.

California standards are in units of ppm. To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards, the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. h On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established, and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the national 1-hour standard, the three-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the one-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment of the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

I On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 g/m3 to 12 g/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 g/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 g/m3 were also retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean averaged over three years. j California Air Resources Board has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
k The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008, to a rolling three-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.

3.2.2.2.2 Toxic Air Contaminants
A TAC is defined by California law as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. Federal laws use the hazardous air pollutants to refer to the same types of compounds that are referred to as TACs under state law.

California regulates TACs primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588).

AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. This includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. Pursuant to AB 2588, existing facilities that emit air pollutants above specified levels were required to (1) prepare a TAC emission inventory plan and report; (2) prepare a risk assessment if TAC emissions were significant; (3) notify the public of significant risk levels; and (4) if health impacts were above specified levels, prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

The following regulatory measures pertain to the reduction of DPM and criteria pollutant emissions from off-road equipment and diesel-fueled vehicles.

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-13
Idling of Commercial Heavy Duty Trucks (13 CCR 2485)
In July 2004, CARB adopted an Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) to control emissions from idling trucks. The ATCM prohibits idling for more than five minutes for all commercial trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating over 10,000 pounds. The ATCM contains an exception that allows trucks to idle while queuing or involved in operational activities.

In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets (13 CCR 2449 et seq.) In July 2007, CARB adopted an ATCM for in-use off-road diesel vehicles. This regulation requires that specific fleet average requirements are met for NOx emissions and for particulate matter emissions. Where average requirements cannot be met, best available control technology requirements apply. The regulation also includes several recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

In response to AB 8 2X, the regulations were revised in July 2009 (effective December 3, 2009) to allow a partial postponement of the compliance schedule in 2011 and 2012 for existing fleets. On December 17, 2010, CARB adopted additional revisions to further delay the deadlines reflecting reductions in diesel emissions due to the poor economy and overestimates of diesel emissions in California. The revisions delayed the first compliance date until no earlier than January 1, 2014, for large fleets, with final compliance by January 1, 2023. The compliance dates for medium fleets were delayed until an initial date of January 1, 2017, and final compliance date of January 1, 2023. The compliance dates for small fleets were delayed until an initial date of January 1, 2019, and final compliance date of January 1, 2028. Correspondingly, the fleet average targets were made more stringent in future compliance years. The revisions also accelerated the phaseout of older equipment with newer equipment added to existing large and medium fleets over time, requiring the addition of Tier 2 or higher engines starting on March 1, 2011, with some exceptions: Tier 2 or higher engines on January 1, 2013, without exception; and Tier 3 or higher engines on January 1, 2018 (January 1, 2023, for small fleets).

On October 28, 2011 (effective December 14, 2011), the Executive Officer approved amendments to the regulation. The amendments included revisions to the applicability section and additions and revisions to the definition. The initial date for requiring the addition of Tier 2 or higher engines for large and medium fleets, with some exceptions, was revised to January 1, 2012. New provisions also allow for the removal of emission control devices for safety or visibility purposes. The regulation also was amended to combine the particulate matter and NOx fleet average targets under one, instead of two, sections. The amended fleet average targets are based on the fleet’s NOx fleet average, and the previous section regarding particulate matter performance requirements was deleted completely. The best available control technology requirements, if a fleet cannot comply with the fleet average requirements, were restructured and clarified. Other amendments to the regulations included minor administrative changes to the regulatory text.

In-Use On-Road Diesel-Fueled Vehicles (13 CCR 2025)
On December 12, 2008, CARB adopted an ATCM to reduce NOx and particulate matter emissions from most in-use on-road diesel trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds. The original ATCM regulation required fleets of on-road trucks to limit their NOx and particulate matter emissions through a combination of exhaust retrofit equipment and new vehicles. The regulation limited particulate matter emissions for most fleets by 2011, and limited NOx emissions for most fleets by 2013. The regulation did not require any vehicle to be replaced before 2012 and never required all vehicles in a fleet be replaced.

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-14
In December 2009, the CARB Governing Board directed staff to evaluate amendments that would provide additional flexibility for fleets adversely affected by the struggling California economy. On December 17, 2010, CARB revised this ATCM to delay its implementation along with limited relaxation of its requirements. Starting on January 1, 2015, lighter trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 14,001 to 26,000 pounds with 20-year-old or older engines need to be replaced with newer trucks (2010 model year emissions equivalent as defined in the regulation). Trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 26,000 pounds with 1995 model year or older engines needed to be replaced as of January 1, 2015. Trucks with 1996 to 2006 model year engines must install a Level 3 (85% control) diesel particulate filter starting on January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2014, depending on the model year, and then must be replaced after eight years. Trucks with 2007 to 2009 model year engines have no requirements until 2023, at which time they must be replaced with 2010 model year emissions-equivalent engines, as defined in the regulation. Trucks with 2010 model year engines would meet the final compliance requirements. The ATCM provides a phase-in option under which a fleet operator would equip a percentage of trucks in the fleet with diesel particulate filters, starting at 30% as of January 1, 2012, with 100% by January 1, 2016. Under each option, delayed compliance is granted to fleet operators who have or will comply with requirements before the required deadlines.

On September 19, 2011 (effective December 14, 2011), the Executive Officer approved amendments to the regulations, including revisions to the compliance schedule for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,000 pounds or less to clarify that all vehicles must be equipped with 2010 model year emissions equivalent engines by 2023. The amendments included revised and additional credits for fleets that have downsized; implement early particulate matter retrofits; incorporate hybrid vehicles, alternative-fueled vehicles, and vehicles with heavy-duty pilot ignition engines; and implement early addition of newer vehicles. The amendments included provisions for additional flexibility, such as for low-usage construction trucks, and revisions to previous exemptions, delays, and extensions. Other amendments to the regulations included minor administrative changes to the regulatory text, such as recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to other revisions.

California Health and Safety Code Section 41700
Section 41700 of the California Health and Safety Code states that a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any of those persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This section also applies to sources of objectionable odors.

3.2.2.3 Local
San Barbara County Air Pollution Control District
While CARB is responsible for the regulation of mobile emission sources within the state, local air quality management districts and air pollution control districts are responsible for enforcing standards and regulating stationary sources. The project Site is located within the SCCAB and is subject to the guidelines and regulations of the SBCAPCD. The SBCAPCD operates monitoring stations in the County, develops rules and regulations for stationary sources and equipment, prepares emissions inventory and air quality management planning documents, and conducts source testing and inspections.

In Santa Barbara County, O3 and particulate matter are the pollutants of main concern, since exceedances of state ambient air quality standards for those pollutants are experienced here in most years. For this reason, the SCCAB has been designated as a nonattainment area for the state PM10 standard. Santa Barbara County was designated

3.2 – Air Quality
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.2-15
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2015 revised federal 8-hour ozone standard on April 30, 2018 and attainment for the state O3 standard. The County is also unclassifiable/attainment for the federal PM2.5 standard and unclassified for the state PM2.5 standard. However, the County is currently in nonattainment for the state PM10 standard.

Clean Air Plans
Since 1992, Santa Barbara County has adopted or amended rules implementing over twenty five control measures controlling stationary source emissions. This has resulted in substantial amounts of reductions in ozone precursor pollutants (nitrogen oxides and reactive organic compounds). Prior to 1999, the County exceeded the national 1- hour O3 standard, and in response to Clean Air Act requirements, the SBCAPCD prepared plans designed to bring the County into attainment of this standard. The SBCAPCD submitted a plan (maintenance plan) to CARB in November 2001 that demonstrated how the County would maintain the national 1-hour O3 standard through the year 2015. This 2001 Clean Air Plan was approved by both CARB and the EPA. The 2001 Clean Air Plan also included a schedule to revise the plan in 3 years, as required by the California Clean Air Act, which would show how the County would work toward meeting the state 1-hour O3 standard.

The 2004 Clean Air Plan was prepared to address the California Clean Air Act mandates under Health and Safety Code sections 40924 and 40925 that require areas update their Clean Air Plans to attain the state 1-hour O3 standard every 3 years. The 2004 Clean Air Plan was a 3-year update to the 2001 Clean Air Plan. Similarly, the 2007 Clean Air Plan provided a 3-year update to the SBCAPCD’s 2004 Clean Air Plan. The 2007 Clean Air Plan was prepared to address both federal and state requirements; specifically, the federal requirements that pertain to maintenance provisions of the federal Clean Air Act, which apply to the County’s current designation as an attainment area for the federal 8-hour O3 standard.

The 2010 Clean Air Plan addressed local plans to attain the California 8-hour O3 standard. The 2010 Clean Air Plan was a 3-year update required to show how the SBCAPCD planned to meet the state 8-hour O3 standard. In addition to planning for attainment of the state O3 standard, the 2010 Clean Air Plan contained two chapters that were provided for informational purposes and were not regulatory in nature: a climate protection chapter, with an inventory of carbon dioxide emissions in the County, and a transportation and land use planning chapter (SBCAPCD and SBCAG 2011).

The 2013 Clean Air Plan implemented “an all feasible measures” strategy to ensure continued progress towards attainment of the state ozone standards and this plan satisfied all state triennial planning requirements. In this Plan, the SBCAPCD proposed to carry forward proposed stationary source control measures from the 2010 Plan that were pending rule adoption except for two which had been reclassified as “further study” measures. However, the primary focus was on marine shipping emissions. Marine shipping ozone precursor emissions have and will continue to account for the largest percentage of the County’s inventory, over 50%. While CARB’s future on-road vehicle standards for almost zero or zero tailpipe emissions (e.g., Partial Zero Emission Vehicles and Zero Emission Vehicles) will result in substantial emission reductions, without strategies to gain emission reductions from marine shipping, very little additional progress can be made towards attainment of the state 8-hour ozone standard (SBCAPCD and SBCAG 2015).

The 2016 Ozone Plan was adopted by the SBCAPCD Board in October 2016. The 2016 Ozone Plan incorporated and built upon the prior Clean Air Plans and predominantly focused on meeting attainment with the state ozone standards, in addition to achieving the adopted federal ozone standards. The 2016 Ozone Plan focused on reducing ozone precursor emissions through predicting vehicle activity trends and implementation of transportation control measures, which would serve to reduce mobile-source emissions, the primary source of ROC and NOx emissions in the County. The 2016 Ozone Plan, carried forward proposed stationary source control measures that were identified

Carpinteria City CouncilMarch 28, 2022

Carpinteria City Council
March 28, 2022