Policy 7-6 Recreational uses on oceanfront lands, both public and private, that do not require extensive alteration of the natural environment (i.e., tent campgrounds) shall have priority over uses requiring substantial alteration (i.e., recreational vehicle campgrounds).
Policy 7-8 Increased opportunities for beach access shall be provided in the Carpinteria planning area.
Policy 7-25 Easements for trails shall be required as a condition of project approval for that portion of the trail crossing the parcel upon which the project is proposed.
Policy 7-26 All proposed trails for the coastal zone shall be incorporated into the County’s Master Plans for hiking, biking, and equestrian trails.
Policy 7-32 When reviewing a Coastal Development Permit(s) associated with the Highway 101: Carpinteria to Santa Barbara project and other highway improvement projects to the South Coast Highway 101, the County of Santa Barbara shall require coastal access improvements in addition to those required by Policy 7- 31 within the corridor with the goals of providing alternative transportation
3.11 – Recreation
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.11-7
modes and establishing connectivity of the California Coastal Trail. Projects shall be designed to eliminate gaps for non-motorized travel and enhance coastal access, and shall be completed and open to the public no later than the completion of the adjacent phase of construction for the Highway 101:
Carpinteria to Santa Barbara project.
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 Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan Open Space Element The Open Space Element (Santa Barbara County 2009) is intended to manage and preserve land area in the County that is not suitable for urban development. Broadly there are four criteria or classifications that are employed in designating land that should remain as open or undeveloped. One of the criteria is Open Space for Outdoor Recreation. The Open Space Element indicates that the importance of open spaces for parks and recreation and recreation trails can hardly be overstated. The portion of the trail in Santa Barbara County has been designated as open space – recreation.
3.11.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to recreation are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to recreation would occur if the project would:
a) 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. b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
c) Result in cumulatively considerable recreation impacts.
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
3.11 – Recreation
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.11-8
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 hanggliders. 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 hang-gliding 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 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 soaring activities, the reduction is expected to be closer to 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 (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%) 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% 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
3.11 – Recreation
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.11-9
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%, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on recreational resources.
Also, it must be noted that CEQA does not require analyses of “social and economic changes” alone. (See Cal.
Code Regs., tit 23, § 15131, subd. (a).) Social and economic impacts, such as a decrease in usability of air space for hang gliders and paragliders, are analyzed as an indirect impact only if it leads to a significant direct physical impact to the environment, such as heavy traffic in another area that would cause an environmental impact. The Airflow Study demonstrates that any potential adverse impacts on the usability of air space above the proposed trail alignment are unlikely to cause significant physical impacts on other recreation facilities from redirected paragliding and parasailing recreation. (See, e.g. Chico Advocates for a Responsible Economy v. City of Chico (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 839 (reasoning that loss of convenience is merely an example of a social problem, and without an accompanying physical change to the environment, CEQA does not require its analysis).
The use of air space above the trail alignment by paragliders and hang gliders has not been formalized in recreation plans adopted by the City of Carpinteria or County of Santa Barbara, whereas a multi-use trail through this area has been proposed for decades to connect to the coastal trail system in both Santa Barbara and Ventura counties. While adverse impacts on the usability of airspace above the proposed trail alignment as a result of the proposed regrading to construct the trail may occur and cause paragliders and hang-gliders to soar at other locations, the benefits delivered recreationally by a multi-use trail accessible for the entire population of the Central Coast would more than balance out a reduction in the frequency of recreational opportunities associated with soaring activities above the bluffs within the project alignment. Therefore, overall and in balance, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts upon recreation resources. b) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project consists of a recreational facility: a multi-use trail to accommodate pedestrians and cyclists, and which would close an important gap in the regional coastal trail system. As proposed, construction of the proposed trail would involve regrading of existing terrain within the trail alignment. The proposed project addresses potential adverse physical effects on the environment associated with this “construction or expansion of recreational facilities” through appropriate mitigation measures in the areas of aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology, noise, and tribal cultural resources, such that the project would not create a residually significant adverse physical effect on the environment for the purposes of CEQA. Further, the Airflow Study identifies a reduction of 10-30% of vertical airflow velocities, which is not anticipated to generate an adverse physical effect on the environment or on local recreational soaring opportunities. Therefore, the proposed trail would have less than a significant impact. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable recreation impacts? Cumulative development throughout the Carpinteria Valley would incrementally contribute to recreation impacts. However, the proposed project would result in a beneficial impact to recreational resources and therefore, would not have a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on recreation resources.
3.11 – Recreation
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.11-10
3.11.5 Mitigation
As discussed above, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on recreation resources, and therefore mitigation would be neither required nor recommended.
3.11.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
As discussed above, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on recreation resources without mitigation.
3.12 – Transportation
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.12-1
3.12 Transportation
This section describes the transportation 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.
3.12.1 Existing Conditions
The proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail would extend from the eastern end of Carpinteria Avenue to Rincon Beach County Park along abandoned roadways or old terraced road and rail cuts. 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 used as an informal parking area. Neither of these parking areas are proposed to be modified under the Rincon Trail project.
The City of Carpinteria is situated along the California coast where the Santa Ynez Mountains meet the Pacific Ocean; Highway 150, US Highway 101 and Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) all intersect in the southeastern entrance to the Carpinteria Valley near the Ventura County/Santa Barbara County line. The intensive transportation infrastructure improvements in this location included planning a bicycle route along the highway shoulder south of Bates Road, but there is no other alternative access route between the City of Carpinteria and the Ventura County line for pedestrians and cyclists.
The proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail will provide an important connection in this area and will link the two regions of Ventura County and Santa Barbara County, particularly now that the Class I Bikeway along the southbound US Highway 101 shoulder is completed between Rincon State Beach Park and Mussel Shoals in Ventura County.
Access between the City of Carpinteria and Rincon Beach County Park has primarily been provided by US Highway 101, though the distance between the two destinations is less than two miles. US Highway 101 was designed, and operates, primarily to accommodate passenger vehicles, trucks, and busses; bicycle traffic is restricted to the highway shoulder that provides no safety elements such as a barrier to separate cyclists from the adjacent vehicle travel lane. Many bicyclists and pedestrians use the railroad corridor as an alternative route, as evidenced by the well-worn, unsanctioned trail that is currently present along the railroad tracks connecting Carpinteria residents and Carpinteria State Beach visitors with Rincon Beach County Park. The railroad corridor, however, presents a public access and safety concern equal to or greater than travel along the highway shoulder, and involves unsanctioned trespass on UPRR property.
With regard to vehicular access available to either end of the proposed trail segment, Carpinteria Avenue connects to the location of the western trail terminus. The US Highway 101 interchange at State Route 150 (that also connects to Carpinteria Avenue) is within 500 feet of the western trail terminus; construction workers and haul trucks would use this interchange for access to the western or northern segment of the trail. According to Caltrans (2014), all legs of the SR 150 / US Highway interchange intersections currently operate at level of service (LOS) B during the morning peak hour; all legs except the Carpinteria Avenue/SR 150 leg also operate at LOS B during the evening peak; the Carpinteria Avenue/SR 150 leg currently operates at LOS E in the evening peak hour. Bates Road provides vehicular access to the Rincon Beach County Park, the eastern end of the proposed trail terminus. Bates Road is also developed as a full interchange for US Highway 101 construction workers and haul trucks would use this interchange for access to the eastern or southern segment of the trail. According to Caltrans (2014), all legs of the Bates Road US Highway interchange intersections currently operate at level of service (LOS) A during the morning and evening peak hours.
3.12 – Transportation
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.12-2
3.12.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
3.12.2.1 Federal
There are no federal regulations associated with transportation that are relevant to the proposed project.
3.12.2.2 State
There are no state regulations associated with transportation that are relevant to the proposed project.
3.12.2.3 Local
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)
Regional transportation planning encompassing incorporated and unincorporated communities across Santa Barbara County is the responsibility of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG). The most recent regional transportation plan adopted by SBCAG is Fast Forward 2040: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy, or simply the RTP (SBCAG 2017). The RTP is a long-range planning document that defines the investment and implementation program in regional transportation systems over a 20-year period based on regional goals, multimodal transportation needs for people and goods, and estimates of available funding to provide a balanced approach to addressing long-term regional needs. The RTP includes a Sustainable Communities Strategy, as required by SB 375, which sets forth a forecasted development pattern for the region and is integrated with the transportation network and other transportation measures and policies to reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light trucks to achieve the GHG reduction targets set by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The goals and objectives of the RTP include:
• Environment: Foster patterns of growth, development, and transportation that protect natural resources and lead to a healthy environment.
o Reduce GHG emissions in compliance with CARB Regional Targets o Reduce criteria pollutant emissions
• Mobility and System Reliability: Optimize the transportation system to improve accessibility to jobs, schools, and services, allow the unimpeded movement of people and goods, and ensure the reliability of travel by all modes.
o Reduce travel times for all modes
o Reduce congestion — Work cooperatively with schools and school districts to reduce congestion surrounding schools
• Equity: Ensure that the transportation and housing needs of all socio-economic groups are adequately served.
• Health and Safety: Improve public health and ensure the safety of the regional transportation system. o Reduce the frequency and severity of collisions on the transportation network o Increase public outreach and education
• A Prosperous Economy: Achieve economically efficient transportation patterns and promote regional prosperity and economic growth.
o Reduce congestion
o Optimize network performance to reduce time lost to commuting
3.12 – Transportation
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.12-3
Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan
The Circulation Element of the General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan includes goals, objectives, and policies related to providing efficient and comprehensive means for the delivery of goods, and the movement of people throughout the community, including provisions to accommodate modes of transportation beyond simply passenger vehicles and freight trucks. Objectives and policies regarding alternative modes of transportation and facilities to support pedestrian and cyclist activities are particularly relevant to the proposed project and include (City of Carpinteria 2003):
Objective C-6 Provide adequate safe railroad crossings and to effectuate community design of buffers that will attenuate rail-related noise.
C-6a Seek funding sources for grade-separated crossings of the rail line to resolve conflicts with urban linkages, where such structures are considered feasible.
C-6c Encourage development of available railroad rights-of-way for alternative transportation, bicycle, recreation, trail, parking related, and other appropriate uses.
C-6d Put programs for developing crossing improvements with the State Public Utilities Commission and railroad operators into effect.
Objective C-7 Build demand for alternative transportation use by increasing ease, effectiveness, and social acceptability, and through foresighted planning.
C-7c Provide safe mobility for the physically handicapped through the design of street improvements and public facilities.
Objective C-8 Support and develop safe, direct and well-maintained bicycle and pedestrian systems and recreational boating facilities that serve all segments of the public C-8a Integrate the development of bicycle routes and pedestrian pathways in additional areas of the city, and encourage the utilization of such routes for commuting as well as recreational purposes.
C-8c Provide or require safe and adequate bicycle parking at transportation centers, public parks, recreation areas and other nonresidential locations.
C-8d Encourage integration of the city’s bicycle routes with state and countywide programs.
C-8e Encourage educational programs on bicycle safety, and complement such programs through bicycle law enforcement.
C-8f Encourage pedestrian movement by providing pedestrian facilities that are direct and convenient, particularly in the beach and downtown areas.
C-8g Consider rerouting the Pacific Coast Bikeway to another location parallel to the coastline, such as adjacent to the railroad right of way throughout the city. [5-year] C-8h Encourage a bike trail link from Carpinteria to Summerland along the railroad right of way and a coastal link to Ventura paralleling U.S. 101.
3.12 – Transportation
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.12-4
Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan
The Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2019) includes goals, objectives, and policies related to ensuring adequate access to the beach for all members of the public. Policies specifically related to the proposed project include:
Policy 7-8 Increased opportunities for beach access shall be provided in the Carpinteria planning area.
b. Dedication of a vertical access easement and construction of a trail to the beach shall be required of any development on the easterly end of the Carpinteria bluffs.
Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan – Circulation Element The Circulation Element identifies key roadway links throughout the unincorporated areas of the County, and along with the other elements, guides decisions regarding new development and provides clear traffic capacity guidelines that are intended to maintain acceptable levels of service on the County’s roadways and intersections, while allowing reasonable growth within the communities of the unincorporated area (County of Santa Barbara 2009).
Consistency with the County’s Circulation Element requires that projects do not contribute ADTs where estimated future volume exceeds the policy capacity. If estimated future volume exceeds policy capacity, but the project contributes ADTs less than or equal to 2% of remaining capacity or 40 ADTs, whichever is greater, the project would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3.12.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to transportation are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to transportation would occur if the project would:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). d) Result in inadequate emergency access.
e) Result in cumulatively considerable transportation impacts.
Recently Adopted Vehicle Miles Travelled Threshold for CEQA Transportation Impacts On December 28, 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted proposed revisions to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form, Section XVII, Transportation. Section 15064.3 includes new criteria for determining the significance of a project’s transportation impacts. Specifically, Section 15064.3(a) states “vehicle miles traveled is the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts.” The revisions to Appendix G Section XVII removed references to circulation, traffic levels, and LOS. The revisions also added a new threshold question (i.e., “b”) that considers whether a project would conflict or be inconsistent with the VMT criteria for analyzing transportation impacts in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b).
3.12 – Transportation
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.12-5
3.12.3.1 Local Significance Thresholds
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.7, the County of Santa Barbara developed and adopted the following thresholds for determining the significance of a project’s transportation impacts, included in the September 2020 revision to the Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines (Santa Barbara County 2020).
Threshold “a” – Potential Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy The SBCAG’s 2040 Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (SBCAG, 2013) and the County’s Comprehensive Plan, zoning ordinances, capital improvement programs, and other planning documents contain transportation and circulation programs, plans, ordinances, and policies. Threshold question “a” considers a project in relation to those programs, plans, ordinances, and policies that specifically address multimodal transportation, complete streets, transportation demand management (TDM), and other VMT-related topics. The County and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a) no longer consider automobile delay or congestion an environmental impact. Therefore, threshold question “a” does not apply to provisions that address LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion. A transportation impact occurs if a project conflicts with the overall purpose of an applicable transportation and circulation program, plan, ordinance, or policy, including impacts to existing transit systems and bicycle and pedestrian networks pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21099(b)(1).
Threshold “b” – Potential Impact to VMT Threshold question Threshold “b” establishes VMT as the metric to determine transportation impacts. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research’s (OPR) “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA” (OPR Technical Advisory) (OPR, 2018) contains principals, guidelines, recommendations and mandatory criteria for analyzing a project’s transportation impacts, as an implementation guide for CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 (Determining the Significance of Transportation Impacts). The OPR Technical advisory identifies certain types or classes of projects that are deemed to have less than significant VMT impacts, including the following example:
• Addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve nonmotorized travel.
Threshold “c” – Design Features and Hazards
Threshold “c” considers whether a project would increase roadway hazards. An increase could result from existing or proposed uses or geometric design features. In part, the analysis should review these and other relevant factors and identify results that conflict with the County’s Engineering Design Standards or other applicable roadway standards. For example, the analysis may consider the following criteria:
• Project requires a driveway that would not meet site distance requirements, including vehicle queueing and visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Project adds a new traffic signal or results in a major revision to an existing intersection that would not meet the County’s Engineering Design Standards.
• Project adds substantial traffic to a roadway with poor design features (e.g., narrow width, roadside ditches, sharp curves, poor sight distance, inadequate pavement structure). • Project introduces a new use and substantial traffic that would create potential safety problems on an existing road network (e.g., rural roads with use by farm equipment, livestock, horseback riding, or residential roads with heavy pedestrian or recreational use).
3.12 – Transportation
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.12-6
Threshold “d” – Emergency Access
Threshold “d” considers any changes to emergency access resulting from a project. To identify potential impacts, the analysis must review any proposed roadway design changes and determine if they would potentially impede emergency access vehicles.
3.12.4 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? The Rincon Trail segment would reduce vehicle trips and encourage bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation to access popular coastal destinations. The project would provide a safe, direct and wellmaintained coastal pedestrian and bike trail link from the existing eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue to the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot, and would formalize one railroad crossing along this segment, providing for safe access to the coast. The northern terminus of the Class I bikeway paralleling US Highway 101 is a short distance from the Rincon Beach County Park, connected by Rincon Point Road/Bates Road. Positive benefits would include a reduction in vehicle trips from Carpinteria residents and visitors who travel between the City of Carpinteria and Rincon Beach County Park. Since no dedicated pedestrian or bicycle amenities exist currently between these two destinations, many residents employ vehicles even for short trips. The proposed project would encourage non-vehicle travel between these two locations, thus reducing vehicle trips and minimizing the impacts of vehicles in the community and parking at Rincon Beach County Park. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? The proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail meets the definition of “multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve nonmotorized travel” as identified in OPR’s “Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA”(OPR 2018). According to the OPR advisory, this type of multi-use trail for non-motorized use is deemed to have less than significant VMT impacts.
c) 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)? The proposed shared-use path is intended to provide a safe connection for cyclists and pedestrians between the existing terminus of the east end of Carpinteria Avenue and the upper Rincon Beach County Park parking lot.. In this gap area, pedestrians and cyclists currently unsanctioned use trails along the UPRR alignment, or the shoulder of US Highway 101, both of which present safety hazards. Further, the unsanctioned trails through and across the UPRR alignment require trespass on UPRR-owned property. The proposed trail would therefore reduce existing hazards for pedestrians and cyclists and provide a legal public access path across the UPRR alignment.
As currently designed, the eastern end of the Rincon Trail would terminate at the western end of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot. At this point, cyclists and pedestrians would need to traverse through the parking lot to reach the connection with the Class I bikeway along US Highway 101 that continues toward Ventura and vice versa for those heading west from Ventura. Pedestrians and cyclists within the Rincon Point residential neighborhood and those traveling from Ventura along the Class I bikeway also would need to traverse the parking lot (in the opposite direction) to gain access to the southern end of the Rincon Trail. Cyclists making this parking lot traverse in either direction will increase pedestrian and cyclist traffic in the parking lot. Several respondents
3.12 – Transportation
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.12-7
to the NOP indicated a concern that terminating the Carpinteria Rincon Trail at the western end of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot could create a hazard between cyclists or pedestrians and vehicles executing parking maneuvers. The City of Carpinteria requested their consulting traffic engineers to evaluate this potential for new hazards in the parking lot area. The traffic engineer concluded there would not be a conflict between cyclists and pedestrians, as this is a slow speed mixed vehicle environment currently, and cyclists, pedestrians, and parking vehicles should continue to mix safely with the new Carpinteria Rincon Trail connection (Interwest Consulting Group, 2021). Refer to Appendix J for a copy of the Interwest memorandum. Hazards associated with cyclist, pedestrian, and vehicle interactions in the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot would be a less than significant impact.
The County Parks Department and SBCAG have held several meetings to discuss the issue of a more direct connection between the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail and the Class I bikeway along US Highway 101.
Because the proposed project results in a less than significant impact, such a connector trail is not required as a mitigation measure for the proposed project. However, the County Parks Department and SBCAG have planned a study to evaluate a connector trail, as a future and separate project, that would route cyclists and pedestrians to the perimeter of the Parking Lot to make connections with the adjacent bikeway and trail systems (Appendix K).
Slow moving over-size haul trucks associated with construction activity can present a hazard where lengthy portions of the haul route would involve narrow roads with sharp curves, thereby introducing a risk for motorists deciding to attempt a passing maneuver. With regard to haul truck operations during construction, fill would be accomplished with on-site cut material. Excess earth material would be exported from the site using haul trucks with an approximately 16 cubic yard capacity, transporting such earth material to the closest disposal sites. Heavy truck traffic is anticipated to be approximately 20 heavy truck trips (10 truckloads, each with a round-trip to/from the site) a day during the grading and excavation phase of the project, which has an anticipated duration of 11 – 13 months.. This averages to 2.5 trips per hour over an 8-hour workday, with 3 trips per hour a reasonable worstcase scenario. Within the northern half of the project, north of the UPRR alignment, haul trucks would access the site via the SR150 interchange from US Highway 101 northbound or southbound. For the southern half of the project, haul trucks would navigate through the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot and use the Bates Road interchange with US Highway 101. Haul truck travel on local roadways would be minimal since freeway interchanges exist within 500 feet of the construction access at either end of the trail alignment. Given the low frequency of daily haul truck trips, and the proximity of freeway interchanges for regional access, traffic hazard impacts associated with haul truck activities during construction would result in a less than significant impact.
It should be noted that project effects upon parking supply/resources are not considered an environmental impact under CEQA, as supported by recent case law (Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 712, 724-727.). As such, if the parking demands of a project would exceed the locally available supply of parking spaces, and/or if existing parking spaces would be removed as a direct result of the project, such effects relative to parking supplies could represent an inconvenience for community members, but would not be an environmental impact. For informational purposes, the following discussion is provided regarding construction-related parking demands. Construction of the proposed project would generate construction employee vehicle trips to and from the project site. The majority of the work would involve grading, accomplished with a few pieces of heavy equipment working at a time; typically, a bull-dozer would be used for creating the new slopes, with a front-end loader and tractor moving the material to stockpiles and loading haul trucks. The typical number of construction workers on site for grading operations would be approximately five (5). The southerly shoulder of Carpinteria Avenue from the SR 150 intersection to the eastern terminus is wide enough to accommodate vehicle parking without blocking the travel lanes. The shoulder available for parking is approximately 600 feet in length, which would accommodate approximately 24 vehicles parked parallel to the road.
3.12 – Transportation
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.12-8
This parking area would easily accommodate construction worker parking during the project construction, avoiding any inconvenience that could be associated with construction-worker parking on residential streets or in the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot. Impacts would be less than significant. d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The project would connect to the existing eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue, providing emergency vehicle access throughout the 16-foot wide concrete trail located on the north/west side of the UPRR alignment. The project would also connect to the Rincon Beach County Park, providing emergency vehicle access throughout the 16-foot wide concrete trail located on the south/east side of the UPRR alignment. The UPRR bridge may not be rated for heavy emergency response vehicles, but the ability for emergency response vehicles to reach up to either end of the bridge would functionally provide emergency access coverage for the entire trail alignment. Development of the proposed project would therefore increase emergency access to the project area. Consequently, project impacts regarding emergency access would be less than significant. e) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable transportation impacts? Cumulative development throughout the Carpinteria Valley would incrementally contribute to traffic impacts.
However, the proposed project would reduce vehicle trips and encourage safe bicycle and pedestrian modes of transportation to access popular coastal destinations. Accordingly, the proposed project would not degrade the nearby intersections' levels of service by any significant level or affect roadway capacity. Therefore, the project's contribution to cumulative transportation and traffic impacts would not be considerable.
3.12.5 Mitigation
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to transportation. No mitigation would be required.
3.12.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
As discussed above, no significant direct or indirect impacts related to transportation would result from the proposed project.
3.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.13-1
3.13 Tribal Cultural Resources
This section describes the existing tribal cultural resources 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.
3.13.1 Existing Conditions
A Phase 1 cultural resources investigation for the original Carpinteria Rincon Trail design was prepared by Dudek in March 2008; this study included an archaeological site records and literature search at the Central Coast Information Center and an intensive surface reconnaissance of the proposed project area. For the currently proposed trail design, Dudek performed a new Phase 1 Cultural Resources Survey of the entire alignment to document existing conditions and in order to assess impacts of the updated trail alignment on cultural resources.
The updated Phase 1 Survey included an archaeological record search and walk-over survey of the trail alignment and area within earthwork limits and temporary impact areas delineated for the transportation and storage of construction equipment. As is customary for Phase 1 Cultural Resource Surveys, the document is not circulated with the associated CEQA document. The updated Dudek Phase 1 survey is on-file with the City of Carpinteria, Community Development Department, and with the County of Santa Barbara Planning & Development Department
3.3.1.1 Ethnohistoric Context
Immediately prior to the arrival of the Spanish in A.D. 1542, the people living in the Santa Barbara region collectively known today as the Chumash, consisted of a set of related ethnolinguistic groups occupying a territory that spanned from Morro Bay in the north, south to Malibu on the coast, and inland to encompass the interior South Coast Range and the northwest Transverse Range, including the Santa Ynez River Valley, the Carrizo Plain, the Cuyama Valley, and the San Emigdio Hills. The language these people spoke is considered an isolate (Goddard 1996), distinct from the languages spoken by their neighbors, the Salinan, Yokuts, Kitanemuk, Tataviam, and Tongva (GabrielinoFernandeño). Internally there was considerable diversity, such that not all of the regional dialects were mutually intelligible. Today, the names for these different ethnolinguistic groups come mainly from their associations with different Mission territories: the Obispeño in the north were notably distinct from a group called the Central Chumash, which consisted of the Purisimeño, Ynezeño, Barbareño, and Ventureño. Both of these groups (Obispeño and Central Chumash) spoke languages that were in turn distinct from those spoken on the northern Channel Islands, typically grouped together under the heading of Island Chumash. Even this linguistic taxonomy masks some of the historically documented internal diversity that would include regional dialectic differences such as the Emigdiano, Castec, Matilija, Mugu, and Malibu of the Central Chumash, and the Cruzeño, Roseño, and Migueleño of the Island Chumash (see Kroeber 1925; Grant 1978a, 1978b; Golla 2011). The current project area and the broader vicinity of the city of Carpinteria was occupied historically by speakers of both Barbareño and Ventureño Central Chumash, today represented by the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians, headquartered in Ojai.
What we know of these people comes, in part, from the rich written accounts of a variety of sources, the earliest of which are those of the Spanish explorers to the Santa Barbara Channel and mainland, namely Cabrillo in 1542 and Vizcaíno in 1602 (Wagner 1929; Brown 1967). These observations were expanded by the accounts written during early efforts to establish evangelical Missions (and therefore Royal territory) in Alta California, namely by Portolá in 1769, de Anza in 1776, and to a lesser degree, Garcés in 1776 (Coues 1900; Bolton 1927; Gamble 2008; Priestley 1937). These accounts were further expanded by the observations and managerial records of the Mission
3.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.13-2
administrators for a period of about 60 years (Geiger 1969; Geiger and Meighan 1976; Johnson 1988, 1982). After that, Euroamerican interest in Native American life made it possible for the Native views of their own history and culture to enter into the written record, primarily in this case through ethno-historic documentation of Chumash beliefs, folk tales, music, customs, and lifeways (e.g., Blackburn 1975; Hudson et al. 1981; Harrington 1942). This forms perhaps the richest body of information that we have about the Chumash; further development of this understanding continues today, incorporating contemporary Chumash identity, concerns, interpretations, research, and politics.
The written records and accounts of Chumash life reveal a variety of things that have been of paramount importance to archaeologists for many decades. This includes accounts of what people ate and how they acquired it, how they made various elements of material culture, and how they used it (e.g., Hudson and Blackburn 1983, 1979, 1985, 1986). It also includes ideas about the landscape, knowledge of the plants and animals that live in it, and of how to manage that landscape, as well as accounts of how social life was structured, and how hierarchy and power were perceived, imagined and negotiated by individuals. The ethnohistories also contain a rich account of the structure of hierarchy within Chumash life, including ideas about how money, exchange, and territory, along with the management and manipulation of those elements, fed into the structures of social power.
It is this body of knowledge that commands the lion’s-share of archaeological attention, certainly since the 1980s.
Of particular importance to archaeologists of the Santa Barbara Channel has been the effort to explain the evolution of the kinds of social and political complexity revealed in the rich ethno-historic records of the Chumash (C.D. King 1976; L.B. King 1969). Attention paid to how people acquired and controlled resources, and how resources from different environments (namely the Islands, the mainland coast, and the interior) were moved across different boundaries and networks, has been extremely important. This involves a detailed understanding of how goods and services were transported not only between different aspects of the Chumash cultural sphere, but also between the Chumash and the people of the Central Valley, the Sierra Nevada, the South Coast, and the Desert Interior.
Considerable ethnographic detail exists about the nature of market-based exchange, the use of shell-bead money, conscious control of inflation, the role of intermediaries in between-group exchange, trading parties from distant lands, and the kinds of goods transported from different areas, all of which play a significant role in both the interpretation of the archaeological record, and the design of archaeological research. Indeed, synthetic accounts of the ethnographic record occasionally offer insights about the archaeological patterns one might expect of the Chumash interaction sphere (Gamble 2008; C.D. King 1976; Johnson 1988, 1982).
Interests in the evolution of complex society in the Chumash world have therefore played a disproportionate role in the collective efforts of archaeologists over the past many decades. Therefore, it is not surprising that the majority of archaeological research has been focused mainly on the late prehistoric record and on understanding the evolution of the many things the Europeans were able to observe or record of Chumash life. However, as with any interpretation of the past informed by ethnohistoric observation, interpreters of the Chumash and their ancestors must be cautious about the ethnographer’s interpretive agency, and the historical context of it (Haley and Wilcoxon 1997, 1999; Gill, Fauvelle, and Erlandson 2019). Contemporary re-analysis of historic observations may stimulate novel insights that engender novel directions in archaeological research.
3.3.1.2 Central Coast Information Center Records Search and Survey Results The records search indicates that five previously recorded cultural resources exist within 0.5 mile of the proposed project site. Multiple loci of CA-SBA-1, the ethnohistoric/historic Chumash village of Shuku, surround the proposed project site with the nearest locus (A) located immediately southeast of the proposed Project area, near the mouth
3.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.13-3
of Rincon Creek. Although limited weathered shell was observed in disturbed contexts, no cultural resources were observed in situ, or within intact soils, during the intensive field survey under generally good to excellent ground surface visibility. However, the project site is not only located partially within an archaeological site (CA-SBA-1168), it is also surrounded, in every direction, by archaeological sites with the closest loci of CA-SBA-1/CA-VEN-62 located immediately adjacent to the southeastern extent of the proposed project site. Based on the presence of a portion of the proposed project site overlapping a small portion of the archaeological site CA-SBA-1168, the close proximity of multiple archaeological sites to the proposed project site, as well as the general archaeological sensitivity of the area surrounding the proposed project site, there is substantial evidence for potential unknown significant prehistoric and historic archaeological resources to exist within the project site. Technical Reports and supporting documentation are available in Confidential Cultural Appendix D. These confidential appendices are archived at the City and are only accessible to eligible individuals as defined under applicable regulations governing cultural resources confidentiality.
3.3.1.3 Native American Coordination
Sacred Lands File Search and Tribal Outreach
A search of the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC’s) Sacred Land File was requested on May 1, 2018, and was conducted on May 23, 2018 (received on May 25, 2018) (Frank Lienert, Associate Government Program Analyst) to determine the presence of any Native American cultural resources within the proposed project site (see Confidential Appendix L). The NAHC indicated that no known Native American heritage resources are identified within the proposed project site. The NAHC identified six Native American individuals who would potentially have specific knowledge as to whether or not other cultural resources are identified within the project site that could be at-risk. Informal outreach letters (not formal AB-52 notification) were sent via email and certified mail on May 25, 2018 to six Native Americans representatives identified by the NAHC who might have knowledge of previously undocumented cultural resources within the APE. Dudek made follow-up phone calls on June 4 and 11, 2018. Three responses were received on June 4, 2018, one response was received on June 11, 2018. As of September 28, 2018, two of the Native American representatives have not responded to Dudek’s multiple and varied communication efforts.
The three responses to Dudek’s outreach efforts included the following individuals all belonging to the Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians: Julie Lynn Tumamait-Stenslie, Chair (June 11, 2018 phone call initiated by Dudek); Patrick Tumamait, Chair (June 4, 2018 phone call initiated by Dudek); and Eleanor Arrellanes (June 4, 2018 phone call initiated by Dudek). Each representative expressed concern about proposed disturbances, a desire to be contacted regarding any aspect of the proposed project, as well as the need for archaeological and Native American monitoring.
Assembly Bill (AB) 52
A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource (TCR) is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (PRC Section 21084.2). Under AB 52, a TCR must have tangible, geographically defined properties that can be impacted by project implementation. The proposed project is subject to compliance with AB 52.
On October 25, 2019, the City of Carpinteria sent AB-52 notification letters certified mail (letters provided via email to contacts that provided their email address), to each Native American contact provided by the NAHC on May 25, 2018 and to those tribal entities that have formally requested notification from the City. The NAHC provided an
3.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.13-4
updated contact list to the City on October 29, 2019, which included five new contacts; the City sent AB-52 notification letters to the five newly identified contacts on October 28 and 29, 2019. On November 16, 2020, the City sent out email reminders for the proposed project’s EIR virtual scoping meeting, and one of the recipients of that email included some tribal representatives that the City typically communicates with on overall projects within City limits. As a result of that forwarded scoping email, Patrick Tumamait of the Barbareno/Ventureno Band of Mission Indians, responded on November 17, 2020. In his response, Mr. Tumamait stated that the proposed project site is sensitive, that he has been told of a recorded site nearby and that he recommends Native American monitoring and would like to take on that role for the project. It should be noted that Mr. Tumamait is not on the City’s AB 52 contact list and this correspondence between the City and Mr. Tumamait is not part of the formal AB 52 consultation process. To date, no California Native American tribes have requested consultation with the City.
Therefore, government-to-government consultation initiated by the City has not resulted, to date, in the identification of a TCR within or near the Project Site. Table 3.13-1 summarizes the results of the AB 52 process for the proposed project.
Table 3.13-1. Assembly Bill 52 Native American Tribal Outreach Results Native American Tribal
Representatives
Method of Notification/
Date of Delivery Response to City Notification Letters
Gino Altamirano, Chairperson
Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation
Certified Mail:
October 29, 2019
None to date
Fred Collins, Spokesperson
Northern Chumash Tribal Council
Certified Mail and email:
October 29, 2019
Response received via email on October
30, 2019. Spokesperson Collins stated
that the Tribe is engaged with San Luis
Obispo County only and that the Tribe
supports local tribal recommendations.
The City responded to Spokesperson
Collins’ email on that same day stating
that the City notified the Tribe at the
recommendation of the NAHC and
inquired as to whether the Tribe would
like to be removed from the City’s AB 52
contact list. Spokesperson Collins
responded via email on November 11,
2019 stating that the Tribe will respond
to any project that the City does not get a
comment for and if help is needed, they
would like to serve as a backup Tribe.
Kenneth Kahn, Chairperson
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
Certified Mail:
October 29, 2019
None to date
Julio Quair, Chairperson
Chumash Council of Bakersfield
Certified Mail:
October 29, 2019
None to date
Mona Tucker, Chairperson
yak tityu tityu yak tilhini- Northern
Chumash Tribe
Certified Mail and email:
October 29, 2019
Response received via email on October
29, 2019. Chairperson Mona stated that
the proposed project is not within the
Tribe’s territory and recommended that
other tribes and families ancestrally
affiliated to the proposed project site
location be contacted.
3.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.13-5
Table 3.13-1. Assembly Bill 52 Native American Tribal Outreach Results Native American Tribal
Representatives
Method of Notification/
Date of Delivery Response to City Notification Letters
Julie Lynn Tumamait-Stenslie, Chair
Barbareno/Ventureno Band of
Mission Indians
Certified Mail: October 25;
Email October 28, 2019;
Second Certified Mail:
October 29, 2019
Response to City’s notification email
sent October 28, 2019 was received
from Ms. Tumamait-Stenslie via email
that same day acknowledging receipt of
notification. The City has not received
any additional information/responses
from Ms. Tumamait-Stenslie as a result
of the AB 52 notification letters or email.
Mark Vigil, Chief
San Luis Obispo County Chumash
Council
Certified Mail:
October 29, 2019; no
email address provided.
None to date
3.13.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
3.13.2.1 State
The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code Section 5020 et seq.) In California, the term “historical resource” includes but is not limited to “any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California” (PRC Section 5020.1(j)). In 1992, the California legislature established the CRHR “to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California Public Resources Code section 5024.1(a)). A resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it is a significant resource and that it meets any of the following Nation Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria (PRC Section 5024.1(c)):
• Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage.
• Associated with the lives of persons important in our past. • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Resources less than 50 years old are not considered for listing in the CRHR, but may be considered if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand the historical importance of the resource (see 14 CCR, Section 4852(d)(2)).
The CRHR protects cultural resources by requiring evaluations of the significance of prehistoric and historic resources. The criteria for the CRHR are nearly identical to those for the NRHP, and properties listed or formally designated as eligible for listing on the NRHP are automatically listed
3.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.13-6
on the CRHR, as are the state landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys. The State Historic Preservation Officer maintains the CRHR.
California Environmental Quality Act
The following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) statutes (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) are of relevance to the analysis of archaeological, historic, and tribal cultural resources (TCRs):
• PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines “unique archaeological resource.” • PRC Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a) defines “historical resources.” In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b) defines the phrase “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource”; it also defines the circumstances when a project would materially impair the significance of a historical resource.
• PRC Section 21074(a) defines “tribal cultural resources.” • PRC Section 5097.98 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) set forth standards and steps to be employed following the accidental discovery of human remains in any location other than a dedicated ceremony. • PRC Sections 21083.2(b) and 21083.2(c) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 provide information regarding the mitigation framework for archaeological and historic resources, including examples of preservation-in-place mitigation measures. Preservation in place is the preferred manner of mitigating impacts to significant archaeological sites because it maintains the relationship between artifacts and the archaeological context and may help avoid conflict with religious or cultural values of groups associated with the archaeological site(s).
More specifically, under CEQA, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it may cause “a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” (PRC Section 21084.1; 14 CCR 15064.5(b)).
A “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource” reflecting a significant effect under CEQA means “physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (14 CCR 15064.5(b)(1); PRC Section 5020.1(q)). In turn, the significance of a historical resource is materially impaired when a project does any of the following (14 CCR 15064.5(b)(2)):
(1) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the California Register; or (2) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
(3) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the California Register as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA.
3.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.13-7
Pursuant to these sections, the CEQA inquiry begins with evaluating whether a project site contains any “historical resources,” then evaluates whether that project will cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource such that the resource’s historical significance would be materially impaired.
If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Sections 21083.2(a)–(c)).
Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria (PRC Section 21083.2(g)):
(1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.
(2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
(3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
Impacts on non-unique archaeological resources are generally not considered a significant environmental impact (PRC Section 21083.2(a); 14 CCR 15064.5(c)(4)). However, if a non-unique archaeological resource qualifies as a TCR (PRC Sections 21074(c) and 21083.2(h)), further consideration of significant impacts is required.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed in PRC Section 5097.98.
Assembly Bill 52
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 formalizes the consultation process between lead agencies and tribal representatives, requiring the lead agency to initiate consultation with California Native American groups that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with a project area. This includes tribes that may not be federally recognized. Lead agencies are required to begin consultation prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report.
Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs)
Section 4 of AB 52 adds Sections 21074 (a) and (b) to the PRC, addressing TCRs and cultural landscapes. Section 21074 (a) defines a “tribal cultural resource” as one of the following:
1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
2. 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 Section 5024.1.
3.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.13-8
In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Section 1 (a)(9) of AB 52 establishes that “a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource has a significant effect on the environment.” Effects on TCRs should be considered under CEQA. Section 6 of AB 52 adds Section 21080.3.2 to the PRC, which states that parties may propose mitigation measures “capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource.” Further, if a California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding project alternatives, mitigation measures, or significant effects to TCRs, the consultation shall include those topics (PRC Section 21080.3.2[a]). The environmental document and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program (where applicable) shall include any mitigation measures that are adopted (PRC Section 21082.3[a]).
Native American Historic Cultural Sites
The Native American Historic Resources Protection Act (PRC Section 5097, et seq.) addresses the disposition of Native American burials in archaeological sites and protects such remains from disturbance, vandalism, or inadvertent destruction; establishes procedures to be implemented if Native American skeletal remains are discovered during construction of a project; and establishes the NAHC to resolve disputes regarding the disposition of such remains. In addition, the Native American Historic Resource Protection Act makes it a misdemeanor punishable by up to 1 year in jail to deface or destroy an Indian historic or cultural site that is listed or may be eligible for listing in the CRHR.
California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act The California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (California Repatriation Act), enacted in 2001, requires all state agencies and museums that receive state funding and that have possession or control over collections of human remains or cultural items, as defined, to complete an inventory and summary of these remains and items on or before January 1, 2003, with certain exceptions. The California Repatriation Act also provides a process for the identification and repatriation of these items to the appropriate tribes.
California Health and Safety Code
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. As described below, these procedures are detailed in PRC Section 5097.98.
California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods, regardless of their antiquity, and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5b requires that if human remains are discovered in any place other than a dedicated cemetery, no further disturbance or excavation of the site or nearby area reasonably suspected to contain human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has examined the remains. PRC Section 5097.98 also outlines the process to be followed in the event that remains are discovered. If the coroner determines or has reason to believe the remains are those of a Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC within 24 hours (Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5c). The NAHC will notify the Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the landowner, the MLD may inspect the site of discovery. The inspection must be completed within 48 hours of notification of the MLD by the NAHC. The MLD may recommend means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and items associated with Native Americans.
3.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.13-9
3.13.2.2 Local
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 cultural resources:
• OSC-16 Preserve Carpinteria’s Cultural Resources
Implementation Policies
74. Explore all available measures, including purchase, tax relief, purchase of development rights, etc. to avoid development on important archaeological sites. Where these measures are not feasible and development will adversely affect identified archaeological or paleontological resources, require adequate mitigation.
75. Prohibit activities, other than development, which could damage or destroy archaeological sites, including off-road vehicle use and unauthorized collecting of artifacts.
76. Review all proposals for development in or adjacent to cultural resource areas for their potential to impact the resource. Give special consideration to development of facilities that enhance the cooperation, enjoyment or maintenance of these areas.
77. Prior to the city granting a development permit, all archaeological sites (or areas near known archeological sites that have been determined though Phase 1 investigation to potentially include cultural or paleontological resources) must undergo a subsurface test to determine the integrity and significance of the site. Through the project environmental review process, the disposition and/or preservation of any archaeological sites deemed to have significance as a result of the subsurface testing shall be determined. Preservation of cultural/paleontological resource sites through avoidance shall be preferred, however, other methods of disposition may be approved through the environmental review process as identified in the city’s Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA.
78. A qualified archaeologist and Native American observer (acceptable to the city) shall be retained to monitor grading activities on identified archeological sites and in the vicinity of identified archaeological resources. If cultural artifacts or similar material of potential cultural or paleontological importance, are uncovered during grading or other excavation the following shall occur:
a. The monitor or archaeologist shall halt the grading or excavation and notify the City. b. A qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report assessing the significance of the find and recommending any actions to be taken by the applicant(s) prior to the city granting permission for grading to resume.
c. The removal of cultural artifacts or other materials shall only occur after preparation of the report and in conformance with the recommendations of the report as approved by the City.
3.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.13-10
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 a Local Coastal Plan (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 standards for archaeological resources (Section 35-65).
Section 35-65. Archaeology
1. When developments are proposed for lots where archaeological or other cultural sites are located, project design shall be required which avoids impacts to such cultural sites if possible.
2. When sufficient planning flexibility does not permit avoiding construction on archaeological or other types of cultural sites, adequate mitigation shall be required. Mitigation shall be designed in accord with guidelines of the State Office of Historic Preservation and the State of California Native American Heritage Commission.
3. Native Americans shall be consulted when development proposals are submitted which impact significant archaeological or cultural sites.
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 and is 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 10-1: All available measures, including purchase, tax relief, purchase of development rights, etc., shall be explored to avoid development on significant historic, prehistoric, archaeological, and other classes of cultural sites.
• Policy 10-2: When developments are proposed for parcels where archaeological or other cultural sites are located, Project design shall be required which avoids impacts to such cultural sites if possible. • Policy 10-3: When sufficient planning flexibility does not permit avoiding construction on archaeological or other types of cultural sites, adequate mitigation shall be required. Mitigation shall be designed in accord with guidelines of the State Office of Historic Preservation and the State of California Native American Heritage Commission.
3.13.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to tribal cultural resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to tribal cultural resources would occur if the project would:
a) 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:
i. 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), or
3.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.13-11
ii. 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. b) Result in cumulatively considerable impacts to tribal cultural resources.
3.13.4 Impact Analysis
a) 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:
i. 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)? ii. 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? Based on the CHRIS and NAHC SLF records searches, including background research as summarized above, no previously recorded archaeological resources of Native American origin or TCRs listed in the CRHR or a local register or in any other of the records reviewed were identified within the Project Site. Further, no TCRs have been identified by California Native American tribes as part of the City’s AB 52 notification process, and no California Native American tribes requested consultation with the City. However, there is still a potential for unknown subsurface TCRs to be impacted by the project, which could result in a potentially significant impact.
Therefore, protocols for the inadvertent discovery of TCRs is included as MM-TCR-1. In coordination with the implementation of MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4, MM-TCR-1 will reduce the potentially significant impact to unknown TCRs to a less than significant level.
b) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable impacts to tribal cultural resources? Potentially significant project-specific impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4 and MM-TCR-1, avoiding the potential for the proposed project to contribute to cumulative impacts to cultural resources. The project would, therefore, result in a less than cumulatively considerable impact to cultural resources.
3.13.5 Mitigation
The potential exists for significant tribal cultural resources impacts. The project would require the implementation of MM-CUL-1 through MM-CUL-4 and MM-TCR-1 to reduce such impacts.
MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4 (see Section 3.4, Cultural Resources)
3.13 – Tribal Cultural Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.13-12
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 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 CR-2 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.
3.13.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Potential impacts to tribal cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of MMCR-1 through MM-CR-4 and MM-TCR-1.
3.14 – Utilities and Service Systems
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.14-1
3.14 Utilities and Services Systems
This section describes the existing utilities and service systems 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.
3.14.1 Existing Conditions
Water Service
Water is supplied by the Carpinteria Valley Water District (CVWD) through distribution line and storage facilities controlled by CVWD. CVWD connected to state water in November 1997 (City of Carpinteria 2003). There are no water lines adjacent to or underlying the project area. Domestic (potable) water service is currently provided at Rincon Beach County Park by CVWD.
Wastewater Service
Wastewater collection and treatment services in the Carpinteria Valley are managed by the Carpinteria Sanitary District (CSD). This community-wide service agency has the obligation of operating and maintaining this system for the transmission, treatment and disposal of sewage generated within this area. The CSD is also responsible for providing treatment to the level necessary to meet various discharge requirements set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and other state and federal agencies. Currently, service is provided to areas both within and outside the limits of the City of Carpinteria. Sewage generated in this area is conveyed through district lines to the treatment facility located between Olive and Oak Avenues, south of 6th Street and adjacent to the UPRR (City of Carpinteria 2003). Wastewater collection service via CSD is currently provided at Rincon Beach County Park.
Solid Waste Collection and Disposal
Solid waste produced in the City of Carpinteria is collected by E.J. Harrison and Sons Inc., located in Ventura. E.J.
Harrison and Sons Inc. provides solid waste collection and disposal for all residential, commercial, and industrial areas in the City. Once collected, the solid waste is transported to the Gold Coast Material Recovery Facility and the residual is ultimately deposited in the Toland landfill (City of Carpinteria 2003). Waste in the south coast of the County of Santa Barbara, which includes Rincon Beach County Park, is collected and hauled by MarBorg Industries (Santa Barbara County Resource Recovery & Waste Management Division 2021).
3.14.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
3.14.2.1 Federal
Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 341)
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires each city, county, and regional agency to develop a source reduction and recycling element of an integrated waste management plan that includes source reduction, recycling, and composting components. A minimum of a 50% diversion rate of all solid waste from landfill disposal or transformation by January 1, 2000 was required and met. The current policy goal of the state is no less than 75% of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020 to divert as much waste as possible from entering landfills.
3.14 – Utilities and Service Systems
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.14-2
3.14.2.2 State
Water Services
Urban Water Management Planning Act
In 1983, the Legislature enacted the Urban Water Management Planning Act (UWMP Act; California Water Code, Sections 10610–10656), which requires specified urban water suppliers within the state to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and update it every 5 years. State and local agencies and the public frequently use UWMPs to determine if agencies are planning adequately to reliably meet water demands in various service areas. As such, UWMPs serve as an important element in documenting water supply availability and reliability for purposes of compliance with state laws, Senate Bills 610 and 221, which link water supply sufficiency to large land-use development project approvals. Urban water suppliers also must prepare UWMPs, pursuant to the UWMP Act, to be eligible for state funding and drought assistance.
The UWMP provides information on water usage, water supply sources, and water reliability planning within a specified water agency service area. It also may provide implementation schedules to meet projected demands over the planning horizon; a description of opportunities for new development of desalinated water; groundwater information (where groundwater is identified as an existing or planned water source); description of water quality over the planning horizon; and identification of water management tools that maximize local resources and minimize imported water supplies. Additionally, the UWMP evaluates the reliability of water supplies within the specified service area. This includes a water supply reliability assessment, water shortage contingency plan, and development of a plan in case of an interruption of water supplies.
Senate Bills 610 and 221
On January 1, 2002, Senate Bill 610 took effect. Senate Bill 610, which was codified in the Water Code beginning with Section 10910, requires the preparation of a water supply assessment for projects within cities and counties that propose to construct 500 or more residential units or the equivalent. Senate Bill 610 stipulates that when environmental review of certain development projects is required, the water agency that is to serve the development must complete the water supply assessment to evaluate water supplies that are or will be available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years during a 20-year projection to meet existing and planned future demands, including the demand associated with a proposed project.
Senate Bill 221, enacted in 2001 and codified in the Water Code, requires a city, county, or local agency to include a condition to any tentative subdivision map that a sufficient water supply shall be available to serve the subdivision.
The term “sufficient water supply” is defined as the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years within a 20-year projection that would meet the proposed subdivision project’s projected water demand, in addition to existing and planned future water uses, including agricultural and industrial uses, within the specified service area. Senate Bill 221 further requires any verification of “projected” water supplies to be based on entitlement contracts, capital outlay programs and regulatory permits and approvals.
Executive Order B-29-15
In response to the ongoing drought in California, Executive Order (EO) B-29-15 (April 2015) set a goal of achieving a statewide reduction in potable urbanwater usage of 25% relative towater use in 2013. The term of the EO extended through February 28, 2016, although many of the directives have since become permanent water-efficiency
3.14 – Utilities and Service Systems
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.14-3
standards and requirements. The EO includes specific directives that set strict limits on water usage in the state.
In response to EO B-29-15, the California Department of Water Resources has modified and adopted a revised version of the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance that, among other changes, significantly increases the requirements for landscape water use efficiency and broadens its applicability to include new development projects with smaller landscape areas.
Solid Waste
Title 14: Natural Resources – Division 7
Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations regarding Natural Resources sets minimum standards for solid waste handling and disposal, including specific regulations regarding waste tire storage and disposal, hazardous waste disposal facilities, construction and demolition and inert debris transfer/processing, construction and demolition waste and inert debris disposal, transfer/processing operations and facilities, siting and design, operation standards, record keeping, and additional operating requirements for facilities. Additional guidance and requirements for compostable materials handling operations and facilities, asbestos handling and disposal, resource conservation programs, farm and ranch solid waste cleanup and abatement, used oil recycling program, electronic waste recovery and recycling, solid waste cleanup among others are also addressed in Title 14.
Title 27: Environmental Protection – Division 2, Solid Waste Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations regarding Environmental Protection and Solid Waste set the criteria for all waste management units, facilities, and disposal sites including regulations of the CIWMB and SWRCB. Waste classification, siting, construction standards, water quality monitoring and response programs, operating criteria, daily and immediate cover, handling and equipment, controls, gas monitoring and control, closure and post-closure standards, and financial assurances are all aspects covered in Title 27.
Assembly Bills 939 and 341: Solid Waste Reduction
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (Assembly Bill [AB] 939) was enacted as a result of a national crisis in landfill capacity, as well as a broad acceptance of a desired approach to solid waste management of reducing, reusing, and recycling. AB 939 mandated local jurisdictions to meet waste diversion goals of 25% by 1995 and 50% by 2000, and established an integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and landfill compliance. AB 939 requires cities and counties to prepare, adopt, and submit to the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (Cal Recycle) a source reduction and recycling element to demonstrate how the jurisdiction will meet the diversion goals. Other elements included encouraging resource conservation and considering the effects of waste management operations. The diversion goals and program requirements are implemented through a disposal-based reporting system by local jurisdictions under California Integrated Waste Management Board regulatory oversight. Since the adoption of AB 939, landfill capacity is no longer considered a statewide crisis. AB 939 has achieved substantial progress in waste diversion, program implementation, solid waste planning, and protection of public health, safety, and the environment from landfills operations and solid waste facilities.
In 2011, AB 341 was passed, making a legislative declaration that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. AB 341 requires that local agencies adopt strategies that will enable 75% diversion of all solid waste by 2020. This bill requires all commercial businesses and public entities that generate 4 cubic yards or more of waste per week to have a recycling program in place.
3.14 – Utilities and Service Systems
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.14-4
AB 1826 - Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling
In 2014, the State of California adopted AB 1826, a mandatory commercial organics recycling law that took effect in 2016. “Organic waste” means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food-soiled paper that is mixed in with food waste. As of January 1, 2017, businesses (including public entities) and multifamily residential dwellings of five units or more units that generate 4 cubic yards of organic waste per week are mandated to recycle their organic waste.
3.14.2.3 Local
City of Carpinteria General Plan/Local Land Use Plan
Sanitary Sewer Services. Per the City’s general plan, wastewater collection and treatment services are managed by the CSD. CSD has the obligation of operating and maintaining this system for the transmission, treatment, and disposal of sewage generated within their service area. The general plan states that the District is responsible for providing treatment to the level necessary to meet requirements set by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and other state and federal agencies (City of Carpinteria 2003).
Domestic Water Service. Per the City’s general plan, domestic water service in Carpinteria is subordinate to two components: supply and distribution system. Water is supplied by CVWD through distribution line and storage facilities controlled by CVWD. CVWD connected to state water in November 1997 (City of Carpinteria 2003).
The City of Carpinteria General Plan/Local Land Use Plan Public Facilities & Services Element includes various goals, objectives, and policies related to ensuring the provision of adequate essential utilities and infrastructure systems for proposed development. Policies specifically related to the proposed project include:
Objective PF-1 To ensure the provision of adequate water supplies by minimizing consumption and investigating new sources either in existing supply or outside existing sources.
Policy PF-1d The City shall reevaluate existing water facility regulations and amend said codes to require new development to utilize water-efficient devices responsive to our water source area.
Objective PF-2 Ensure adequate service systems for the transmission, treatment and disposal of sewage and wastewater generated within this area as well as the disposal of trash, green waste and recyclable material.
Objective PF-6 To ensure that new development is adequately served by utilities and does not impact existing service areas in the community.
Policy PF-6a The ultimate responsibility to ensure that the facilities (including systemwide improvements) needed to support the project are available at the time that they are needed shall be that of the sponsor or development projects.
Policy PF-6c Development projects within Carpinteria shall be required to: 1. construct and/or pay for the new on-site capital improvements that are required to support the project; 2. ensure that all new off-site capital improvements that are required by the project are available prior to certificate of occupancy; 3. be phased so as to ensure that the capital facilities that will be used by the new development are available prior to certificates of occupancy; 4. ensure that, in
3.14 – Utilities and Service Systems
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.14-5
the event that public services or off-site capital facilities are impacted prior to development, the level of service provided to existing development will not be further impacted by the new development; and 5. provide for the provision of public services, and shall not increase the cost of public services provided to existing development.
Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan
The Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2019) includes goals, objectives, and policies related to ensuring the provision of adequate essential utilities and infrastructure systems for proposed development, implementing regulations in the interest of the public health and safety, and providing for the general welfare of the community. Policies specifically related to the proposed project include:
Policy 2-4 Within designated urban areas, new development other than that for agricultural purposes shall be serviced by the appropriate public sewer and water district or an existing mutual water company, if such service is available.
Policy 2-5 Water-conserving devices shall be used in all new development.
Policy 2-6 Prior to issuance of a development permit, the County shall make the finding, based on information provided by environmental documents, staff analysis, and the applicant, that adequate public or private services and resources (i.e., water, sewer ads, etc.) are available to serve the proposed development. The applicant shall assume full responsibility for costs incurred in service extensions or improvements that are required as a result of the proposed project. Lack of available public or private services or resources shall be grounds for denial of the project or reduction in the density otherwise indicated in the land use plan. Where an affordable housing project is proposed pursuant to the Affordable Housing Overlay regulations, special needs housing or other affordable housing projects which include at least 50% of the total number of units for affordable housing or 30% of the total number of units affordable at the very low income level are to be served by entities that require can-and-will-serve letters, such projects shall be presumed to be consistent with the water and sewer service requirements of this policy if the project has, or is conditioned to obtain all necessary can-and-will-serve letters at the time of final map recordation, or if no map prior to issuance of land use permits.
Policy 2-3 In the furtherance of better water management, the County may require applicants to install meters on private wells and to maintain records of well extractions for use by the appropriate water district.
Policy 2-4 Within designated urban areas, new development other than that for agricultural purposes shall be serviced by the appropriate public sewer and water district or an existing mutual water company, if such service is available.
Policy 2-5 Water-conserving devices shall be used in all new development.
Policy 2-9 The existing water supply of the Carpinteria County Water District (67,541 AFY) shall be divided between the County and the City of Carpinteria on the basis of historical use; 30 percent (2,262 AFY) shall be allocated for use with the City and
3.14 – Utilities and Service Systems
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.14-6
70 percent shall be allocated for use within the County. The uncommitted water surplus in the Carpinteria County Water District may be increased proportionate to the amount of additional documented water such as that provided by reinjection programs and/or water reclamation and reservoir facilities which are designed to collect and reclaim wastewater and runoff from swales, creeks, or waterways which the district has the legal right to so utilize. The total uncommitted water surplus within the district shall be reevaluated on an annual basis.
Action:
The County’s portion of the uncommitted water surplus shall be allocated for priority uses, including but not limited to the following:
1) Agriculture: Water shall be distributed between open field crops and greenhouses, nurseries, and cover crops on the basis of established water usage, i.e., approximately 56 percent of the agricultural water supply shall be used for open field crops and 44 percent for greenhouses, nurseries, and other cover crop production. 2) Residential development: New development shall be based on the 10 to 1 ratio (between urban development in the City of Carpinteria and residential development in the unincorporated area of the County) established by the State Coastal Commission. (For example, since 30 percent of the water surplus is currently being allocated to the City of Carpinteria for urban uses, 3 percent shall be allocated to the County for residential development within the rural neighborhoods delineated on the land use plan maps.) 3) Public recreation
4) Visitor-serving commercial: Two areas allow for this use on the land use plan map;-the eastern end of the Carpinteria bluffs and-the Carpinteria Camper Park on North Via Real west of the City.
Policy 2-10 Annexation of a rural area(s) to a sanitary district or extensions of sewer lines into rural area(s) as defined on the land use plan maps shall not be permitted unless required to prevent adverse impacts on an environmentally sensitive habitat, to protect public health, or as a logical extension of services.
3.14.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to utilities and service systems are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to utilities and service systems would occur if the project would:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years. c) 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. d) 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. e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. f) Result in cumulatively considerable impacts relating to utilities and service systems.
3.14 – Utilities and Service Systems
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.14-7
3.14.4 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? The proposed project is a shared-use path that would be used primarily for bicycle and pedestrian travel. The project would therefore not create additional demands in the areas of natural gas, electricity or telecommunications facilities. 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), resulting in a potentially significant impact. Increased stormwater run-off during construction and until new vegetation is established are addressed under Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Quality, as Mitigation Measure (MM) WAT-1, MM-WAT-2, MM-WAT-3, and MM-WAT-4. Stormwater run-off from the trail surface would be collected by a concrete v-ditch adjacent to the trail and released through a series of short storm drains with discharge along the adjacent beach. The storm drains would be installed by the project and would be the responsibility of the project sponsors to maintain.
MM-WAT-5 requires maintenance of the storm drains in perpetuity to prevent failure of such systems. Potential impacts related to stormwater system facilities would be less than significant with mitigation. b) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? The proposed project would not require new water supply to serve the trail and its supporting facilities; minimal water would be required for landscape irrigation and maintenance purposes. Recycled water would be used for irrigation if locally available. Following restoration and during the plant establishment period, native plants would require regular irrigation during the dry season until they are established; approximately one to two years.
The Carpinteria Valley Water District releases an annual report which assesses its water supply and indicates the District has excess water to meet the demands of all lands within the District’s jurisdiction into the foreseeable future (CVWD 2017). A minimal amount of water would be required during construction of the proposed trail for fugitive dust control during earthwork activities. Furthermore, project construction is not anticipated to adversely affect or disrupt water service. The total amount of water required during construction and operation of the project would not impact the availability of water to the District’s service area. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) 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?
The proposed project is a shared-use path that would be used primarily for bicycle and pedestrian travel. The project would not include the use of septic systems or alternative wastewater disposal systems; therefore, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate a need for new or altered sewer system facilities. Wastewater generated by users of the proposed trail would be serviced by existing facilities at the Rincon Beach County Park. The proposed project would not adversely affect the wastewater treatment provider’s ability to serve existing commitments. Potential impacts related to sewer system facilities would be less than significant. d) 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? The proposed project consists of a shared-use path that would not generate a substantial amount of solid waste that would adversely affect landfill capacity or would breach national, state or local standards. Solid waste
3.14 – Utilities and Service Systems
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 3.14-8
generated by using the trail would be limited to trash and recycling materials deposited in the waste receptacles provided at the existing dirt parking lot at the west end of the trail or in Rincon Beach County Park; both waste and recycling receptacles are currently provided at Rincon Beach County Park. Construction waste generated by the project, including concrete, steel rebar, exported soils and wood for concrete forms, would be taken to an appropriate construction waste recycling facility in Santa Barbara or Ventura County, to avoid such waste from entering a landfill facility. Impacts would be less than significant. e) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
As mentioned in criteria d), the project will not generate a substantial amount of solid waste that would affect landfill capacity or breach national, state, or local standards. Potential impacts would be less than significant. f) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable impacts relating to utilities and service systems? Cumulative development throughout the Carpinteria Valley would incrementally contribute to utility and service impacts, resulting in a potentially significant impact. However, with implementation of required mitigation measures (MM-WAT-1 through MM-WAT-5), utility and service system impacts of the project would be reduced to less than significant or no impacts; the project would therefore have a less than considerable contribution to potential cumulative impacts in the region.
3.14.5 Mitigation
The proposed project could have potentially significant impacts upon stormwater systems and cumulative impacts to stormwater systems, for which mitigation has been required (MM-WAT-1 through MM-WAT-5). MM-WAT-1 through MMWAT-5, outlined in Section 3.8, would be implemented to reduce potential project impacts to stormwater runoff during construction and until new vegetation is established. The proposed project would result in less than significant or no impacts to utilities and service systems other than stormwater systems. All potential impacts upon utilities and services systems would be reduced to less than significant with incorporation of required mitigation measures.
3.14.6 Level of Significance After Mitigation
As discussed above, the project could have potentially significant impacts on stormwater systems. With implementation of mitigation MM-WAT-1 through MM-WAT-5, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4-1
4 Effects Found Not to be Significant
Section 15128 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines requires that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) briefly describe potential environmental effects that were determined not to be significant and therefore were not discussed in detail in the EIR. The environmental issues discussed in the following sections are not considered significant for the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project (project) and the reasons for these less-thansignificant impact or no impact determinations are discussed herein.
The environmental issues addressed in this chapter include the following:
• Agricultural and Forestry Resources
• Energy
• Mineral Resource
• Population and Housing
• Public Services
• Wildfire
4 – Effects Found Not to be Significant
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4-2
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4.1 – Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.1-1
4.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
This section describes the existing agriculture and forestry resources 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.
4.1.1 Existing Conditions
Agricultural soil is defined as soil that is utilized or suitable for agricultural crop production. The project site and immediately adjacent lands are designated on California Department of Conservation Important Farmland Maps as “Urban and Built-Up Land” and “Other Land” (DOC 2020). In addition, as shown in Figure 4.1-1, Williamson Act Land Contracts in Project Vicinity, the project site is not designated under a Williamson Act Contract. However, several nearby properties are under a Williamson Act Contract. Soils within the project site have been classified as Xerorthents, cut and fill areas (USDA 2011). Xerorthents can be rock, concrete, asphalt or other debris or earthy fill and typically consist of mechanically removed and mixed soil material in cut and fill areas used primarily for highways and urban development. Soils in the project area are rated as “Not Prime Farmland” (USDA NRCS 2011).
No agricultural resources or forest land are present within the project site nor have any been thought to exist in modern times.
4.1.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
4.1.2.1 Federal
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The purpose of the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is to minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Further, the FPPA directs federal programs to be compatible with state and local policies for the protection of farmlands. The FPPA does not authorize the federal government to regulate the use of private or non-federal land or in any way affect the property rights of owners of such land. Because the proposed project does not have federal involvement, the FPPA is not applicable in this situation.
4.1.2.2 State
California Department of Conservation
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) is the state agency that administers both the State Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) and the California Land Conservation Act, more commonly known as “The Williamson Act.” The Important Farmland Mapping Program compiles information of the state’s important farmlands, including tracking farmland proposed for development, and provides this information to state and local government agencies for use in planning and for decision makers and decision-making bodies.
4.1 – Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.1-2
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
The FMMP Important Farmland Maps are based on a classification system that combines technical soil ratings and current land use. Important Farmland Categories include Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, Grazing Land, Urban and Built-up Land, and Other Land. FMMP’s Important Farmland Maps require that Prime Farmland, meet the following criteria: (1) Prime Farmland must have been used for the production of irrigated crops at some time during the two update cycles prior to the mapping date, which equates to four years (DOC 2020); and (2) The soil must meet the physical and chemical criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance as determined by the USDA NRCS. NRCS compiles lists of which soils in each survey area meet the quality criteria. Factors considered in qualification of a soil by NRCS (DOC 2020) include the following:
• Water moisture regimes, available water
capacity, and developed irrigation water supply
• Soil temperature range
• Acid-alkali balance
• Water table
• Soil sodium content
• Flooding (uncontrolled runoff from
natural precipitation)
• Erodibility
• Permeability rate
• Rock fragment content
• Soil rooting depth
The soils information presented in this analysis is derived from statewide soils maps that have been prepared by both state and federal government entities. The California DOC, Division of Land Resource Protection, and the USDA NRCS both conduct regular and ongoing assessments of soil types and then prepare detailed soil maps. Once soils are mapped, they are grouped into the following categories that have specific definitions. The categories and definitions are as follows:
Prime Farmland. In California, the FMMP maps all statewide farmlands. The FMMP’s soils study area is contiguous with modem soil surveys developed by the USDA. The FMMP requires that any land designated as Prime must meet the criteria related to land use and soils. As such, farmland with the optimal combination of physical and chemical features to sustain long-term agriculture is described as Prime. The land has been determined to have the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high crop yields (DOC 2020).
Farmland of Statewide Importance. As with Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance must also meet both the criteria described above with respect to land use and soils and is similar to the Prime Farmland category.
The difference is that Farmland of Statewide Importance tolerates greater shortcomings of the soil, such as greater slopes or less ability to store moisture (DOC 2020).
Unique Farmland. This category of farmland is categorized as having lesser quality soils but is still used for the production of leading agricultural crops. This farmland is typically irrigated but can also include non-irrigated orchards or vineyards found in some climatic zones in the state. These lands must have been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date (DOC 2020).
Farmland of Local Importance. Lands that have been determined by local jurisdictional authorities such as county boards of supervisors or local advisory committees to have a specific importance to the local agricultural economy are considered Farmland of Local Importance (DOC 2020).
4.1 – Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.1-3
The FMMP has three other categories of land that are generally more limited in terms of agriculture value:
Grazing Land. Land that is particularly suited to the grazing of livestock given existing vegetation. This particular designation was developed in concert with the California Cattlemen’s Association, University of California Cooperative Extension, and a host of other groups with an interest in grazing and livestock (DOC 2020).
Urban and Built-Up Land. This category refers to land that is occupied by structures with a building density of at least one unit to 1.5 acres or six structures to a 10-acre parcel. This category includes land uses such as residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, water control structures, and other developed purposes (DOC 2020).
Other Land. All other lands that do not fall into the categories above are subsumed into this category. Examples of these lands include low-density rural developments, brush, timber wetland, riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing, confined livestock poultry or aquaculture facilities, strip mines, borrow pits, and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. In addition, vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land (DOC 2020).
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, better known as the Williamson Act as mentioned above, provides for reduced property taxation on agricultural land in exchange for a 10-year continuously rolling agreement. The purpose of the Williamson Act is the long-term conservation of agricultural and open space lands. The act establishes a program to enroll land in Williamson Act whereby the land is restricted to agricultural, open space, or recreational uses or uses deemed to be “compatible” with the agricultural land uses or compatible recreational uses as outlined in the act in exchange for reduced property tax assessments. The Act requires that each participating local government has a set of uniform rules for administering Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contracts within its jurisdiction. None of the project site is under a Williamson Act contract. Several nearby properties are under a Williamson Act contract as shown on Figure 4.1-1.
Farmland Security Zone Act
The Farmland Security Zone Act is similar to the Williamson Act and was passed by the California State Legislature in 1999 to ensure that long-term farmland preservation is part of public policy (California Government Code Section 51296–51297.4). Farmland Security Zone Act contracts are sometimes referred to as “Super Williamson Act Contracts.” Under the provisions of this act, a landowner already under a Williamson Act contract can apply for Farmland Security Zone status by entering into a contract with the county. Farmland Security Zone contracts must be for an initial term of at least 20 years. As with Williamson Act contracts, each year an additional year is automatically added to the contract term unless a notice of nonrenewal is given. In return for a further 35% reduction in the property tax value of land and growing improvements (in addition to Williamson Act tax benefits), the owner of the property promises not to develop the property into nonagricultural uses during the term of the contract. Farmland Security Zone contracts may also be cancelled, but only upon finding that cancellation would both service the purposes of the Williamson Act, and that cancellation would be in the public interest (California Government Code, Section 51297). None of the project site is under a Farmland Security Zone contract.
4.1 – Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.1-4
California Public Resources Code
The California Public Resources Code defines “forest land” and “timberland” as follows (California Public Resources Code, Sections 12200[g] and 4526, respectively):
‘Forest land’ is land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits. ‘Timberland’ means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board [State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection] as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis after consultation with the district committees and others.
4.1.2.3 Local
The Santa Barbara County Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves and Farmland Security Zones (referred to as "Uniform Rules") are the set of rules the County uses to implement the Agricultural Preserve program, established by the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, also known as the Williamson Act. The Williamson Act enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments which may be lower than normal because they are based upon farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value (County of Santa Barbara 2018).
The Uniform Rules define eligibility requirements and qualifying uses that each participating landowner must follow in order to receive a reduced property tax assessment under the Williamson Act. Often the Uniform Rules are more restrictive than the underlying agricultural zoning requirements. The County of Santa Barbara's Agricultural Preserve program has a high level of participation, covering approximately 550,000 acres, representing approximately 75% of all privately held agricultural lands in the County.
4.1.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to agriculture and forestry resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to agriculture and forestry resources would occur if the project would:
a) 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.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract. c) 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)). d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
4.1 – Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.1-5
e) 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. f) Result in cumulatively considerable impacts to agriculture and forestry resources.
4.1.4 Impact Analysis
a) 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. As discussed under Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, the California Department of Conservation State FMMP designates soils occurring within the project site as “Urban and Built-Up Land” and “Other Land” (DOC 2020). These categories are not considered suitable to support agriculture, but instead are suited to land uses such as residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment plants, water control structures, and other developed purposes (DOC 2020).
As such, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation measures are required. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. The portion of the project site within the City has been zoned for Resort Zone District use (City of Carpinteria 2016), while the portion within the County of Santa Barbara is zoned Transportation Corridor and Recreation (County of Santa Barbara 2020); consequently none of the project site carries agricultural zoning.
As discussed above, the project site is not enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use nor with a Williamson Act contract and as such, no impact would occur and no mitigation measures are required. c) 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. As discussed above and in Sections 4.1.2.2 and 4.1.2.3, the project site does not contain any forest or timberland, and is not zoned for forest land, timberland, or timberland production, as defined in the California Public Resources Code and Government Code. California Public Resources Code, Section 12220(g), defines “forest land” for the purposes of CEQA as land that can support 10% native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
California Government Code Section 51104(g) defines “Timber,” “Timberland,” and “Timberland Production Zone” for the purposes of CEQA as either trees of any species maintained for eventual harvest for forest production purposes (“Timber”); privately owned land, or land acquired for state forest purposes, used for growing and harvesting timber (“Timberland”); or “Timberland Production Zone” which means an area zoned and used for growing and harvesting timber.
4.1 – Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.1-6
As such, the proposed project would not 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)).
Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? As discussed under Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, there are no existing forest lands located on the project site or in the vicinity of the site as defined in the California Public Resources Code or Government Code 51104(g)).
The proposed project would construct a 16-foot wide (10-foot wide path with 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; this use would not prevent adjacent areas from supporting forest uses in the future. The proposed project would also not result in loss of any existing forest land. No impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
e) 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. As discussed under Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, the project site has no agricultural resources or forest land within the area of project effect, nor have any been thought to exist in modern times. The proposed project would construct a 16-foot wide (10-foot wide path with 3-foot wide paved shoulder along both sides) and approximately 2,800-foot long shared-use trail that would connect existing bike and pedestrian facilities on Carpinteria Avenue in the City of Carpinteria to Rincon Beach County Park in Santa Barbara County. Because the project would close a gap in existing trail systems, and in that use of the trail by pedestrians and cyclists would not affect the productivity of existing agriculture and forest lands in the region, the proposed project would not cause other changes that would result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required. f) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable impacts to agriculture and forestry resources? No Impact. As discussed under Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, the project site has no agricultural resources or forest land within the project site nor have any been thought to exist in modern times. The proposed project would not convert agricultural land to non-agricultural uses nor convert forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulative impact. As such, no impact would occur, and no mitigation measures are required.
4.1.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
As discussed above, no significant direct or indirect impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources would result from the proposed project.
4.1.6 Conclusion
As described above, the project site has no agricultural resources or forest land within the project site nor have any been thought to exist in modern times. The proposed project would not conflict with agriculturally zoned land and would not convert any agricultural, farmland or forest land to other uses. The proposed project would also not conflict with any regulatory federal, state, and local policies. Therefore, there would be no impact.
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
Rincon Point
Santa
Barbara
County
Ventura
County
AERIAL SOURCE: CIRGIS 2017
California Department of Conservation
FIGURE 4.1-1
Williamson Act Land Contracts in Project Vicinity
Carpinteria Rincon Trail EIR
0 500 1,000
Feet
Trail Corridor
Land Under Williamson Act Contract
4.1 – Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.1-8
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-1
4.2 Energy
This section describes the existing energy 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.
4.2.1 Existing Conditions
4.2.1.1 Electricity
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), California used approximately 250,379 gigawatt hours of electricity in 2017 (EIA 2019a). By sector in 2017, commercial uses utilized 46% of the state’s electricity, followed by 35% for residential uses, and 19% for industrial uses (EIA 2019a). Electricity usage in California for differing land uses varies substantially by the type of uses in a building, type of construction materials used in a building, and the efficiency of all electricity-consuming devices within a building. Due to the state’s energy efficiency building standards and efficiency and conservation programs, California’s electricity use per capita in the commercial sector is lower than any other state except Hawaii (EIA 2018).
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the project. SCE, a subsidiary of Edison International, serves approximately 180 cities in 11 counties across central and Southern California. According to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), approximately 84 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity were used in SCE’s service area in 2017. Demand forecasts anticipate that approximately 75 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity would be used in SCE’s service area in 2020 (CPUC 2018).
SCE receives electric power from a variety of sources. According to the 2018 SCE Power Content Label, SCE has renewable energy at 36% of its overall energy resources, with geothermal resources at 8%, wind power at 13%, large hydroelectric sources at 1%, and solar energy is at 13% (SCE 2019). The California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program establishes a goal for California to increase the amount of electricity generated from renewable energy resources to 20% by 2010, and to 33% by 2020. Recent legislation revised the current RPS target for California to obtain 50% of total retail electricity sales from renewable sources by 2030, with interim targets of 40% by 2024, and 45% by 2027 (CPUC 2016).
4.2.1.2 Natural Gas
According to the California Energy Commission (CEC), California used approximately 2,154,030 cubic feet of natural gas in 2019 (EIA 2019b). In 2017 (the most recent year for which data is available), by sector, industrial uses utilized 37% of the state’s natural gas, followed by 32% from electric power, 19% from residential, 11% from commercial, and 1% from transportation uses (CEC 2018a). While the supply of natural gas in the United States and production in the lower 48 states has increased greatly since 2008, California produces little, and imports 90% of its supply of natural gas (EIA 2019b).
The Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides the project with natural gas service. The territory serviced by SoCalGas encompasses approximately 20,000 square miles and more than 500 communities. In the California Energy Demand mid-energy demand scenario, natural gas demand is projected to have an annual growth rate of 0.03% in SoCalGas’s service territory. As of 2017, approximately 7.2 billion therms were used in SoCalGas’s
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-2
service area per year. Around the time of project construction in 2022, natural gas demand is anticipated to be approximately 7.7 billion therms per year in SoCalGas’s service area (CEC 2018c). In 2020, the total capacity available is also estimated to be 3.9 billion cubic feet per day1 (California Gas and Electric Utilities 2020). This amount is approximately equivalent to 3.98 billion thousand British thermal units (kBTU) per day or 39.8 million therms per day. Over the course of a year, the available capacity would therefore be 14.5 billion therms per year, which is well above the existing and future anticipated natural gas demand in the area serviced by SoCalGas.
4.2.1.3 Petroleum
According to the CEC, California used approximately 24.5 billion gallons of petroleum in 2018 (EIA 2019c). This equates to a daily use of approximately 51 million gallons of petroleum. By sector, transportation uses utilize approximately 85.5% of the state’s petroleum, followed by 11.1% from industrial, 2.5% from commercial, 0.9% from residential, and 0.01% from electric power uses (EIA 2018). In California, petroleum fuels refined from crude oil are the dominant source of energy for transportation sources. Petroleum usage in California includes petroleum products such as motor gasoline, distillate fuel, liquefied petroleum gases, and jet fuel. Production of petroleum in the United States was 9.7 million barrels per day during April 2015, which was the highest output since April 1971 (CEC 2016).
4.2.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
4.2.2.1 Federal
Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act
In 1975, Congress enacted the Federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established the first fuel economy standards for on-road motor vehicles in the United States. Pursuant to the act, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is responsible for establishing additional vehicle standards. In 2012, new fuel economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks were approved for model years 2017 through 2021 (77 FR 62624–63200).
Fuel economy is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the fleet of vehicles available for sale in the United States.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
On December 19, 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) was signed into law. In addition to setting increased corporate average fuel economy standards for motor vehicles, the EISA includes the following other provisions related to energy efficiency:
• Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) (Section 202)
• Appliance and Lighting Efficiency Standards (Sections 301–325) • Building Energy Efficiency (Sections 411–441)
This federal legislation (the RFS) requires ever-increasing levels of renewable fuels to replace petroleum (EPA 2013).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for developing and implementing regulations to ensure that transportation fuel sold in the United States contains a minimum volume of renewable fuel. The RFS program regulations were developed in collaboration with refiners, renewable fuel producers, and many other stakeholders. 1 One cubic foot of natural gas has approximately 1,020 BTUs of natural gas or 1.02 kBTUs of natural gas.
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-3
The RFS program was created under the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and established the first renewable fuel volume mandate in the United States. As required under the act, the original RFS program (RFS1) required 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuel to be blended into gasoline by 2012. Under the EISA, the RFS program was expanded in several key ways that lay the foundation for achieving significant reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of renewable fuels, reducing imported petroleum, and encouraging the development and expansion of the renewable fuels sector in the United States. The updated program (RFS2) includes the following:
• EISA expanded the RFS program to include diesel, in addition to gasoline. • EISA increased the volume of renewable fuel required to be blended into transportation fuel from 9 billion gallons in 2008 to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
• EISA established new categories of renewable fuel, and set separate volume requirements for each one. • EISA required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to apply lifecycle GHG performance threshold standards to ensure that each category of renewable fuel emits fewer GHGs than the petroleum fuel it replaces.
Additional provisions of the EISA address energy savings in government and public institutions, research for alternative energy, additional research in carbon capture, international energy programs, and the creation of “green” jobs.
4.2.2.2 State
Warren-Alquist Act
The California Legislature passed the Warren–Alquist Act in 1974, which created the CEC. The legislation also incorporated the following three key provisions designed to address the demand side of the energy equation:
• It directed the CEC to formulate and adopt the nation’s first energy conservation standards for both buildings constructed and appliances sold in California. • The act removed the responsibility of electricity demand forecasting from the utilities, which had a financial interest in high-demand projections, and transferred it to a more impartial CEC. • The CEC was directed to embark on an ambitious research and development program, with a particular focus on fostering what were characterized as non-conventional energy sources.
Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR)
Senate Bill 1389 (Bowen, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the CEC to prepare a biennial integrated energy policy report that assesses major energy trends and issues facing the state’s electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors and provides policy recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; ensure reliable, secure, and diverse energy supplies; enhance the state’s economy; and protect public health and safety (California Public Resources Code, Section 25301a). The Energy Commission prepares these assessments and associated policy recommendations every two years, with updates in alternate years, as part of the Integrated Energy Policy Report.
The 2019 IEPR was adopted January 31, 2020, and continues to work towards improving electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel energy use in California. The 2019 IEPR focuses on a variety of topics such as including the environmental performance of the electricity generation system, landscape-scale planning, the response to the gas leak at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, transportation fuel supply reliability issues, updates on
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-4
Southern California electricity reliability, methane leakage, climate adaptation activities for the energy sector, climate and sea level rise scenarios, and the California Energy Demand Forecast (CEC 2019). The 2020 IEPR Update is currently in progress but is not anticipated to be adopted until February 2021.
State of California Energy Action Plan
The CEC and California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) approved the first State of California Energy Action Plan in 2003. The plan established shared goals and specific actions to ensure the provision of adequate, reliable, and reasonably priced electrical power and natural gas supplies; it also identified cost-effective and environmentally sound energy policies, strategies, and actions for California’s consumers and taxpayers. In 2005, the CEC and CPUC adopted a second Energy Action Plan to reflect various policy changes and actions of the prior 2 years.
At the beginning of 2008, the CEC and CPUC determined that it was not necessary or productive to prepare a new energy action plan. This determination was based, in part, on a finding that the state’s energy policies have been significantly influenced by the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (discussed below). Rather than produce a new energy action plan, the CEC and CPUC prepared an “update” that examines the state’s ongoing actions in the context of global climate change.
Senate Bill 1078 (2002)
Senate Bill (SB) 1078 established the California Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) Program and required that a retail seller of electricity purchase a specified minimum percentage of electricity generated by eligible renewable energy resources as defined in any given year, culminating in a 20% standard by December 31, 2017. These retail sellers include electrical corporations, community choice aggregators, and electric service providers. The bill relatedly required the CEC to certify eligible renewable energy resources, design and implement an accounting system to verify compliance with the RPS by retail sellers, and allocate and award supplemental energy payments to cover above-market costs of renewable energy.
Senate Bills 107 (2006), X1-2 (2001), 350 (2015), and 100 (2018) SB 107 (2006) accelerated the RPS established by SB 1078 by requiring that 20% of electricity retail sales be served by renewable energy resources by 2010 (not 2017). Additionally, SB X1-2 (2011) requires all California utilities to generate 33% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2020. Specifically, SB X1- 2 sets a three-stage compliance period: by December 31, 2013, 20% had to come from renewables; by December 31, 2016, 25% had to come from renewables; and by December 31, 2020, 33% will come from renewables.
SB 350 (2015) requires retail seller and publicly owned utilities to procure 50% of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030, with interim goals of 40% by 2024 and 45% by 2027.
SB 100 (2018) increased the standards set forth in SB 350. The bill establishes that 44% of the total electricity sold per year to retail customers in California be secured from qualifying renewable energy sources by December 31, 2024, with that number increasing to 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030. SB 100 states that it is the policy of the state that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100% of the retail sales of electricity to California. This bill requires that the achievement of 100% zero-carbon electricity resources do not increase the carbon emissions elsewhere in the western grid and that the achievement not be met through resource shuffling.
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-5
Consequently, utility energy generation from non-renewable resources is expected to be reduced based on implementation of the 60% RPS in 2030. Therefore, any project’s reliance on non-renewable energy sources would also be reduced.
Assembly Bill 1007 (2005)
AB 1007 (2005) required the CEC to prepare a statewide plan to increase the use of alternative fuels in California (State Alternative Fuels Plan). The CEC prepared the plan in partnership with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and in consultation with other state agencies, plus federal and local agencies. The State Alternative Fuels Plan assessed various alternative fuels and developed fuel portfolios to meet California’s goals to reduce petroleum consumption, increase alternative fuels use, reduce GHG emissions, and increase in-state production of biofuels without causing a significant degradation of public health and environmental quality.
Assembly Bill 32 (2006) and Senate Bill 32 (2016)
In 2006, the state legislature enacted Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.
AB 32 requires California to reduce its GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In 2016, the Legislature enacted SB 32, which extended the horizon year of the state’s codified GHG reduction planning targets from 2020 to 2030, requiring California to reduce its GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. In accordance with AB 32 and SB 32, CARB prepares scoping plans to guide the development of statewide policies and regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions. Many of the policy and regulatory concepts identified in the scoping plans focused on increasing energy efficiencies, using renewable resources, and reducing the consumption of petroleum-based fuels (such as gasoline and diesel). As such, the state’s GHG emissions reduction planning framework creates co-benefits for energy-related resources. Additional information on AB 32 and SB 32 is provided in Section 4.6.2 in Section 4.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of this EIR.
California Building Standards
Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations was established in 1978 and serves to enhance and regulate California’s building standards. Part 6 establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings constructed in California to reduce energy demand and consumption. Part 6 is updated periodically to incorporate and consider new energy efficiency technologies and methodologies.
The 2019 Title 24 standards are the currently applicable building energy efficiency standards, and became effective on January 1, 2020. The 2019 Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards would further reduce energy used and associated GHG emissions compared to prior standards. In general, single-family residences built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use approximately 7% less energy due to energy efficiency measures than those built to the 2016 standards; once rooftop solar electricity generation is factored in, single-family residences built under the 2019 standards would use approximately 53% less energy than those under the 2016 standards (CEC 2018b).
Nonresidential buildings built to the 2019 standards are anticipated to use an estimated 30% less energy than those built to the 2016 standards (CEC 2018b).
State Vehicle Standards
In response to the transportation sector accounting for more than half of California’s carbon dioxide emissions, AB 1493 was enacted in 2002. AB 1493 required CARB to set GHG emissions standards for passenger vehicles, lightduty trucks, and other vehicles determined by the state board to be those whose primary use is noncommercial
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-6
personal transportation in the state. The bill required that CARB set GHG emissions standards for motor vehicles manufactured in 2009 and all subsequent model years. The 2009 through 2012 standards resulted in a reduction in approximately 22% of GHG emissions compared to emissions from the 2002 fleet, and the 2013 through 2016 standards resulted in a reduction of approximately 30%.
In 2012, CARB approved a new emissions-control program for model years 2017 through 2025. The program combines the control of smog, soot, and global-warming gases with requirements for greater numbers of zeroemissions vehicles into a single package of standards called Advanced Clean Cars. By 2025, when the rules would be fully implemented, new automobiles would emit 34% fewer global-warming gases and 75% fewer smog-forming emissions (CARB 2012).
Although the focus of the state’s vehicle standards is on the reduction of air pollutants and GHG emissions, one cobenefit of implementation of these standards is a reduced demand for petroleum-based fuels.
Sustainable Communities Strategy
The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, or SB 375, coordinates land use planning, regional transportation plans, and funding priorities to help California meet its GHG emissions reduction mandates.
As codified in California Government Code Section 65080, SB 375 requires metropolitan planning organizations (e.g., Southern California Association of Governments) to include a Sustainable Communities Strategy in their regional transportation plan. The main focus of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is to plan for growth in a fashion that will ultimately reduce GHG emissions, but the strategy is also part of a bigger effort to address other development issues, including transit and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which influence the consumption of petroleum-based fuels.
4.2.2.3 Local
Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan
Goals and policies pertaining to Energy are addressed in the Energy Element of the comprehensive plan (County of Santa Barbara 2015a). The following goals and policies from the Energy Element are applicable to the project:
Goal 3 Transportation and Land Use
Provide a composition of land-uses and transportation programs that reduces dependency on automobiles.
Policy 3.1 Alternative Transportation and Support Facilities Enhance opportunities for alternative transportation
Research 3.1.1 The County, in coordination with the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments and cities within the County, shall prepare a report for the Board of Supervisors which provides details on enhancing alternative transportation (e.g., mass transit, vanpools, bikeways, etc.). The report shall include the following tasks:
a) Identify steps that would increase transportation, considering factors of attractiveness, and cost-savings;
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-7
b) Ridership of alternative security, convenience,
c) Estimate expected increase in ridership affected by each step; d) Estimate the financial investment necessary to
implement each step
e) Recommend those steps that appear to present the most return on investment;
f) Evaluate all existing, projected and potential funding sources for the purpose of enhancing investment in
alternative transportation; and
g) Recommend steps to realize needed funding.
Public Service 3.1.1 The County shall continue to develop programs that encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, including bike-and-ride and park-and-ride facilities.
Public Service 3.1.2 The County shall work with the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments and adjacent jurisdictions to pursue a commuter rail system as a potential mass transit option for the County.
Public Service 3.1.3 The County shall work with the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, appropriate organizations, local mass transit agencies, educational institutions, driver education, Department of Motor Vehicle, etc., to inform the public about available transportational choices, and to inform the transit agencies about ways to make alternative
transportation more attractive, etc.
Policy 3.4 Recreation Near Homes
Encourage coordination of scheduling recreational events (e.g., organized sports, arts and handicrafts for minors) at locations that would reduce recreation-related transportation by automobile.
Public Service 3.4.1 The County should work with local recreational organizations and schools to encourage neighborhood-based recreational practices and events to reduce vehicular trips.
Regulatory Incentive 3.4.1: The County should seek to
designate and establish neighborhood parks when preparing Community Plans.
Policy 3.5 Bikeways and Support Facilities
The County shall consider the completion of an integrated bikeway system, linking residences with commercial centers, work locations, schools, parks and mass transit facilities to be a high priority for promoting the use of the bicycle as an alternative mode of transportation.
Research 3.5.1 See Research 3.1.1; bikeways shall be included in this study.
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-8
Public Service 3.5.1: The County shall continue to work with Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, local jurisdictions, bicycle organizations, educational institutions, driver education, Department of Motor Vehicles, and Caltrans to develop outreach programs designed to inform the public of available
transportational choices. Outreach programs shall include:
a) Information on existing and proposed bikeways;
b) Information on cycling safety, commuting and recreational issues; and c) Information on how much money a person can save by bicycling to work or using mass transit Public Service 3.5.2 The County shall encourage the Santa Barbara County Association of Government (SBCAG) to continue to encourage bicycling. Pro-active efforts shall continue to help jurisdictions with fund-raising, coordination between jurisdictions, focusing on intermodal links, dissemination of information, etc. If and when this effort requires dedication of additional staff time, the County should encourage SBCAG to so dedicate this time.
Public Service 3.5.3 The County shall continue to commit staff to facilitate bicycle planning, design, construction, and maintenance of bikeways and supporting facilities, updating the Bicycle Element, including efforts to fund these activities from outside grants.
Public Service 3.5.4 To the extent feasible, the County shall accommodate bicycle lanes in all new roadway improvements consistent with
adopted bikeway plans.
Public Service 3.5.5 The County should encourage all of the cities within the county to provide safe bicycle access to all major county facilities through construction of bicycle paths, lighting, signage, etc.
Public Service 3.5.6 The County shall survey bike use (count bicycles) during traffic counts to measure the effectiveness of these programs.
Public Service 3.5.7 The County shall encourage and work with the local transit agencies to equip buses with bicycle racks and coordinate location of transit facilities with bicycle access.
Policy 3.6 Pedestrian-Oriented Designs
The County shall improve the convenience, comfort and safety for pedestrians.
Public Service 3.6.1 The County shall develop a list of recommendations for designing pedestrian-oriented facilities; the
recommendations shall include details on widths of
sidewalks, providing direct paths, lighting requirements, promoting signage, locating parking lots behind buildings, pedestrian-scale access, visual interest, etc.
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-9
Encouragement 3.6.1 New development should include direct, safe and pleasant pedestrian routes connecting new and existing
origins and destinations.
Goal 4 Water Use and Solid Waste
Increase the efficiency of water and resource use to reduce energy consumption associated with various phases of using resources (pumping, distribution, treatments, heating, etc.).
Policy 4.1 Construction
Encourage recycling and reuse of construction waste to reduce energy consumption associated with extracting and manufacturing virgin materials.
Public Service 4.1.1 The County will serve as a source of information regarding current markets and collection services for recycling and reuse of construction-generated waste.
Public Service 4.1.2 The County, in coordination with Ventura and San Luis Obispo counties, and cities within these counties, should develop a local guide to recycled construction products.
Public Service 4.1.3 To encourage recycling and use of recycled materials in construction and demolition, copies of A Resource Guide to Recycled Construction Products and Energy Efficiency
published by the Public Works Department, Integrated Solid Waste Management Office, City of Los Angeles, and California Materials Exchange (CALMAX) published by California
Integrated Waste Management Board, and any local version that is developed, shall be distributed by the County with issuance of a building or demolition permit.
Encouragement 4.1.1 The County should require an initial assessment of construction-generated waste and require recycling bins at those construction sites where it would be feasible for the contractor to recycle the material. County should consider this encouragement to be feasible when added cost for recycling, if any, is minimal compared to the overall benefits of recycling, and when recyclers are regionally accessible.
Encouragement 4.1.2 The County shall develop guidelines for managing construction-generated wastes. These guidelines must be economically feasible for the contractor, considering the constraints of a highly competitive industry. Once guidelines have been developed, new developments would be
recommended to recycle construction waste.
Policy 4.2 Recycled Materials
The County shall require adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials in development projects, and shall further address recycling logistics in its zoning ordinance.
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-10
Encouragement 4.2.1 The County shall amend the zoning ordinances to include a recycling access ordinance by following the Model Ordinance developed by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. [The Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act requires the adoption of a recycling access ordinance, or adoption of the state’s model ordinance.]
Regulatory Incentive 4.2.1 The County shall revise its zoning ordinances as appropriate to alleviate or reduce unnecessary impediments that may inhibit recycling.
Policy 4.3 Reuse of Asphalt
Promote reuse of asphalt removed from roads and paved structures within the county and use of recycled materials in roadway and paved surface construction.
Internal Action 4.3.1 The County shall increase applications of reusing existing road materials and use of recycled materials (e.g., asphalt-rubber, recycled base material, crush rock material, recycled toilets, and the cold in-place method of re-paving), when feasible.
Policy 4.8 Water Efficient Landscaping
The County shall require (per Government Code, Section 65590, Article
10.8) water-efficient landscape design and irrigation systems in new and renovated developments and at public parks and facilities. [Energysavings are accrued through reduced water pumping and treatment, and reduced disposal and maintenance.]
Encouragement 4.8.1 To encourage energy conservation and as required by Groundwater Policy 3.6 of the Conservation Element, waterconserving landscaping and irrigation shall be incorporated into all new developments, where appropriate, effective, and consistent with applicable law.
Internal Action 4.8.1 The County shall continue to give priority to native and drought-tolerant plants and to install water-efficient irrigation at County parks and facilities.
Energy and Climate Action Plan
The County’s Energy and Climate Action Plan (ECAP) as discussed in Section 3.6.2.3 also addresses energy use within the County (County of Santa Barbara 2015b). Although the ECAP established greenhouse gas reduction goals for the County, the measures with which the County would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to meet those goals included those to reduce energy consumption. Measures to reduce energy consumption within the ECAP include implementation of Community Choice Energy, renewable energy, and industrial energy efficiency.
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-11
City of Carpinteria
The City has adopted measures within its Open Space, Recreation & Conservation Element of its General Plan to reduce energy consumption (City of Carpinteria 2003). Measures identified within Section 3.6.2.3 for reducing GHG emissions would also help to reduce energy consumption.
The City also adopted the Energy Action Plan in August 2016 (City of Carpinteria 2016) to identify the City of Carpinteria’s long term vision and goals on achieving energy efficiency in local government facilities. This document specifically addresses energy consumption by the City’s facilities and operations. The City of Carpinteria aims to increase the energy efficiency in their own facilities in order minimize energy costs and protect the environment, with the understanding that energy generation is directly related to greenhouse gas emissions. This document is intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lower municipal energy costs by identifying projects and priorities for energy efficiency work throughout the City’s facilities and operations.
The Energy Action Plan will outline a strategy for increased energy efficiency, based on available funding and energy reduction goals. The following sections include: an outline of the City’s current work in the field of energy efficiency; energy usage data across municipal buildings and operations; and goals for energy reduction from 2015 baseline levels. Specifically, this EAP outlines a goal of a 15% reduction in electricity consumption from the 2015 baseline level by the year 2020. The function of the EAP is to serve as a working document that allows the City of Carpinteria flexibility if new regulations are adopted, new facilities are brought online, or new funding sources become available.
4.2.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to energy are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to energy would occur if the project would:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
4.2.4 Impact Analysis
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Electricity
Construction Use
Temporary electric power for as-necessary lighting and electronic equipment, such as computers, may be needed inside temporary construction trailers. However, the electricity used for such activities would be temporary and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption.
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-12
Operational Use
The project does not include any components that would require the use of electricity during operation.
Therefore, the project would have no impact on electricity during operation.
Natural Gas
Construction Use
Natural gas is not anticipated to be required during construction of the project. Fuels used for construction would primarily consist of diesel and gasoline, which are discussed below under the “petroleum” subsection. Any minor amounts of natural gas that may be consumed as a result of project construction would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption.
Operational Use
Similar to electricity, the project does not include any components that would require the use of natural gas during operation. Therefore, the project would have no impact on natural gas during operation.
Petroleum
Construction Use
Petroleum would be consumed throughout construction of the project. Fuel consumed by construction equipment would be the primary energy resource expended over the course of construction, and VMT associated with the transportation of construction materials and construction worker commutes would also result in petroleum consumption. Heavy-duty construction equipment associated with construction activities, and haul trucks involved in relocating dirt around the project site would rely on diesel fuel. Construction workers would travel to and from the project site throughout the duration of construction. It is assumed that construction workers would travel to and from the project site in gasoline-powered vehicles.
Heavy-duty construction equipment of various types would be used during construction. CalEEMod was used to estimate construction equipment usage; results are included in Appendix B. Based on that analysis, dieselfueled construction equipment would operate for an estimated 95,616 hours.
Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions from each construction phase to gallons using conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. The conversion factor for gasoline is 8.78 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon, and the conversion factor for diesel is 10.21 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon (The Climate Registry 2020). The estimated diesel fuel use from construction equipment is shown in Table 4.2-1.
Table 4.2-1. Construction Equipment Diesel Demand
Phase
Pieces of
Equipment
Equipment CO2
(MT)a kg CO2/Gallonb Gallons
Site Preparation 3 24.18 10.21 2,368.70
Grading 3 143.12 10.21 14,017.49
Trail Construction 2 38.74 10.21 3,794.38
Bridge Construction 5 6.38 10.21 625.27
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-13
Table 4.2-1. Construction Equipment Diesel Demand
Phase
Pieces of
Equipment
Equipment CO2
(MT)a kg CO2/Gallonb Gallons
Paving 2 16.73 10.21 1,638.79
Architectural Coating 1 2.55 10.21 250.08
Total 22,694.70
Sources:
a Appendix B.
b The Climate Registry 2020.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram.
Fuel consumption from worker and vendor trips was estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions from the construction phase to gallons using the conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. Worker vehicles are assumed to be gasoline fueled, and vendor/hauling vehicles are assumed to be diesel fueled.
Calculations for total worker, vendor, and hauler fuel consumption are provided in Table 4.2-2, Table 4.2-3, and Table 4.2-4.
Table 4.2-2. Construction Worker Vehicle Gasoline Demand Phase Trips Vehicle CO2 (MT)a kg CO2/Gallonb Gallons
Site Preparation 256 0.6015 8.78 68.51
Grading 1792 4.1846 8.78 476.61
Trail Construction 2688 6.0798 8.78 692.46
Bridge Construction 280 0.6333 8.78 72.13
Paving 192 0.4343 8.78 49.46
Architectural Coating 120 0.2714 8.78 30.91
Total 1,390.08
Sources:
a Appendix B.
b The Climate Registry 2020.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram.
Table 4.2-3. Construction Vendor Diesel Demand
Phase Trips Vehicle CO2 (MT)a kg CO2/Gallonb Gallons
Site Preparation 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Grading 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Trail Construction 1,152 12.98 10.21 1,270.94
Bridge Construction 120 1.35 10.21 132.39
Paving 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Architectural Coating 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Total 1,403.33
Sources:
a Appendix B.
b The Climate Registry 2020.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram.
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-14
Table 4.2-4. Construction Haul Truck Diesel Demand
Phase Trips Vehicle CO2 (MT)a kg CO2/Gallonb Gallons
Site Preparation 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Grading 11,764 446.88 10.21 43,768.44
Trail Construction 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Bridge Construction 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Paving 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Architectural Coating 0 0.00 10.21 0.00
Total 43,768.44
Sources:
a Appendix B.
b The Climate Registry 2020.
Notes: CO2 = carbon dioxide; MT = metric ton; kg = kilogram.
As shown in Tables 4.2-1 through 4.2-4, the project is estimated to consume approximately 69,257 gallons of petroleum during the construction phase. By comparison, approximately 27.9 billion gallons of petroleum would be consumed in California over the course of the project’s construction phase, based on the California daily petroleum consumption estimate of approximately 52.9 million gallons per day (CEC 2019). In 2022, the total mobile source petroleum consumption within the County of Santa Barbara is estimated to be 164 million gallons (CARB 2020). In 2022, the total construction equipment petroleum consumption within the County of Santa Barbara is estimated to be 2.9 million gallons (CARB 2020). The project would also be required to comply with CARB’s Airborne Toxics Control Measures, which restrict heavy-duty diesel vehicle idling time to five minutes. The project would be subject to the InUse Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation (Off-Road Regulation) which applies to all self-propelled off-road diesel vehicles 25 horsepower or greater used in California and most two-engine vehicles (except on-road two-engine sweepers). This includes vehicles that are rented or leased (rental or leased fleets). The Off-Road Regulation also requires off-road equipment fleets to become more efficient over-time through equipment retrofits, replacements, or retirements. The fleet must either show that its fleet average index was less than or equal to the calculated fleet average target rate, or that the fleet has met the Best Achievable Control Technology (BACT) requirements.
Operational Use
The project would result in petroleum consumption during operation due to periodic maintenance of the trail. As discussed in Section 3.2.4, it was assumed that one employee vehicle would travel to the site per week. Fuel consumption from construction equipment was estimated by converting the total CO2 emissions from each construction phase to gallons using conversion factors for CO2 to gallons of gasoline or diesel. The conversion factor for gasoline is 8.78 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon, and the conversion factor for diesel is 10.21 kilograms per metric ton CO2 per gallon (The Climate Registry 2020). The project is estimated to consume 17 gallons of gasoline and 1 gallon of diesel per year, for a total of 18 gallons of petroleum per year. By comparison, California as a whole consumes approximately 19.3 billion gallons of petroleum per year (CEC 2019). It is forecasted that in 2024, approximately 156 million gallons of petroleum in Santa Barbara County will be consumed (CARB 2020).
Over the lifetime of the project, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles being used by the residents is expected to increase. As such, the amount of petroleum consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the project site during operation would decrease over time. There are numerous regulations in place that require and encourage increased fuel efficiency. For example, as mentioned previously, CARB has adopted an approach to passenger vehicles by combining the control of smog-causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single,
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-15
coordinated package of standards. The approach also includes efforts to support and accelerate the number of plug-in hybrids and zero-emissions vehicles in California (CARB 2013). Additionally, in response to SB 375, CARB adopted the goal of reducing per-capita GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 8% by 2020, and 18% by 2035 for light-duty passenger vehicles in the planning area for SBCAG. As such, operation of the project is expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time due to advances in fuel economy.
Significance of Impact
Electricity
The electricity used for construction activities would be temporary and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption. The project would not consume electricity during operation. Therefore, the electricity consumption of the project would not be inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.
Natural Gas
The natural gas used for construction activities would be temporary and would have a negligible contribution to the project’s overall energy consumption. The project would not consume natural gas during operation.
Therefore, the natural gas consumption of the project would not be inefficient or wasteful, and impacts would be less than significant.
Petroleum
In summary, because petroleum use during construction would be temporary and relatively minimal, consumption associated with the project would not be wasteful or inefficient during construction. Additionally, although the project would increase petroleum use during operation as a result of periodic maintenance, the use would be a small fraction of the statewide and countywide use and, due to efficiency increases, would diminish over time. Given these considerations, petroleum consumption associated with the project would not be inefficient or wasteful and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations contains energy efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings based on a state mandate to reduce California’s energy demand. Specifically, Title 24 addresses a number of energy efficiency measures that impact energy used for lighting, water heating, heating, and air conditioning, including the energy impact of the building envelope such as windows, doors, skylights, wall/floor/ceiling assemblies, attics, and roofs.
Part 6 of Title 24 specifically establishes energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings constructed in the State of California in order to reduce energy demand and consumption. The project would be required to comply with Title 24, Part 6, per state regulations. In addition, Title 24, Part 11, contains voluntary and mandatory energy measures that are applicable to the project under the CALGreen Code. As discussed under the previous threshold, the project would result in a nominal increased demand for electricity, natural gas, and petroleum.
The City’s Energy Action Plan outlines a goal of a 15% reduction in electricity consumption from the 2015 baseline level by the year 2020. The project would not result in an increase in long-term consumption of electricity or natural gas during operation. Similarly, the project would not interfere with the goals within the
4.2 – Energy
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.2-16
County’s ECAP to reduce energy use. Therefore, the project would not interfere with the City and County’s goal to reduce energy consumption.
Because the project would comply with Title 24, Part 6 and Part 11, would be consistent with the City’s Energy Action Plan and the County’s ECAP, no conflict with existing energy standards and regulations would occur.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
4.2.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
As discussed above, no significant direct or indirect impacts related to energy would result from the proposed project.
4.2.6 Conclusion
Impacts would be less than significant.
4.3 – Mineral Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.3-1
4.3 Mineral Resources
This section describes the existing mineral resources 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.
4.3.1 Existing Conditions
4.3.1.1 Minerals
Mineral resource mapping from the California Department of Conservation (DOC) Geologic Survey classifies the project site and surrounding lands as Mineral Resource Zone 3 (MRZ-3) (DOC 1989). MRZ-3 designates areas containing mineral deposits whose significance cannot be evaluated from available data. The City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan states that there are no non-oil mineral resources of substantial quantities within the City’s planning area (City of Carpinteria 2003). The County’s Comprehensive Plan identifies mineral resources within the County and does not indicate the presence of mineral resources in the portion of the project site in unincorporated Santa Barbara County (County of Santa Barbara 2010).
4.3.1.2 Oil and Gas
Oil is the only substantial mineral resource known to be present within the general vicinity of the project site. Oil-related activities in the Carpinteria region consist of offshore drilling and extraction platforms, onshore oil storage facilities, a product transportation terminal, and a natural gas processing plant (City of Carpinteria 2003). There are ten oil platforms currently off the coast of Carpinteria, only three (Platforms Grace, Gail, and Habitat) pipe extracted oil and natural resources to facilities within the City of Carpinteria (City of Carpinteria 2003). Platform Grace ceased production in 1998.
The Carpinteria Processing Facility is located approximately 1.2 miles west of the western end of the proposed project.
The facility includes a crude oil storage tank, pipeline shipping pumps, metering skids, a gas compression plant, a natural gas liquids recovery plant, offices, tanks, maintenance shops and various equipment and facilities. The Carpinteria Processing Facility is in the initial stages of decommissioning,, as are one or more of the platforms that pipe oil and gas to the Carpinteria Processing Facility.
According to the California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, there are no active or abandoned oil wells within the project site (DOGGR 2021). An abandoned oil well does exist within the Rincon Beach County Park property, outside of the project limits.
4.3.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
4.3.2.1 Federal
There are no federal regulations related to mineral resources that apply to the proposed project.
4.3 – Mineral Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.3-2
4.3.2.2 State
Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) is responsible for supervising the drilling, operation, maintenance, plugging, and abandonment of oil, gas, and geothermal wells. DOGGR’s regulatory program promotes the sensitive development of oil, natural gas, and geothermal resources in California through sound engineering practices, prevention of pollution, and implementation of public safety programs. To implement this regulatory program, DOGGR requires avoidance of building over or near plugged or abandoned oil and gas wells or requires the remediation of wells to current DOGGR standards.
All oil and gas wells drilled and constructed in California must adhere to strict requirements. These requirements include general laws and regulations regarding the protection of underground and surface water, and specific regulations regarding the integrity of the well casing, the cement used to secure the well casing inside the bore hole, and the cement and equipment used to seal off the well from underground zones bearing fresh water and other hydrocarbon resources. (See California Public Resources (CPR) Code sections 3106, 3203, 3211, 3220, 3222, 3224, 3255; Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, sections 1722.2, 1722.3, 1722.4, etc.). In addition, the DOGGR requires avoidance of building over or near plugged or abandoned oil and gas wells or requires the remediation of wells to current DOGGR standards. DOGGR also has the authority under the CCR to adopt field rules for oil and gas pools or zones in a field when sufficient geologic and engineering data is available from previous drilling operations. The administrative boundaries of each pool or zone for which field rules have been adopted and geologic and engineering information is available to accurately describe subsurface conditions are designated through a ministerial process by DOGGR. Applicable field rules identify down hole conditions and well construction information that oil and gas operators should consider when drilling and completing onshore oil and gas wells. In addition to DOGGR facilities regulations, operators that have facilities in designated areas must have Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plans per U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements.
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
The mineral resources addressed in this report pertain to those resources that are classified under the State Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). SMARA mandated the initiation of mineral land classification by the State Geologist in order to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the State subject to urban expansion and other irreversible land uses that would preclude mineral extraction. SMARA also allowed the designation of lands containing mineral deposits of regional or statewide significance. SMARA was amended (1980) to provide for the classification of nonurban areas subject to land-use threats incompatible with mining. The classification of land within California takes place according to a priority list that was established by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) in 1982, or when SMGB is petitioned to classify a specific area. The State Geologist’s SMARA classification activities are carried out under a single program for urban and nonurban areas of the state.
Mineral lands are mapped using the California Mineral Land Classification System according to jurisdictional boundaries, mapping all mineral commodities at one time in the area, including aggregate, common clay, and dimensions stone.
Priority is given to areas where future mineral resource extraction could be precluded by incompatible land use or to mineral resources likely to be mined during the 50-year period following their classification.
SMGB established MRZs to designate lands that contain mineral deposits. Accordingly, the MRZ classification system is used to evaluate an area’s mineral resources pursuant to SMARA. A “resource” is a concentration of naturally occurring solid, liquid, or gaseous material in such form and amount that economic extraction of a
4.3 – Mineral Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.3-3
commodity from the concentrations is currently potentially feasible. A “reserve” is that part of the resource base that could be economically extracted or produced within the foreseeable future. For any given mineral resource, an area may be classified as MRZ-1, MRZ-2, MRZ-3, or MRZ-4, as follows:
MRZ-1: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is judged that no significant likelihood exists for their presence.
MRZ-2: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or that there is likelihood for the presence of significant mineral deposits.
MRZ-3: Areas where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist, the significance of which cannot be determined from available data · MRZ-4: Areas where available geologic information is inadequate for assignment into any other MRZ, or where there is not enough information available to determine the presence or absence of mineral deposits.
The MRZ classifications are applied based on available geologic information and on geologic appraisal of the mineral resource potential of the land, including geologic mapping and other information on surface exposures, drilling records, and mine data; and on socioeconomic factors such as market conditions and urban development patterns.
Special Publication 51
Special Publication 51 prepared by SMGB in cooperation with the Office of Mine Reclamation and the California Geological Survey, contains California Surface Mining and Reclamation Policies and Procedures.
California Geological Survey (Formerly California Division of Mines and Geology) The California Geological Survey (CGS, formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology within the State Department of Conservation) has responsibility for identifying and assisting in the utilization of mineral deposits, and identifying geological hazards, including fault locations.
4.3.2.3 Local
City of Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan The Open Space, Recreation and Conservation Element of the General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan identifies oil as the only known mineral resource in the City and also notes: “On-shore oil and gas facilities in Carpinteria are largely defunct and are now incompatible with residential neighborhoods that are established” (City of Carpinteria 2003). General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan objectives and policies which could be considered relevant to the proposed project include the following.
Objective OSC-12: Maintain an understanding of the oil industry and its exploration objectives.
OSC-12a. Remain informed of activities in the oil industry, both plans and regulations.
OSC-12b. Work with the oil and gas plant operator(s) to remove obsolete equipment, to upgrade all facilities to current safety standards, and to consolidate activities in order to eliminate redundancy.
4.3 – Mineral Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.3-4
County of Santa Barbara Coastal Land Use Plan
The County’s Coastal Land Use Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2019) applies to coastal areas of the County, including the portions of the project site located within the County. There are no policies in the County’s Coastal Land Use Plan related to mineral resources that would be relevant to the proposed project.
4.3.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to mineral resources are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to mineral resources would occur if the project would:
a) 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.
b) 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.
c) Result in cumulatively considerable impacts relating to mineral resources.
4.3.4 Impact Analysis
a) 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?
While California DOC designated the vicinity surrounding and including the project site as MRZ-3, indicating that the significance of mineral resources could not be evaluated from available data (DOC 1989), there is no evidence of mineral extraction activities having occurred within the project site. Also, within the project site, there are no active or abandoned oil wells (DOGGR 2021). In addition, no mineral resources are identified to exist in the project site or vicinity (although offshore oil platforms are present) in local planning documents, including the Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan and County of Santa Barbara Comprehensive Plan. Hence, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of mineral or oil resources that have been identified as valuable at the regional or state level. No impacts would occur, and no mitigations are required.
b) 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? The California DOC designated the vicinity surrounding and including the project site as MRZ-3 (DOC 1989); however, the proposed trail occurs within a corridor that has supported transportation facilities (i.e., highway and railroad) spanning more than a century, in which substantial topographic modification has occurred to accommodate existing and previous transportation alignments. As a result, mineral extraction (including oil) has not been compatible with transportation activities within the project corridor and has not occurred to date.
The project site is also designated for open space and recreational uses (City of Carpinteria 2003; County of Santa Barbara 2010), with which future mineral extraction activities would be incompatible. Oil wells exist on offshore platforms in the region, but there are no facilities associated with the platforms that are located within the project site. Finally, no mineral resources are identified to exist in the project site or vicinity in local planning documents, including the Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan and County of Santa Barbara
4.3 – Mineral Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.3-5
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project would therefore not result in the loss of availability of known mineral resources as delineated on a local land use plan. No impacts would occur, and no mitigations are required. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable impacts relating to mineral resources? Cumulative development throughout the Carpinteria Valley could incrementally contribute to the loss of availability of mineral resources, through conversion of undeveloped land and limitations on areas available for mineral extraction and via consumption of mineral resources during the construction process. However, the proposed project would have no impacts on the availability of mineral resources. As such, the proposed project would not contribute to any potentially significant cumulative impacts upon mineral resources.
4.3.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
As discussed above, no impacts related to mineral resources would result from the proposed project.
4.3.6 Conclusion
Mineral resources including oil have not been identified to be present within the project site. Therefore, no impacts on mineral resources would occur from the proposed project.
4.3 – Mineral Resources
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.3-6
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4.4 – Population and Housing
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.4-1
4.4 Population and Housing
This section describes the existing population and housing 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.
4.4.1 Existing Conditions
The proposed project would be located within the City of Carpinteria (City), and within the County of Santa Barbara (County). The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the City had a population of 13,385 residents in 2019 (U.S. Census Bureau 2020). Projected residential buildout within the City is 6,321 residential units, with the majority of growth in attached single-family homes and multifamily developments of varying size. Per the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan, the City is near buildout due to land use constraints (City of Carpinteria 2003). Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) projects the City’s population will reach its maximum of 14,700 people by 2045, with 5-year population growth slowing to 1% or less by 2030. SBCAG also projects a smaller growth in households for the City, with households projected to number 5,700 units by 2050 (SBCAG 2019).
The portion of the project site within the City has a General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan land use designation of Visitor-Serving Commercial (City of Carpinteria 2003) and has been zoned for Resort Zone District use (City of Carpinteria 2016). The portion of the project within the County of Santa Barbara is designated as Other Recreation/Open Space and is zoned Transportation Corridor and Recreation (County of Santa Barbara 2020). No housing is currently present on the project site, nor is the site designated for residential uses.
4.4.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
4.4.2.1 Federal
There are no federal regulations associated with population and housing that are relevant to the proposed project.
4.4.2.2 State
There are no state regulations associated with population and housing that are relevant to the proposed project.
4.4.2.3 Local
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The state requires communities develop a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan to be incorporated into General Plan Housing Elements by cities and counties in the region. Within Santa Barbara County, the RHNA Plan is developed by SBCAG. The RHNA Plan evaluates projected population growth and jobs, affordability of housing, and other factors that affect housing problems to identify housing needs and allocate a share of the region’s housing need to jurisdictions within the RHNA Plan. Housing needs are subdivided into household income levels to help jurisdictions plan for the appropriate number and mix of housing affordable to various income levels.
Jurisdictions use the RHNA Plan when updating their General Plan Housing Elements to assure zoning and land is available to accommodate their projected housing needs. The RHNA projections for Carpinteria have been incorporated into the 2015-2023 Housing Element of the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan (City of Carpinteria 2014).
4.4 – Population and Housing
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.4-2
City of Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan The City of Carpinteria’s General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan Housing Element is updated every 8 years and plans for existing and future housing needs in the community in compliance with the RHNA Plan. The 2015-2023 Housing Element includes the following goals and policies relevant to the proposed project organized by program category:
Program Category 1 Make Sites Available to Accommodate the RHNA Goal Attain additions to the housing supply that meet the housing needs of all economic segments Goal Maintain a jobs-housing balance or ratio within the 0.75 to 1.25 range suggested by SBCAG Policy Adequate Sites: Provide sufficient sites to the General Plan/Coastal Plan and zoning map to meet the housing needs allocated to the City by the RHNA Plan Policy Public Services and Facilities: Ensure that public services and facilities have the capacity to support the need for the new residential development allocated to the City by the RHNA Plan.
The City is currently updating their General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan. All elements of the General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan, aside from the Housing Element, which was updated in 2011, will be revised during the General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan update. The updated plan is expected to become available in 2021.
County of Santa Barbara Comprehensive Plan
The County of Santa Barbara’s Comprehensive Plan Housing Element includes goals and policies to address housing development and needs in the unincorporated County. The portion of the County within the project site is not zoned for residential use; therefore, Housing Element policies are not relevant to the proposed project.
County of Santa Barbara Coastal Land Use Plan
The County of Santa Barbara’s Coastal Land Use Plan includes policies to address housing development in the coastal zone in the County. The portion of the County within the project site is not zoned for housing; therefore, housing policies in the Coastal Land Use Plan are not relevant to the proposed project.
4.4.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to population and housing are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to population and housing would occur if the project would:
a) 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). b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
c) Result in cumulatively considerable impacts relating to population and housing.
4.4 – Population and Housing
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.4-3
4.4.4 Impact Analysis
a) 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)? The proposed project is not anticipated to result in an increase in population. The proposed project would generate short-term employment opportunities during construction of the proposed trail. Given the temporary duration of project construction of approximately 24 months and availability of construction workers within Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, project construction is unlikely to generate a significant increase in population and/or new development that could result in a significant impact to the environment. The proposed trail maintenance would be performed by existing City or County parks and recreation/public works maintenance staff. There would be no increase in part or full-time staff equivalents. Therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and no impacts would occur.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
As discussed in Section 4.5.2, no housing is currently present on the project site, nor is the site designated for residential uses. Therefore, the proposed project would not include the demolition of existing housing, construction of new housing, or displacement of people, and no impacts would occur. c) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable impacts relating to population and housing? As discussed above, construction of the project is not anticipated to result in the creation of permanent employment opportunities in the community or the attraction of new residents. In addition, the trail construction would not remove any existing residences and is not located on land zoned for residential uses. Consequently, the project would not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts relating to population and housing, resulting in no impacts.
4.4.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
As discussed above, no significant impacts related to population and housing would result from the proposed project.
4.4.6 Conclusion
No impact to population or housing would occur.
4.4 – Population and Housing
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.4-4
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
4.5 – Public Services
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.5-1
4.5 Public Services
This section describes the existing public services 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.
4.5.1 Existing Conditions
Fire Protection
Carpinteria is serviced by the Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District (CSFPD). The CSFPD covers 40 square miles along the Pacific Ocean including land area within the City of Carpinteria and the County of Santa Barbara. The CSFPD is bordered on the east by the Santa Barbara/Ventura County line and to the west by the community of Montecito. The CSFPD provides the Carpinteria Valley with adequate staff and facilities to serve the area in the event of a fire or emergency. There are currently two fire stations that serve the area: one in the City (Walnut Avenue) and one in Summerland. Current response times range from 3 minutes to 5 minutes. All fire fighters (full-time and reserves) have EMT-1 training (City of Carpinteria 2003).
Wildland or brush fires are defined as those fires occurring in undeveloped areas commonly covered by heavy vegetation, typically in the hills and canyons. The Santa Barbara County Fire Department generally responds to wildland fires outside the urban limit zone defined by the CSFPD (City of Carpinteria 2003).
Police Protection
Law enforcement services within the incorporated City of Carpinteria are provided by the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department.
Schools
Schools within the Carpinteria Planning Area are administered by the Carpinteria Unified School District, which includes Aliso Elementary School, Canalino Elementary School and Canalino Preschool, Carpinteria High School, Carpinteria Middle School, Carpinteria Family School, Carpinteria Children’s Project at Main, Rincon High School and Summerland Elementary School (CUSD 2019).
Parks
Carpinteria has approximately 97.96 acres of City parks within the City boundary, administered and maintained by the Carpinteria Parks & Recreation Department. Carpinteria State Beach is also within the City boundary, which is operated and maintained by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. Various County parks in the area include Rincon Beach County Park and Toro Canyon Park. Rincon State Beach Park is located just east of Rincon Beach County Park.
4.5 – Public Services
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.5-2
4.5.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
4.5.2.1 Federal
There are no federal regulations that pertain to the local delivery of public services including fire and police protection, public education, or parks and recreation.
4.5.2.2 State
California Penal Code
All law enforcement agencies within the State of California are organized and operated in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Penal Code. This code sets forth the authority, rules of conduct, and training for peace officers. Under state law, all sworn municipal and county officers are State Peace Officers.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection: State Responsibility Areas Open space and undeveloped areas identified as having a fire hazard and not falling under federal jurisdiction, are referred to as State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) because the state has the primary financial responsibility of preventing and suppressing fires within such areas. The agency responsible for suppressing fires in SRAs is CAL FIRE. Local fire agencies are responsible for suppressing fires in private property within City limits. Legislative mandates passed in 1981 (SB 81) and 1982 (SB 1916) that became effective on July 1, 1986, required CAL FIRE to develop and implement a system to rank the fire hazards in California. Areas were rated as moderate, high or very high based primarily on fuel types. Thirteen different fuel types were considered using the 7.5-minute quadrangle maps by the US Geological Survey as base maps. SRAs include all lands regardless of ownership, except for cities and federal lands. The project site is within the City of Carpinteria and County of Santa Barbara, and no part of the project site is included in the CalFire SRA maps.
California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, and Part 9 The 2016 California Building Standards Code was published July 1, 2016, with an effective date of January 1, 2017. Part 2 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) refers to the California Building Code, which contains regulations and general construction building standards of state agencies, including administrative, fire, and life safety, and field inspection provisions. Part 2 was updated in 2017 to reflect changes in the base document from the Uniform Building Code to the International Building Code. Part 9 refers to the California Fire Code, which contains fire-safety-related building standards referenced in other parts of Title 24. This code is preassembled with the 2000 Uniform Fire Code of the Western Fire Chiefs Association. This code was revised in January 2017 with a change in the base model/consensus code from the Uniform Fire Code series to the International Fire Code.
California Fire Code
The California Fire Code and Office of the State Fire Marshal provides regulations and guidance for local agencies in the development and enforcement of fire safety standards. The California Fire Code also establishes minimum requirements that would provide a reasonable degree of safety from fire, panic, and explosion (24 CCR 9).
4.5 – Public Services
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.5-3
Senate Bill 50 School Financing and Mitigation Requirements Currently, school financing and developer mitigation obligations are governed by SB 50 (Government Code Section 65995 et seq.), which was passed in 1998 and has been amended several times since then. SB 50 was enacted to provide comprehensive school facility finance and mitigation reform, which assists in providing school facilities to serve students generated by new development projects. SB 50 allows school districts to collect school facilities fees from developers of new residential and commercial/industrial building space.
SB 50 substantially revamped prior statutory and regulatory methods of providing state monies for school construction by eliminating the apportionment of state funds method used by the State Allocation Board (SAB) under the old system originally enacted as part of the Leroy F. Greene State School Building Lease Purchase - Law of 1976 and replacing it with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998. SB 50, among other things, established a new state program by which the SAB provides state per-pupil grant funding for new school facilities construction and reconstruction, as well as modernization of existing facilities. An important objective of SB 50 was to provide, on a one-time basis, a baseline analysis of unhoused students and existing capacity in a local school district’s school facilities to determine eligibility for new state school construction funding. In addition to providing 50% of the state funding and construction costs, which include construction cost containment mechanisms through limitations on the state per-pupil grant amounts (grant amounts are adjusted annually by the SAB to reflect construction cost changes), the state also provides funding for 50% of the site acquisition and site development costs for a school site.
SB 50 specifically provides that it is the exclusive method for financing school facilities, and provides the methods for mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities. Nevertheless, school districts and developers may enter into separate mitigation agreements to provide enhanced mitigation measures beyond the requirements of SB 50. SB 50 establishes three levels of developer fees that can be imposed upon new development that are deemed to be “full and complete facilities mitigation.” The school fees that are charged towards new residential development are state mandated and beyond the City’s control.
Comprehensive School Safety Plan
It is the intent of the Comprehensive School Safety Plan that all California public schools that offer kindergarten and/or grades 1 through 12 are inclusive and are operated by school districts, and develop a comprehensive school safety plan that addresses the safety concerns identified through a systematic planning process. The schools must work in cooperation with local law enforcement agencies, community leaders, parents, pupils, teachers, administrators, and other persons who may be interested in the prevention of campus crime and violence (California Education Code, Title 1, Section 32280).
Quimby Act
Cities and counties have been authorized since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code, Section 66477) to pass ordinances requiring that developers set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. The goal of the Quimby Act is to require developers to help mitigate the impacts of property improvements. The act gives authority for passage of land dedication ordinances only to cities and counties. Special districts must work with cities and/or counties to receive parkland dedication and/or in-lieu fees. The fees must be paid and land conveyed directly to the local public agencies that provide park and recreation services communitywide. Cities and counties with a high ratio of park space to inhabitants
4.5 – Public Services
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.5-4
can set a standard of up to five acres per 1,000 people for new development. Cities and counties with a lower ratio can only require the provision of up to three aces of park space per 1,000 people. The calculation of a city or county’s park space to population ratio is based on a comparison of the population count of the last federal census to the amount of city/county-owned parkland.
4.5.2.3 Local
City of Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan The Public Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan includes goals, objectives, and policies related to providing essential public services, implementing regulations in the interest of the public health and safety, and providing for the general welfare of the community. Objectives and policies specifically related to the proposed project include (City of Carpinteria 2003):
Objective PF-3: The City shall strive to maintain the best possible police and fire safety services for the community.
PF-3a. The City shall endeavor to monitor relevant statistics and enforcement criteria to assure adequate police service.
PF-3b. The City shall begin evaluation of potential programs that can resolve seasonal tourist-related police service demands.
PF-3c. The City shall cooperate with the fire district for the purpose of determining district needs and to provide development mitigations as indicated by the study.
PF-3d. The City shall strive to increase district/City communication by initiating development review procedures that incorporate district interaction at the earliest times possible.
Objective PF-4 To assist the school district in continued provision of high-quality educational opportunities for all of the community’s youth.
PF4a To continue efforts to cooperatively resolve service demands for educational facilities.
PF4b To encourage school district input to new development proposals by improved review procedures.
PF4c The City will cooperate with the Carpinteria Unified School District to ensure sufficient capacity for increases in student population caused by future development projects.
Objective PF-5 To provide a high quality and broad range of public services, facilities and utilities to meet the needs of all present and future residents of the Carpinteria Planning Area.
PF-5b. The City will require proposed new developments to pay a fair share of the cost of needed public facilities and services. Further, in areas of the city designated for nonresidential use but where residential use may be permitted, the City shall monitor total residential development and report annually to the School, Fire, Water and Sanitary districts to permit proper facilities planning by these special districts.
PF-5c. The City will ensure that new development will not adversely impact services and facilities provided to existing development.
PF-5d. Detailed master plans will be prepared for major facilities and service systems.
4.5 – Public Services
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.5-5
PF-5e. The City will improve and extend services and facilities to the extent possible, within the limits of available funding.
PF-5f. Carpinteria will focus City funds on service and facilities improvements to meet existing needs prior to committing funds to the extension of services and facilities to new areas.
PF-5g. The City will coordinate with the appropriate agencies/districts and plan for public facilities to be located and sized to discourage expansion of urban development beyond the transition area of the urban/rural boundary. New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by development or uses allowed consistent with the provisions of the City’s Local Coastal Program.
Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan
The Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2019) includes goals, objectives, and policies related to ensuring the provision of adequate essential public services for proposed development, implementing regulations in the interest of the public health and safety, and providing for the general welfare of the community. Policies specifically related to the proposed project include:
Policy 2-6: Prior to issuance of a development permit, the County shall make the finding, based on information provided by environmental documents, staff analysis, and the applicant, that adequate public or private services and resources (i.e., water, sewer ads, etc.) are available to serve the proposed development. The applicant shall assume full responsibility for costs incurred in service extensions or improvements that are required as a result of the proposed project. Lack of available public or private services or resources shall be grounds for denial of the project or reduction in the density otherwise indicated in the land use plan. Where an affordable housing project is proposed pursuant to the Affordable Housing Overlay regulations, special needs housing or other affordable housing projects which include at least 50% of the total number of units for affordable housing or 30% of the total number of units affordable at the very low income level are to be served by entities that require can-and-will-serve letters, such projects shall be presumed to be consistent with the water and sewer service requirements of this policy if the project has, or is conditioned to obtain all necessary can-and-will-serve letters at the time of final map recordation, or if no map prior to issuance of land use permits.
Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Management and Emergency Management Plan The Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Management (SBCOEM) is responsible for planning and coordination of the Santa Barbara Operational Area, which includes the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa Maria, and Solvang. The SBCOEM acts as a liaison between these cities; special districts including the SBCAPCD, fire districts, sanitary districts, school districts, vector control districts, and water districts; and volunteer organizations such as the American Red Cross. The SBCOEM also coordinates with adjoining offices of emergency services in Ventura and San Luis Obispo counties through several annual meetings. The Santa Barbara County Emergency Management Plan was developed for use by the County and the cities within the Santa Barbara Operational Area (County of Santa Barbara 2013). The Emergency Management Plan addresses the planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies.
4.5 – Public Services
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.5-6
4.5.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to public services are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to public services would occur if the project would:
a) 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:
i. Fire protection?
ii. Police protection?
iii. Schools?
iv. Parks?
v. Other public facilities?
b) Result in cumulatively considerable impacts relating to public services.
4.5.4 Impact Analysis
The following analysis of potential project impacts is based upon the above thresholds of significance. a) 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
According to the City of Carpinteria’s General Plan/Coastal Plan Fire Hazards Zones Map, the project site is located within a moderate fire hazard area (City of Carpinteria 2003). Carpinteria – Summerland Fire Protection District Fire Station #1, located at 911 Walnut Avenue, approximately 2 miles west of the project site, is the closest fire station to the project site that has the primary responsibility for responding to emergencies (CSFPD 2019). The proposed project would not involve the construction of buildings or introduce substantial numbers of people into the area. The proposed project would also not require the construction of new fire facilities to accommodate the proposed trail and amenities. Further, the project may help reduce the fire danger from the current setting as proposed native plantings, vegetation control, and fire-resistant project materials would be less prone to fire danger than the currently dry and unmaintained vegetation sources on-site, and the paved trail would accommodate light-duty firefighting equipment access to trail portions below the UPRR alignment from the Rincon Beach County Park and to portions above the UPRR alignment from the connection to the Carpinteria Avenue Eastern terminus, resulting in less than significant impacts to fire protection services.
Police Protection
The proposed project is not anticipated to require the construction of new police facilities. The Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department, Carpinteria Station, is located at City Hall at 5775 Carpinteria Avenue,
4.5 – Public Services
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.5-7
approximately 1.3 miles west of the project site (Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department 2019). The proposed project would not result in the construction of new buildings that could present unique challenges for police protection services on-site or result in an increase in population that would warrant the construction of new facilities to provide adequate police protection services. The trail would permit more convenient patrol of the project area by Park Rangers and County Sheriff personnel, resulting in a potential marginal benefit to police protection, and resulting in less than significant impacts to police protection services.
Schools
The proposed project is not anticipated to generate an increase in population that would have an adverse effect on existing schools or warrant the construction of new or expanded schools. Therefore, there would be no impact of the project related to the need for development of new school facilities.
Parks
The proposed project is not anticipated to generate an increase in population that would warrant the construction of additional new parks. The proposed project would provide a safe connection from Carpinteria Avenue to Rincon Beach County Park, thereby increasing the ease of pedestrian and bicycle access to the Rincon Beach County Park, which is an objective of the proposed project. As the project would facilitate safe access to the Rincon Beach County Park, it would be anticipated to increase recreational use of the Rincon Beach County Park and the Carpinteria Trail system. However, the increased use is not anticipated to result in the degradation of Rincon Beach County Park, other nearby parks, trails, or associated recreational facilities and amenities. Also, the Rincon Trail would enhance access between the existing Rincon Point residential community and the newly established Rincon Bluffs preserve, benefitting the Rincon Point population as well as other Ventura County residents that would be able to walk or bike to the Rincon Bluffs preserve area. Lastly, the Rincon Trail itself represents a recreation resource for biking and hiking, with opportunities including enjoyment of the natural scenery (refer also to Section 3.10, Recreation). The proposed project would require additional and occasional trail maintenance. Initially, the landscape areas would require weed management and irrigation during the dry months. Park design attributes such as the use of native plants would help to reduce costs associated with watering and plant care. Annual estimated maintenance costs are expected to be minimal. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts to park resources.
Other Public Facilities
The proposed project is not anticipated to generate an increase in population that would increase the demand for any other public facilities. There would be no impact. b) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable impacts relating to public services? Cumulative development throughout the Carpinteria Valley would incrementally contribute to public service impacts. However, current and future projects proposed in the City of Carpinteria and County of Santa Barbara will be required be consistent with applicable General Plan/Coastal Plan policies, and to pay pertinent Development Impact Fees (DIFs) and all special district fees. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to any public services. As such, the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to any potentially significant cumulative impacts upon public services.
4.5 – Public Services
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.5-8
4.5.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
As discussed above, no significant impacts related to public services would result from the proposed project.
4.5.6 Conclusion
The proposed project would neither construct structures nor place combustible materials on the site, thereby avoiding any increases in the demand for police or fire protection services. The project would not lead to an increase in local population that could increase demands for school or parks resources. The construction and operation of the trail would also not place additional demands on other public facilities. As such the project would have no impacts on public services and no mitigation would be required or recommended.
4.6 – Wildfire
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.6-1
4.6 Wildfire
This section describes the existing wildfire 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.
4.6.1 Existing Conditions
Wildland or brush fires are defined as those fires occurring in undeveloped areas commonly covered by heavy vegetation, typically in the hills and canyons. The project site may be characterized as a ridgeline and associated slopes, supporting areas of native vegetation as well as bare ground. While the native vegetation within the project area could become involved in a wildland fire, the project site is somewhat isolated from ignition sources by virtue of the presence of the U.S. Highway 101 corridor along the northern side and the Pacific Ocean along the southern side. These features would also act to limit the spread of a wildland fire originating within the project area or immediately adjacent urban areas to the west (City of Carpinteria) or east (Rincon Point).
With respect to fire protection resources, the Carpinteria Planning Area is serviced by the Carpinteria- Summerland Fire Protection District (CSFPD). The CSFPD covers 40 square miles along the Pacific Ocean including land area within the City and the County. The CSFPD is bordered on the east by the Santa Barbara/Ventura County line and to the west by the community of Montecito. There are currently two fire stations that serve the area: one in the City (Walnut Avenue) and one in Summerland. Current response times range from 3 minutes to 5 minutes. All fire fighters (full-time and reserves) have EMT-1 training (City of Carpinteria 2003). The Santa Barbara County Fire Department generally responds to wildland fires outside the urban limits associated with Cities within the County, and would therefore participate in responding to a wildfire incident involving portions of the trail within unincorporated County lands.
4.6.2 Relevant Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
4.6.2.1 Federal
Healthy Forests Restoration Act
The 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act gives incentives for communities to engage in comprehensive forest planning and prioritization. This legislation includes statutory incentives for the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to give consideration to the priorities of local communities as they develop and implement forest management and hazardous fuel reduction priorities (USFS 2021).
National Fire Protection Association Codes, Standards, Practices, and Guides National Fire Protection Association codes, standards, recommended practices, and guides are developed through a consensus standards development process approved by the American National Standards Institute. This process brings together professionals representing varied viewpoints and interests to achieve consensus on fire and other safety issues. National Fire Protection Association standards are recommended guidelines and nationally accepted good practices in fire protection but are not laws or codes unless adopted as such or referenced as such by the California Fire Code or the local fire agency.
4.6 – Wildfire
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.6-2
Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy
The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy was developed in 1995, updated in 2001, and again in 2009, by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, a federal multi-agency group that establishes consistent and coordinated fire management policy across multiple federal jurisdictions (USFS et al. 2009). An important component of the Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy is the acknowledgement of the essential role of fire in maintaining natural ecosystems.
The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and its implementation are founded on the following guiding principles:
• Firefighter and public safety are the first priorities in every fire management activity. • The role of wildland fire as an essential ecological process and natural change agent will be incorporated into the planning process.
• Fire management plans, programs, and activities support land and resource management plans and their implementation.
• Sound risk management is a foundation for all fire management activities. • Fire management programs and activities are economically viable, based upon values to be protected, costs, and land and resource management objectives.
• Fire management plans and activities are based upon the best available science. • Fire management plans and activities incorporate public health and environmental quality considerations. • Federal, state, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and cooperation are essential. • Standardization of policies and procedures among federal agencies is an ongoing objective.
National Fire Plan
The National Fire Plan was a presidential directive in 2000 as a response to severe wildland fires that had burned throughout the United States. The National Fire Plan focuses on reducing fire impacts on rural communities and providing assurance for sufficient firefighting capacity in the future. The plan addresses five key points: Firefighting, Rehabilitation, Hazardous Fuels Reduction, Community Assistance, and Accountability. The plan continues to provide invaluable technical, financial, and resource guidance and support for wildland fire management across the United States. The U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior are working to successfully implement the key points outlined in the plan (USFS 2019).
International Fire Code
Created by the International Code Council, the International Fire Code addresses a wide array of conditions hazardous to life and property including fire, explosions, and hazardous materials handling or usage (although not a federal regulation, but rather the product of the International Code Council). The International Fire Code places an emphasis on prescriptive and performance-based approaches to fire prevention and fire protection systems.
Updated every 3 years, the International Fire Code uses a hazards classification system to determine the appropriate measures to be incorporated in order to protect life and property (often times these measures include construction standards and specialized equipment). The International Fire Code uses a permit system (based on hazard classification) to ensure that required measures are instituted.
International Wildland-Urban Interface Code
The International Wildland–Urban Interface Code is published by the International Fire Code and is a model code addressing wildfire issues.
4.6 – Wildfire
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.6-3
4.6.2.2 State
California Code of Regulations
Title 14 Natural Resources
Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 3, Fire Hazard, sets forth requirements for defensible space if the distances specified above cannot be met. For example, options that have similar practical effects include noncombustible block walls or fences, 5 feet of noncombustible material horizontally around the structure, hardscape landscaping or reduced exposed windows on the side of the structure with a less-than-30-foot setback, or additional structure hardening such as those required in the California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 7A.
Title 24 California Building Standards Code
California Building Code
Part 2 of Title 24 contains the CBC. Chapter 7A of the CBC regulates to building materials, systems, and/or assemblies used in the exterior design and construction of new buildings located within a WUI fire area. The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum standards for the protection of life and property by increasing the ability of a building located in any Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) within a State Responsibility Area or a WUI fire area to resist the intrusion of flames or burning embers projected by a vegetation fire and to contribute to a systematic reduction in conflagration losses. New buildings located in such areas must comply with the ignition-resistant construction standards outlined in CBC Chapter 7A.
California Fire Code
Chapter 9 of Title 24 contains the California Fire Code (CFC), which incorporates by adoption the International Fire Code with necessary California amendments. The purpose of this code is to establish the minimum requirements to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare from the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. Chapter 49 of the CFC contains minimum standards for development in the WUI and fire hazard areas. The CFC and Office of the State Fire Marshal provide regulations and guidance for local agencies in the development and enforcement of fire safety standards. The CFC is updated and published every 3 years by the California Building Standards Commission.
California Public Resources Code
California Public Resources Code, Section 4290, requires minimum fire safety standards related to defensible space that are applicable to residential, commercial and industrial building construction in State Responsibility Area lands and lands classified and designated as Very High FHSZs (VHFHSZs). These regulations include road standards for fire apparatus access, standards for signs identifying roads and buildings, fuel breaks and green belts, and minimum water supply requirements. It should be noted that these regulations do not supersede local regulations that equal or exceed minimum regulations required by the state.
California Public Resources Code, Section 4291, requires a reduction of fire hazards around buildings located adjacent to a mountainous area, forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands, grass-covered lands, or land that is
4.6 – Wildfire
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.6-4
covered in flammable material. It is required to maintain a minimum 100 feet of vegetation management around all buildings and is the primary mechanism for conducting fire prevention activities on private property within CAL FIRE jurisdiction. Further, California Public Resources Code, Section 4291, requires the removal of dead or dying vegetative materials from the roof of a structure, and trees and shrubs must be trimmed from within 10 feet of the outlet of a chimney or stovepipe. Exemptions may apply for buildings with an exterior constructed entirely of nonflammable materials.
California Government Code
California Government Code Sections 51175 through 51189 provide guidance for classifying lands in California as fire hazard areas and requirements for management of property within those lands. CAL FIRE is responsible for classifying FHSZs based on statewide criteria and makes the information available for public review. Further, local agencies must designate, by ordinance, VHFHSZs within their jurisdiction based on the recommendations of CAL FIRE.
Section 51182 sets forth requirements for maintaining property within fire hazard areas, such as defensible space, vegetative fuels management, building materials, and standards. Defensible space consists of 100 feet of fuel modification on each side of a structure, but not beyond the property line unless findings conclude that the clearing is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of structure ignition in the event of a wildfire. Clearance on adjacent property shall only be conducted following written consent by the adjacent owner. Further, trees must be trimmed from within 10 feet of the outlet of a chimney or stovepipe; vegetation near buildings must be maintained; and roofs of structures must be cleared of vegetative materials. A local agency may exempt certain standards set forth in Section 51182 for buildings with an exterior constructed entirely of nonflammable materials and may vary the requirements associated with management of fuels surrounding the structures in such cases.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
CAL FIRE is tasked with reducing wildfire-related impacts and enhancing California’s resources. CAL FIRE responds to all types of emergencies including wildland fires and residential/commercial structure fires. In addition, CAL FIRE is responsible for the protection of approximately 31 million acres of private land within the state and, at the local level, is responsible for inspecting defensible space around private residences. CAL FIRE is responsible for enforcing State of California fire safety codes included in the California Code of Regulations and California Public Resources Code. California Public Resources Code 4291 states generally that any person operating any structure located on brush-covered lands or land covered with flammable material is required to maintain defensible space around the structure. California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 1254 identifies minimum clearance requirements required around utility poles. In State Responsibility Areas within the jurisdiction of CAL FIRE, the Fire Safety Inspection Program is an important tool for community outreach and enforcement of state fire codes.
CAL FIRE also inspects utility facilities and makes recommendations regarding improvements in facility design and infrastructure. Joint inspections of facilities by CAL FIRE and the utility owner are recommended by CAL FIRE so that each entity may assess the current state of the facility and successfully implement fire prevention techniques and policies. Violations of state fire codes discovered during inspections are required to be brought into compliance with the established codes. If a CAL FIRE investigation reveals that a wildfire occurred as a result of a violation of a law or negligence, the responsible party could face criminal and/or misdemeanor charges. In cases where a violation of a law or negligence has occurred, CAL FIRE has established the Civil Cost Recovery Program, which requires parties liable for wildfires to pay for wildfire-related damages.
4.6 – Wildfire
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.6-5
Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CAL FIRE mapped FHSZs in Santa Barbara County based on fuel loading, slope, fire history, weather, and other relevant factors as directed by California Public Resources Code, Sections 4201–4204, and Government Code Sections 51175–51189. FHSZs are ranked from Moderate to Very High (VHFHSZ) and are categorized for fire protection within a Federal Responsibility Area, State Responsibility Area, or Local Responsibility Area under the jurisdiction of a federal agency, CAL FIRE, or local agency, respectively.
California Strategic Fire Plan
The 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California reflects CAL FIRE’s focus on (1) fire prevention and suppression activities to protect lives, property, and ecosystem service; and (2) natural resource management to maintain the state’s forests as a resilient carbon sink to meet California’s climate change goals and to serve as important habitat for adaptation and mitigation. The Strategic Fire Plan for California provides a vision for a natural environment that is more fire resilient; buildings and infrastructure that are more fire resistant; and a society that is more aware of and responsive to the benefits and threats of wildland fire; all achieved through local, state, federal, tribal, and private partnerships (CAL FIRE 2019). Plan goals include the following:
1. Identify and evaluate wildland fire hazards and recognize life, property and natural resource assets at risk, including watershed, habitat, social and other values of functioning ecosystems. Facilitate the collaborative development and sharing of all analyses and data collection across all ownerships for consistency in type and kind.
2. Promote and support local land use planning processes as they relate to: (a) protection of life, property, and natural resources from risks associated with wildland fire, and (b) individual landowner objectives and responsibilities.
3. Support and participate in the collaborative development and implementation of local, county and regional plans that address fire protection and landowner objectives.
4. Increase fire prevention awareness, knowledge and actions implemented by individuals and communities to reduce human loss, property damage and impacts to natural resources from wildland fires.
5. Integrate fire and fuels management practices with landowner/land manager priorities across jurisdictions.
6. Determine the level of resources necessary to effectively identify, plan and implement fire prevention using adaptive management strategies.
7. Determine the level of fire suppression resources necessary to protect the values and assets at risk identified during planning processes.
8. Implement post-fire assessments and programs for the protection of life, property, and natural resource recovery.
California Emergency Services Act
The California Emergency Services Act was adopted to establish the state’s roles and responsibilities during humancaused or natural emergencies that result in conditions of disaster and/or extreme peril to life, property, or resources of the state. This act is intended to protect health and safety by preserving the lives and property of the people of the state.
4.6 – Wildfire
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.6-6
Mutual Aid Agreements
The California Disaster and Civil Defense Master Mutual Aid Agreement, as provided by the California Emergency Services Act, provides statewide mutual aid between and among local jurisdictions and the state. The statewide mutual aid system exists to ensure that adequate resources, facilities, and other supports are provided to jurisdictions whenever resources prove to be inadequate for a given situation. Each jurisdiction controls its own personnel and facilities but can give and receive help whenever needed.
4.6.2.3 Local
City of Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan The Public Facilities and Services Element of the General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan includes goals, objectives, and policies related to providing for the general welfare of the community. Objectives and policies specifically related to the proposed project include (City of Carpinteria 2003):
Objective PF-3 The City shall strive to maintain the best possible police and fire safety services for the community.
PF-3c The City shall cooperate with the fire district for the purpose of determining district needs and to provide development mitigations as indicated by the study.
PF-3d The City shall strive to increase district/City communication by initiating development review procedures that incorporate district interaction at the earliest times possible.
The Safety Element of the General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan includes goals, objectives, and policies related to achieving and maintaining public health and safety. Objectives and policies specifically related to the proposed project include (City of Carpinteria 2003):
Objective S-5 Minimize the potential risks and reduce the loss of life, property and economic and social dislocation resulting from urban and wildland fires.
S-5a All new structures must adhere to the Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District Ordinance and the Santa Barbara County Fire Department Ordinances, where applicable S-5b. All new structures, whether within or outside the urban limit zone, must adhere to the city Fire Sprinkler Ordinance.
S-5c Roads shall be installed or improved to the standards specified in the County of Santa Barbara Private Road and Driveway Standard, Section 8 of the County of Santa Barbara Municipal Code.
S-5d The City will work in conjunction with the Carpinteria Summerland Fire Protection District to adhere to, and enforce, all fire codes.
Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan
The Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2019) indicates that areas of moderate fire hazard within urban areas of the coastal zone are restricted to hilly sections of the Carpinteria Valley and Summerland. Developments within any of the hazardous zones in rural areas will be very low density and subject
4.6 – Wildfire
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.6-7
to stringent building, brush clearance, access, and water storage capacity restrictions (for fire suppression purposes) by the County Fire Department and/or the U.S. Forest Service.
4.6.3 Thresholds of Significance
The significance criteria used to evaluate the project impacts to wildfire are based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines.
According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, if located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, a significant impact related to wildfire would occur if the project would:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. c) 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.
d) 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. e) Result in cumulatively considerable impacts relating to wildfire.
4.6.4 Impact Analysis
The following analysis of potential project impacts is provided, based upon the above thresholds of significance. a) Would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The Rincon Trail property is currently undeveloped and spans an area roughly between the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue and Rincon Beach County Park. There are no developed roads within the project site, and consequently there are no evacuation routes currently extending onto the property from adjacent areas. In addition, no official evacuation routes have been designated by the County Office of Emergency Services and the Santa Barbara Operational Area Emergency Management Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2013). The 2017 Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2017) also does not provide specific emergency management plans for the vicinity of the project. Consequently, the project would have no impact on an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. b) Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? The project involves the creation and maintenance of a concrete trail and steel frame bridge crossing over the UPRR alignment. These are non-combustible materials that would not increase fire risk. Slopes along the trail alignment would be regraded to achieve a shallower slope angle, which would marginally decrease the potential for wildfire spread and also facilitate access for firefighters to extinguish a potential wildland fire on the property. The trail would also allow lightweight fire-fighting equipment to access all points of the trail, facilitating firefighting activities. As such, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire, resulting in no impact related to wildland fire risks.
4.6 – Wildfire
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 4.6-8
c) 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?
The project would not require the installation of associated infrastructure for fire protection purposes. No structures or other improvements subject to combustion or requiring protection from fire are included or proposed in the multi-use trail proposal. The trail itself would assist firefighting access to most of the project site, without the need for other roads. The project would therefore have no impact with respect to infrastructure or systems necessary for fire protection.
d) 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? The project would not include the development of any habitable structures. The concrete path and steel frame bridge structure would not be prone to damage by wildfire. Created slopes along the trail alignment would be less steep than the existing manufactured slopes, decreasing the potential for shallow soil movement down these slopes. Run off from the new trail would be accommodated by existing and proposed drainage facilities which would convey storm water short distances for release at the adjacent beach. No existing homes or structures are located adjacent to the trail alignment that could be affected by secondary effects from a wildland fire event which involves the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impacts on risks related to wildland fire. e) Would the project result in cumulatively considerable impacts relating to wildfire? Cumulative development throughout the Carpinteria Valley would incrementally contribute to wildland fire risks and related impacts. However, as the proposed project would result in less than significant or no impacts to wildland fire risks, it would have a less than cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts.
4.6.5 Level of Significance Prior to Mitigation
As discussed above, no significant impacts related to wildfire would result from the proposed project.
4.6.6 Conclusion
The proposed project would neither construct structures nor place combustible materials on the site. Proposed grading modifications would not increase wildland fire risk, and the project would not lead to an increase in local population that could be exposed to existing regional wildland fire risks. As such, the project would have no impacts on wildland fire risk and no mitigations would be required or recommended.
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 5-1
5 Other CEQA Considerations
5.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Section 15126.2(e) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires a discussion of how the potential growth-inducing impacts of the project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Induced growth is distinguished from the direct employment, population, or housing growth of a project (14 CCR 15000 et seq.). If a project has characteristics that “may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively,” then these aspects of the project must be discussed as well. Induced growth is any growth that exceeds planned growth and results from new development that would not have taken place in the absence of the proposed project. Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it stimulates population growth or a population concentration above what is assumed in local and regional land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning authorities, such as the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG).
1. The CEQA Guidelines also indicate that growth should not be assumed to be either beneficial or detrimental (14 CCR 15126.2[d]). According to Section 15126.2(e) of the CEQA Guidelines, a project is defined as growth inducing when it directly or indirectly:
2. Fosters population growth;
3. Fosters economic growth;
4. Includes the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment;
5. Removes obstacles to population growth;
6. Taxes existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects; and/or
7. Encourages or facilitates other activities that could significantly affect the environments, either individually or cumulatively.
5.1.1 Growth Inducement Due to Population Growth
As discussed in Section 4.4, Population and Housing, of this Environmental Impact Report (EIR), the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project (project) would not contribute to population growth in the City of Carpinteria (City) or the County of Santa Barbara (County). The proposed project would generate short-term employment opportunities during construction of the proposed trail. Given the temporary duration of project construction of approximately 24 months and availability of construction workers within Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties, project construction is unlikely to generate a significant increase in population and/or new development that could result in a significant impact to the environment. The proposed trail maintenance would be performed by existing City or County parks and recreation/maintenance staff and would not require additional part- or full-time employees.
Therefore, the project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly, and would not result in growth inducement due to population growth. 5 – Other CEQA Considerations
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 5-2
5.1.2 Growth Inducement Due to Economic Growth
An increase in population would foster economic growth by increasing demand for regional and local goods and services.
However, as discussed above, the proposed project would generate short-term employment opportunities during construction of the proposed trail and no additional employees during operations and maintenance of the trail. Therefore, the project is not expected to result in substantial growth inducement associated with economic growth.
5.1.3 Growth Inducement Due to Additional Housing
The proposed project involves construction of a proposed trail and no housing is proposed. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in growth inducement due to additional housing.
5.1.4 Growth Inducement Due to Removal of Obstacles
Indirect growth can also occur by a project installing infrastructure that can support further growth. The proposed project includes development of a recreational trail. Therefore, the project would not require utility infrastructure.
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, the project would provide a connection to the newly opened bike path to Mussel Shoals as well as serve as a link in the larger California Coastal Trail. Although the proposed project would result in expansion of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, which would provide additional recreational opportunities to nearby residents and visitors, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in additional development in the area. Therefore, as the proposed project would not provide a surplus in traditional urban systems infrastructure capacity that would induce growth in surrounding areas, the project would not be considered growth inducing due to removal of obstacles to population growth.
5.2 Significant Irreversible Changes
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (14 CCR 15000 et seq.) require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from a project should it be implemented. Pursuant to Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, significant irreversible environmental impacts could involve:
• Uses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely; • The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations of people to similar uses;
• Irreversible damage from environmental accidents associated with the project; • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in wasteful use of energy).
Determining whether a project could result in significant and irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. 5 – Other CEQA Considerations
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 5-3
Implementation of the proposed project would involve consumption of limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources. This consumption would occur during the construction phase of the project and would not continue throughout its operational lifetime. The project would require a commitment of resources that would include materials needed for the proposed trail, fuel and operational materials/resources, and the transportation of goods and people to and from the project site.
Construction of the project would require the consumption of resources that are not renewable or that may renew so slowly as to be considered non-renewable. These resources would include the following construction supplies:
aggregate materials such as sand, gravel, or stone; water; and fossil fuels such as gasoline and oil.
Once constructed, the proposed project would result in consumption of minor limited, slowly renewable, and nonrenewable resources. The resources that would be committed during operation of the project could include petroleum needed for transportation to and from the site, for those trail users not opting to cycle or walk to the new trail. No other fossil fuels, such as electricity or petroleum, would be required for operations of the proposed project. As discussed in Section 4.2, Energy, of this EIR, the project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the potential wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction and operation.
Additionally, the project would involve an unquantifiable, but limited, use of potentially hazardous materials typical for construction, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricating oil, grease, and solvents. These materials would be contained, stored, and used on site in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and applicable standards and regulations. Compliance with regulations would serve to protect against a significant and irreversible environmental change that could result from the accidental release of hazardous materials.
Furthermore, the project would result in direct permanent impacts to one special-status wildlife species, the silvery legless lizard, and nesting birds and sensitive natural communities. Permanent project impacts would consist of vegetation clearing, grading, and construction of the proposed trail. Permanent impacts to special-status wildlife species, nesting bird habitats, and sensitive natural communities would be considered potentially significant under CEQA and would require implementation of mitigation measures, as outlined in Section 3.3, Biological Resources, to reduce impacts to a level below significance.
5.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) requires an EIR to describe significant impacts that cannot be avoided, even with implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Chapter 1, Executive Summary, of this EIR provides a summary of the environmental impacts that could result from implementation of the proposed project and feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid those environmental impacts As discussed throughout Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, with implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts.
5 – Other CEQA Considerations
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 5-4
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-1
6 Alternatives
6.1 Introduction
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Environmental Impact Reports (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 alternatives discussion is required even if these alternatives “would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives or would be more costly” (14 CCR 15126.6[b]).
The inclusion of an alternative in an EIR does not constitute definitive evidence that the alternative is in fact “feasible.” The final decision regarding the feasibility of alternatives lies with the decision maker for a given project who must make the necessary findings addressing the potential feasibility of reducing the severity of significant environmental effects (California Public Resources Code, Section 21081; see also 14 CCR 15091).
6.2 Project Objectives
The proposed trail was identified by the City to meet critical safety and public access needs. Objectives of the proposed Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project (project) include the following:
• 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.
6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-2
• 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, and Santa Barbara County.
6.3 Significant Impacts
As discussed throughout Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, of this EIR, implementation of the proposed project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts on the environment. Prior to mitigation, the proposed project would result in potentially significant impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, and utilities and service systems. However, with implementation of mitigation measures provided in Table 1-1, Summary of Project Impacts, of Chapter 1, Executive Summary, all potentially significant impacts would be mitigated to below a level of significance.
6.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides guidance in selecting a range of reasonable alternatives for the project. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected during the planning or scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination.
Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) provides the following guidance in selecting a range of reasonable alternatives for the project. There are many factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of a range of potential alternatives for the project, such as site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). The alternatives discussion shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects (14 CCR 15126.6[f]). The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected during the planning or scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination (14 CCR 15126.6[c]).
The EIR need not discuss every alternative to the project. A range of alternatives that are “reasonable” for analysis have been evaluated and are discussed below in Section 6.5, Project Alternatives Under Further Consideration. The following describes other alternatives considered by the City of Carpinteria (City) but dismissed from further evaluation in this EIR, and a brief description of the reasons for their rejection.
6.4.1 Alternative Location
Pursuant to Section 15126.6(f)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the City considered the potential for alternative locations to the project. The proposed project is planned to function as the local section of the scenic California Coastal Trail, and would be connected to existing trail segments on both ends. The proposed project is heavily oriented toward closing this important regional gap within this existing trail system. Therefore, no feasible alternative locations exist for the proposed project. As such, an alternative location was ultimately rejected from further analysis in the EIR. 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-3
6.5 Project Alternatives Under Further Consideration
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines states that the EIR shall “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.”
The range of alternatives evaluated in an EIR is governed by the “rule of reason” that requires the EIR set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative (14 CCR 15126.6[a]).
In developing the alternatives to be addressed in this EIR, the potential alternatives were evaluated in terms of their ability to meet the basic objectives of the project, while reducing or avoiding the environmental impacts of the project identified in Chapter 3 of this EIR.
In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to acknowledge the objectives of the project, the project’s significant effects, and unique project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by the lead agency’s decision‐ making body, the Carpinteria Planning Commission (see PRC Section 21081[a] [3]).
This chapter discusses alternatives to the proposed project, including the No Project/No Build Alternative. The No Project/No Build Alternative is a required element of an EIR pursuant to Section 15126.6(e) of the CEQA Guidelines that examines the environmental effects that would occur if the project were not to proceed. The alternatives addressed in this chapter are listed below, followed by a more detailed discussion of each:
1. Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative
2. Alternative 2: Maximize Existing Benchwork/Topography Alternative
3. Alternative 3: Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative
4. Alternative 4: Freeway Adjacent Trail Avoiding Bluff Face Alternative
6.6 Alternatives Impact Summary
6.6.1 No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1)
Project Alternative 1 Summary
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 of this EIR.
In particular, pedestrian and cyclist travel between the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue and Rincon Beach County Park would continue to be limited to the shoulder of US Highway 101 or to informal pathways that require illicit crossing of the UPRR alignment. In addition, the excessively steep cut slopes along the ocean bluffs, remnant from former transportation projects, would continue to experience elevated erosion rates. 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-4
Project Alternative 1 Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts associated with aesthetics, with implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-1 and MM-BIO-3. Alternative 1 would not result in any changes to the existing visual character, views, or lighting and glare. The site would remain as undeveloped land. Therefore, no impacts to aesthetics would occur under Alternative 1 because no development would occur on the project site and MM-AES-1 and MMBIO-3 would not be required to reduce impacts to aesthetics. Therefore, the project’s impacts to aesthetics would be reduced under Alternative 1.
Air Quality
Under Alternative 1, there would be no criteria air pollutant emissions during construction or for maintenance during operation. The Alternative would not generate traffic as there would be no construction or operation, and thus would not impact sensitive receptors, create a CO hotspot, or emit toxic air contaminants. This Alternative would also not generate odors as there would be no construction or operation. There would be no impact to air quality under Alternative 1, and thus impacts would be reduced.
Biological Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any changes to the currently undeveloped project site. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any direct/indirect impacts to biological resources as would occur with development of the proposed project, since there would be no project related grading or construction involved. Therefore, impacts to biological resources including sensitive native vegetation communities, special-status wildlife species, and nesting birds would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any changes to the currently undeveloped project site. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any direct/indirect impacts to cultural resources as would occur with development of the proposed project, since there would be no project related grading or construction involved. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be eliminated under the No Project/No Build Alternative and reduced compared to the proposed project.
Energy
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to energy. Under Alternative 1, there would be no energy use as the development of a trail would not occur. Therefore, no impact to energy would occur under Alternative 1; thus, impacts would be reduced.
Geology and Soils
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any changes to the project site. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any direct/indirect impacts to geologic resources as would occur with development of the proposed project, since there would be no project related grading or earthwork modification. However, as discussed in Section 3.5.1, the existing ocean-facing slope south of the proposed bridge is considered to be 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-5
susceptible to surficial/local instability under static conditions. These steep slopes in the southern trail alignment are the result of former landform modification carried out for the railroad alignment and former state highway, and do not represent natural conditions resulting from natural weathering of the involved earth materials and geologic formations. Therefore, erosion of the existing hillside could still occur under existing conditions and therefore under Alternative 1. The proposed project would implement measures such as native plantings and the application of hydro-seed, to stabilize slope areas to minimize soil erosion; no such remedial measures to address slope instability would occur under the No Project/ No Build alternative, However, Alternative 1 would not require implementation of mitigation measures to address significant geology-related impacts from occurring that involve structural damage from seismic events, differential settlement of the pedestrian bridge structure, shallow slope instability associated with seismic activity, and increased soil erosion on slopes graded for the project. Therefore, impacts related to short-term construction-related increased erosion and structural damage from seismicity, would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Under Alternative 1, there would be no greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during construction or for maintenance during operation. There would be no loss of sequestered carbon as no vegetation would be removed. This Alternative may not be consistent with some of the County’s or City’s goals to increase recreation opportunities or the state’s goal to create multimodal communities, which are designed to reduce GHG emissions by encouraging alternative modes of transportation instead of motor vehicle access to coastal recreation areas. Impacts to GHG emissions would be less than significant and similar to that of the proposed project Hazards and Hazardous Emissions
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any changes to the project site. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any direct/indirect impacts to hazards or hazardous emissions during project construction, as would occur with development of the proposed project, since there would be no project related construction involved. Therefore, impacts related to hazards or hazardous emissions would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under Alternative 1, there would be no construction or other alterations to the existing project site. As such, water quality impacts associated with erosion of disturbed soil and release of construction related petroleum products would be avoided. Although the proposed project would result in improved stormwater drainage infrastructure and implementation of features such as native plantings and the application of hydro-seed, to stabilize slope areas to minimize soil erosion and avoid sediment-related water quality impacts, impacts to hydrology and water quality associated with the proposed project would be potentially significant and mitigation measures MM-WAT-1 through MM-WAT-6 would be required. Alternative 1 would result in no development at the project site and therefore potentially significant impacts would be avoided and mitigation measures would not be required. As such, hydrology, and water quality impacts under Alternative 1 would be reduced.
Land Use and Planning
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-CR-4; MM-GEO-1 through MM-GEO-3; MM-HAZ-1; MM-WAT-1 through 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-6
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. Alternative 1 would be inconsistent with City and County General Plan policies that support construction of the proposed trail. However, because Alternative 1 would result in no development, mitigation measures would not be required and impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project.
Noise
The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any changes to the project site. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any direct/indirect impacts from noise emissions during project construction, as would occur with development of the proposed project, since there would be no project related construction involved. Therefore, impacts related to noise would be reduced under the No Project/No Build Alternative.
Recreation
Under Alternative 1, there would be no changes or alterations to the project site. There would be no provision of a multi-use trail for cyclists and pedestrians, and the substantial gap that currently exists in the Coastal Trail system would remain. In this regard, enhancement of local and regional biking and hiking opportunities delivered by the project would not occur under Alternative 1, and recreational and safety benefits of the project would not be realized. On the other hand, re-grading of the bluff slopes would not occur under Alternative 1, thereby preserving the existing wind and uplift conditions along the bluffs that currently support soaring opportunities in the air space above the trail alignment. This Alternative may not be consistent with some of the County’s or City’s goals to increase recreation opportunities via completion of a local path that also closes a gap in the regional coastal trail network, or the state’s goal to create multimodal transportation opportunities to reduce reliance on private vehicle use.
Therefore, the recreational impacts of Alternative 1 would be similar to or greater than the proposed project.
Transportation
Under Alternative 1, there would be no changes or alterations to the project site. There would be no provision of a multi-use trail for cyclists and pedestrians, and the substantial gap that currently exists in the Coastal Trail system would remain. The use of a vehicle by residents in visiting the Rincon Beach County Park would continue, due to a lack of a safe alternative to vehicle travel from points within Carpinteria. Transportation hazards would persist, in the form of pedestrians using informal trails along the UPRR corridor to navigate to Rincon Beach County Park. In this regard, enhancement of local and regional biking and hiking opportunities delivered by the project would not occur under Alternative 1, and a solution to existing pedestrian hazards of the project would not be realized. The proposed project would contain adequate signage and traffic calming measures to protect pedestrians and cyclists from hazards associated with vehicle parking maneuvers in the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot. Alternative 1 may not be consistent with some of the County’s or City’s goals to create multimodal transportation opportunities to reduce reliance on private vehicle use, and to provide a safe environment for pedestrian and bicyclist travel.
Impacts would be slightly greater under Alternative 1 than the proposed project, because the existing risks to pedestrians and cyclists crossing the UPRR tracks would remain unaddressed.
Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Build Alternative (Alternative 1) would not result in any changes to the currently undeveloped project site. The No Project/No Build Alternative would not result in any direct/indirect impacts to cultural resources as would occur with development of the proposed project, since there would be no project related grading or construction involved. Therefore, impacts to cultural resources would be eliminated under the No Project/No Build Alternative and reduced compared to the proposed project. 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-7
Utilities and Service Systems
The proposed project could have potentially significant impacts upon stormwater systems, for which mitigation has been required. Under Alternative 1, there would be no construction or other alterations to the existing project site.
As such, impacts to stormwater systems would be avoided and mitigation would not be required. However, under Alternative 1, existing failing stormwater systems would remain. Nonetheless, Alternative 1 would avoid all construction and mitigation measures MM-WAT-1 through MM-WAT-5, outlined in Section 3.14.5, would not be required. Therefore, impacts to utilities and service systems under Alternative 1 would be reduced.
Relation to Project Objectives
Primary objectives include closing a substantial gap in the Coast Trail System, which in turn would enable regional commuting opportunities that employ alternative transportation modes (i.e., walking and cycling). Another objective is to provide recreation opportunities for all residents, and to enhance formal access to coastal resources including ocean views and a direct route to Rincon Beach County Park from Carpinteria, and to Rincon Bluffs from Rincon Point. The no project alternative would not achieve these primary objectives of the project.
6.6.2 Maximize Existing Benchwork/Topography Alternative (Alternative 2)
Project Alternative 2 Summary
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 1960’s. The Alternative 2 trail route would be flat in this area.
Project Alternative 2 Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts associated with aesthetics, with implementation of MM-AES-1 and MM-BIO-3. Alternative 2 would result in development of a trail that would follow a different alignment than the proposed project, which would follow existing topographic benches that were originally created (and since abandoned) for previous railroad and highway alignments within the project site. However, because Alternative 2 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-8
would be located within a similar location, it would still potentially result in impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources and would potentially result in significant adverse impacts 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 including approximately 1,000 linear feet of retaining walls with a height of up to 14 feet above grade. MM-AES-1, which requires City Architectural Review Board and County Board of Architectural Review approval, and MM-BIO-3, 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 still be required. Therefore, impacts would be similar to but marginally greater than, the proposed project under Alternative 2.
Air Quality
Alternative 2 would result in a narrower but longer trail than the proposed project. It would result in 46,000 cubic yards (CY) of cut and 10,500 CY of fill, resulting in 35,500 CY of export. This is lower than the proposed project’s 92,526CY of export and therefore would result in fewer haul trucks during construction. Alternative 2 would result in fewer haul truck trips and less construction activity as it is fewer square feet of path compared to the proposed project. 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 2 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 the proposed project.
Biological Resources
The Maximum Existing Benchwork/Topography Alternative, would overall disturb less area than the proposed project. 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 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 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 overall impacts. However, mitigation measures associated with County ESH and City ESHAs would still be required.
While less 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 overall direct impacts to sensitive native vegetation communities identified as County ESH and City ESHA, impacts to biological resources would be reduced under the Maximum Existing Benchwork/Topography Alternative, Alternative 2. 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-9
Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would result in a narrower but longer trail than the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3.4, Cultural Resources, cultural resources are thought to be present between the UPRR crossing bridge and U.S.
Highway 101. Development under Alternative 2 would still result in development of the trail in this general area, and would therefore result in impacts to these cultural resources. In addition, the project could still potentially impact undiscovered cultural resources, 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
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to energy. Alternative 2 would result in a narrower but longer trail than the proposed project. It would result in 46,000 CY of cut and 10,500 CY of fill, resulting in 35,500 CY of export. This is lower than the proposed project’s 92,526CY of export and therefore would result in fewer haul trucks during construction. Alternative 2 would result in fewer haul truck trips and less construction activity as it is fewer square feet of path compared to the proposed project. Therefore, energy use during construction are expected to be less than the proposed project. During operation, Alternative 2 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 consume energy. Operational impacts would be considered less than significant and similar to the proposed project.
Geology and Soils
Alternative 2 would result in 46,000 CY of cut and 10,500 CY of fill, for a total of 56,500 CY of earthwork, which would be approximately 46.2% lower than the proposed project’s 122,246 CY of total earthwork. Given the much lower volume of earthwork involved, temporary erosion impacts during construction would be reduced with this alternative; however, MM-GEO-3 would continue to be required. A similar bridge structure over the UPRR alignment would be employed, although it would be greater in length, and therefore more difficult to design to withstand forces created during a seismic event; MM-GEO-1 and MM-GEO-2 would continue to be required. The most substantial difference geologically for Alternative 2 is that geotechnical testing during advancement of the design identified an extensive landslide along the portion of the proposed alignment where the trail changes direction from west to east, on the south side of the UPRR alignment. In order to attempt to stabilize a large landslide feature such as this, multiple deep caissons can be required, and would be intended to pin the mass in place. However, movement can still occur between the caissons, and the expense of the caisson installation could be prohibitive. In that available engineering and geotechnical methods for stabilizing the landslide mass are not known to be feasible, geology and soils impacts related to slope instability under Alternative 2 are considered significant and unavoidable, and impacts would be significantly greater compared to the proposed project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 2 would result in a narrower but longer trail than the proposed project resulting in 35,500 CY of export.
This is lower than the proposed project’s 92,526 CY of export and therefore would result in fewer haul trucks during construction. Alternative 2 would result in fewer haul truck trips and less construction activity as it is fewer square feet of path compared to the proposed project. Therefore, GHG emissions during construction are expected to be reduced compared to the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant during construction. During operation, Alternative 2 would result in emissions from maintenance activities similar to the proposed project. 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-10
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 the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Emissions
Alternative 2 would involve a trail length considerably longer than the project trail length. The additional length would not affect use or operation of the trail since no hazardous wastes are anticipated from these activities.
However, construction of the proposed project would require heavy construction equipment, which involves the use of hydrocarbon fuels and lubricants that are considered hazardous materials, Concrete is considered a hazardous material until it cures, and is included in the project construction. Paint or other surface coatings are also considered hazardous materials, until they are fully dried; the bridge and certain fencing elements may involve paint application on site. With a comparatively longer trail length under Alternative 2, the volumes of hazardous materials associated with construction would increase and the risk of release would be slightly elevated over project levels. The section of the trail north of the UPRR corridor (the western portion) would have the same potential to encounter soils with ADL as the project. Overall, impacts would be only marginally greater for Alternative 2 compared to 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. MM-WAT-2 and MM-HAZ-1 would continue to be required, and residual impacts would also be less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 2 would result in 46,000 CY of cut and 10,500 CY of fill, for a total of 56,500 CY of total earthwork, which would be approximately 46.2% lower than the proposed project’s 122,246 CY of total earthwork. Given the much lower volume of earthwork involved, temporary erosion impacts during construction would be reduced with this alternative; however, MM-WAT-1, MM-WAT-2, and MM-WAT-3 would continue to be required. Alternative 2 would also involve a trail length considerably longer than the project trail length. The additional length would increase the impervious surface of the trail, resulting in greater volumes of stormwater runoff. Project storm drain systems would need to be expanded in capacity, and additional new storm drains on the face of the bluff, west of the UPRR crossing point, could be necessitated to serve the trail segments south and west of the UPRR crossing. Given the potential need for additional bluff-face drains, Alternative 2 would have greater hydrology impacts than the project. While MM-WAT-4, MM-WAT-5, and MM-WAT-6 would continue to be required to address long-term operational affects upon water quality, storm drain system maintenance requirements and the potential for failure of storm drain system components would be greater under Alternative 2.
Land Use and Planning
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to land use and planning with incorporation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-4, which prescribe required mitigation measures to satisfy requirements found in City and County policies governing ESHA, and 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 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. As discussed under Biological Resources, above, Alternative 2 would result in decreased overall direct impacts to sensitive native vegetation communities identified as County ESH and City ESHA. However, mitigation measures associated with County ESH and City ESHAs would still be required. In addition, Alternative 2 would still be required to implement similar mitigation measures to address any potential conflicts with land use plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-11
mitigating an environmental effect. However, because Alternative 2 would result in decreased overall direct impacts to sensitive native vegetation communities impacts to land use and planning would be reduced under the Maximum Existing Benchwork/Topography Alternative, Alternative 2.
Noise
Alternative 2 would involve a trail length substantially longer than the project, which would increase the duration of activities involving concrete installation and the related necessary equipment. The installation of numerous deep caissons could also be required to attempt to stabilize the landslide area for the trail segments immediately south of the UPRR crossing. The additional trail segments under Alternative 2 would occur south and west of the UPRR crossing, which are not closer to any noise-sensitive users than the remaining trail segments common to the project. Rincon Point residences would remain the closest noise-sensitive receptors to project construction activities. Based on the noise level values at the nearest sensitive receptor, daytime construction noise levels would average approximately 12 dBA lower than ambient noise levels. However, construction noise levels in the evening or overnight period could be plainly audible above background levels and could also result in sleep disturbance for residential occupants. Therefore, as with the project, Alternative 2 temporary construction noise impacts are potentially significant. 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 2 would be marginally greater than the project, due to the need to import specialized equipment and materials by additional heavy truck trips for the caisson installation.
Recreation
Under Alternative 2, a multi-use trail for cyclists and pedestrians would be constructed and operated, and the substantial gap that currently exists in the Coastal Trail system would be filled. In this regard, enhancement of local and regional biking and hiking opportunities delivered by the project would also occur under Alternative 2, and the recreational benefits of the project would be realized. In addition, members of the soaring community have provided comments indicating they believe this original trail alignment would not have adverse effects upon the existing wind and uplift conditions along the bluffs that currently support soaring opportunities in the air space above the trail alignment. However, the original alignment did not achieve an overall path grade that would meet ADA requirements, and therefore the trail under alternative 2 would not meet the objective of providing recreation opportunities to the broadest segment of the local and visitor populations. Overall, the recreation impacts and benefits of Alternative 2 would be very similar to the project, in that perceived lesser impacts on soaring opportunities under this alternative would be offset by eliminating trail use by mobility impaired individuals.
Transportation
Alternative 2 would provide a multi-use trail for cyclists and pedestrians, and the substantial gap that currently exists in the Coastal Trail system would be eliminated. The use of a vehicle by residents in visiting the Rincon Beach County Park would be expected to decline, 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 2, and a solution to existing pedestrian hazards of the project would be realized. This alternative would have transportation benefits and impacts equivalent to the project.
6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-12
Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would be narrower but longer than the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3.13, Tribal Cultural Resources, no previously recorded archaeological resources of Native American origin or TCRs were identified within the project site. Further, no TCRs have been identified by California Native American tribes as part of the City’s AB 52 notification process, and no California Native American tribes requested consultation with the City.
However, there is still a potential for unknown subsurface TCRs to be significantly impacted by the project, which could result in a potentially significant impact. Development under Alternative 2 would still result in development of the trail in this general area, and would therefore result in similar impacts to TCRs. MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4 and MM-TCR-1 would still be required. Impacts would be similar to the proposed project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 2 would result in 46,000 CY of cut and 10,500 CY of fill, for a total of 56,500 CY of total earthwork, which would be approximately 46.2% lower than the proposed project’s 122,246 CY of total earthwork. Although a much lower volume of earthwork would be required for Alternative 2, 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. Alternative 2 would also involve a trail length considerably longer than the project trail length. The additional length would increase the impervious surface of the trail, resulting in greater volumes of stormwater runoff. Project storm drain systems would need to be expanded in capacity, and additional new storm drains on the face of the bluff, west of the UPRR crossing point, could be necessitated to serve the trail segments south and west of the UPRR crossing. Given the potential need for additional bluff-face drains, Alternative 2 would have greater impacts to utilities and service systems than the project.
Relation to Project Objectives
Alternative 2 would meet project objectives including closing an important gap in the coastal trail network, the provision of a safe route for cyclists and pedestrians between eastern Carpinteria and Rincon Beach County Park, the promotion of alternative transportation to reduce air quality and GHG emissions, and the creation of ocean viewing opportunities for cyclists and pedestrians along the section of the trail southward of the UPRR alignment.
However, the presence of a substantial landslide area that could prove infeasible to stabilize makes the feasibility of this alignment very questionable. Also, as discussed in Recreation, above, the original alignment did not achieve an overall path grade that would meet ADA requirements, and therefore the trail under alternative 2 would not meet the objective of providing recreation opportunities to the broadest segment of the local and visitor populations.
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, 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 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, below. Alternative 3 would result in a
7.6% reduction of earthwork, or 10,015 less CY, compared to the project. Under Alternative 3, the proposed 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-13
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).
Illustration 6-1 Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative (Alternative 3) Trail Cross Section Legend for Illustration 6-1:
CP Control Point (survey tie-in)
CRT Center of Route Travel
ETW Edge of Travel Way
ES Edge of Shoulder
FL Flow Line (of drain swale adjacent to path)
HP High Point (of drain swale adjacent to path)
OG Original Grade
PG Project Grade
Project Alternative 3 Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts associated with aesthetics, with implementation of MM-AES-1 and MM-BIO-3. Alternative 3 would result in development of a trail that would follow the same alignment as the proposed project. However, under Alternative 3, one of the earthwork benches that was originally proposed 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-14
on the slope above the trail alignment would be removed, for a portion of the trail length. However, because Alternative 3 would be located within the same location as the project, it would still potentially result in impacts to scenic vistas and scenic resources and would potentially result in a 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 humanscale development. MM-AES-1, which requires City Architectural Review Board and County Board of Architectural Review approval, and MM-BIO-3, 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 still be required. Therefore, impacts would be similar to the proposed project under Alternative 3.
Air Quality
Alternative 3 would result in 96,077 CY of cut and 10,570 CY of fill, resulting in 85,507 CY of export. This is lower than the proposed project’s 92,526 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 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 temporary and permanent impact footprints are approximately the same.
The Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative would result in similar temporary and permanent 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.
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 would still result in development of the trail in the same area, and would therefore result in impacts to these existing cultural resources. In addition, the project could still potentially impact undiscovered cultural resources, 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 CY of export. This is slightly lower than the proposed project’s 92,526 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. 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-15
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 less CY of earthwork, compared to the project. Under Alternative 3, the proposed alignment would be 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 not provide benches above the trail. Given the lower volume of earthwork involved, temporary erosion impacts during construction would be 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. 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 CY of export. This is slightly lower than the proposed project’s 92,526 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 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 by approximately 10,019 CY. The use of heavy equipment would be slightly reduced in duration, compared to the project, due to the reduced earthwork volume. 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. MM-WAT-2 and MM-HAZ-1 would continue to be required, and residual impacts would also be less than significant.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 3 would involve an identical trail length to the project but would reduce earthwork by approximately 10,019 CY. With reduced earthwork volume, the potential for erosion during construction would be reduced under Alternative 3, as compared to the project; however, MM-WAT-1, MM-WAT-2, and MM-WAT-3 would continue to be required to address potential erosion and other water quality impacts during construction. The trail alignment under Alternative 3 would match the project, and therefore all the proposed storm drain components would continue to adequately serve the stormwater runoff volumes from the project. As with the 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. 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-16
Land Use and Planning
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts to land use and planning with incorporation of MM-BIO-1 through MM-BIO-4, prescribes 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 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. It is anticipated that Alternative 2 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 alignment to the project but would reduce earthwork by approximately 10,019 CY. With reduced earthwork volume, the duration for earthwork activities using heavy equipment would be lessened; 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.
Recreation
Under Alternative 3, a multi-use trail for cyclists and pedestrians identical to the 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 regraded 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 would 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.
Transportation
Under Alternative 3, a multi-use trail for cyclists and pedestrians identical to the project would be constructed and operated. 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 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-17
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.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would disturb approximately the same area as the proposed project. As discussed in Section 3.13, no previously recorded archaeological resources of Native American origin or TCRs were identified within the project site. Further, no TCRs have been identified by California Native American tribes as part of the City’s AB 52 notification process, and no California Native American tribes requested consultation with the City. However, there is still a potential for unknown subsurface TCRs to be significantly impacted by the project, which could result in a potentially significant impact. Development under Alternative 3 would result in development of the trail in the same area, and would therefore result in similar impacts to TCRs. MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4 and MM-TCR-1 would still be required. Impacts would be similar to the proposed project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 3 would involve an identical trail length to the project but would reduce earthwork by approximately 10,019 CY. Although Alternative 3 would result in reduced earthwork volume, 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 the same alignment as the project and would incorporate an identical trail width to the project, this alternative would be equivalent to the project in meeting all the stated project objectives.
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 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)
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 stormwater 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; surface drainage would instead be delivered to existing systems serving the US 101 corridor.. Lastly, under this alternative, retaining walls would be required for the section of trail 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-18
extending to Bates Road, aligned to the north of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot. Retaining walls along this portion of the trail would be approximately 500 feet in length.
Project Alternative 4 Impact Analysis
Aesthetics
The proposed project would result in less than significant impacts associated with aesthetics, with implementation of MM-AES-1 and MM-BIO-3. Alternative 4 would result in development of a trail that would follow the same alignment 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. In addition, under Alternative 4, the proposed trail alignment would extend further to the southeast, past the Rincon Beach County Park, and terminate at Bates Road. Therefore, without mitigation, impacts may be slightly greater than the proposed project, due to greater area of development. Nonetheless, Alternative 4 would be required to implement MM-AES-1, which requires City Architectural Review Board and County Board of Architectural Review approval, and MM-BIO-3, 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. Lastly, as discussed above, under Alternative 4, retaining walls would be required for the section of trail extending to Bates Road, aligned to the north of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot. Retaining walls along this portion of the trail would be approximately 500 feet in length. Therefore, due to additional retaining walls, that would be visible to motorists and visitors to the area, impacts to aesthetics under Alternative 4 would be greater compared to the proposed project.
Air Quality
Alternative 4 would result in a longer trail than the proposed project. It would result in 105,300 CY of cut and 710 CY of fill, resulting in 104,590 CY of export. This is greater than the proposed project’s 94,100 CY of export and therefore would result in more haul trucks during construction. Alternative 4 would result in greater haul truck trips and greater construction activity as it is more square feet of path compared to the proposed project. Therefore, criteria air pollutant emissions during construction are expected to be greater than the proposed project, but still less than significant. During operation, 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 would be similar to the proposed project.
Biological Resources
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 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-19
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 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. 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 mitigation may be required.
Energy
Alternative 4 would result in a longer trail than the proposed project. It would result in 105,300 CY of cut and 710 CY of fill, resulting in 104,590 CY of export. This is greater than the proposed project’s 94,100 CY of export and therefore would result in more haul trucks during construction. Alternative 4 would result in greater haul truck trips and greater construction activity as it is more square feet of path compared to the proposed project. Therefore, energy use during construction is expected to be greater than the proposed project, but still less than significant.
During operation, 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 use. Operational impacts would be considered less than significant and would be similar to the proposed project.
Geology and Soils
In Alternative 4, the proposed trail would employ the same alignment as the project along the north side of the UPRR alignment and would include the same bridge structure over the UPRR alignment. However, after the UPRR bridge, the trail would lead to the existing slope adjacent to U.S. Highway 101 on the north side of the ridge and would regrade this slope with a new bench for the trail. Alternative 4 would involve a similar volume of total earthwork as the project, and therefore short-term erosion impacts during construction would be the same or similar; MM-GEO-3 would continue to be required. The same bridge structure over the UPRR alignment would be employed, and therefore mitigation measures MM-GEO-1 and MM-GEO-2 would continue to be required. The Alternative 4 trail is proposed to extend all the way to Bates Road, aligned to the north of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot for the eastern portion. Along this section, retaining walls approximately 500 feet in length would be required, to create a bench in this sloped area.. In addition, as discussed in Section 3.5.1, the existing oceanfacing slope south of the proposed trail bridge is considered to be susceptible to surficial/local instability under static conditions. These steep slopes in the southern trail alignment are the result of former landform modification carried out for the railroad alignment and former state highway, and do not represent natural conditions resulting from natural weathering of the involved earth materials and geologic formations. Alternative 4 would not include 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-20
any grading of the ocean facing slopes east of the UPRR crossing, and therefore, erosion of the existing hillside could still occur under Alternative 4. The proposed project would implement measures such as native plantings and the application of hydro-seed, to stabilize these ocean-facing slope areas to minimize soil erosion; no such remedial measures to address ocean-facing slope instability would occur under Alternative 4. Given the need for retaining walls for the trail section adjacent to the Rincon Beach County Park, and the absence of remedial grading to address the unstable sections of the ocean-facing slopes, this alternative would have moderately greater impacts to geology and soils than the project
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 4 would result in a longer trail than the proposed project. It would result in 105,300 CY of cut and 710 CY of fill, resulting in 104,590 CY of export. This is greater than the proposed project’s 94,100 CY of export and therefore would result in more haul trucks during construction. Alternative 4 would result in greater haul truck trips and greater construction activity as it is more square feet of path compared to the proposed project. Therefore, GHG emissions during construction are expected to be greater than the proposed project. Impacts would, however, continue to be less than significant during construction. During operation, Alternative 4 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 use of a light-duty truck that would generate nominal air pollutant emissions. Operational impacts would be considered less than significant, and would be similar to the proposed project.
Hazards and Hazardous Emissions
Alternative 4 would involve a trail length considerably longer than the proposed project trail length. The additional length would not affect use or operation of the trail since no hazardous wastes are anticipated from these activities.
However, construction of the proposed project would require heavy construction equipment, which involves the use of hydrocarbon fuels and lubricants that are considered hazardous materials. Concrete is considered a hazardous material until it cures, and is included in the project construction. Paint or other surface coatings are also considered hazardous materials, until they are fully dried; the bridge and certain fencing elements may involve paint application on site. With a comparatively longer trail length under Alternative 4, the volumes of hazardous materials associated with construction would increase and the risk of release would be slightly elevated over project levels. Because the entire trail would be aligned on existing slopes facing U.S. Highway 101, a greater volume of soils containing aerially deposited lead (ADL) may be encountered. Surface soils that could potentially contain ADL are likely to be removed and transported off the site. However, some soils containing ADL could be used as fill for the project or could be used off site as fill in areas where the public could have exposure to the soils. Consequently, as with the proposed project, impacts from soil containing ADL under Alternative 4 could be potentially significant. MM-HAZ-1 would be required to reduce ADL impacts to less than significant. The marginally greater impacts from hazardous materials under Alternative 4 would still be reduced to a level of less than significant through implementation of MM-WAT-2 and MM-HAZ-1, which would continue to be required.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The proposed project would result in construction of improved stormwater drainage infrastructure, which would not be constructed under Alternative 4. In addition, Alternative 4 would result in a similar scale of total earthwork to the proposed project; as such, MM-WAT-1, MM-WAT-2, and MM-WAT-3 would continue to be required. In addition, Alternative 4 would involve a trail length considerably longer than the project trail length. The additional length would increase the impervious surface of the trail, resulting in greater volumes of stormwater runoff. Project storm 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-21
drain systems would need to be expanded in capacity to accommodate the increased runoff; storm drain management for Alternative 4 has not been fully investigated for the portion of the trail east of the UPRR alignment, but since the entire trail would be on the slope adjacent to U.S. Highway 101, some intertie with Caltrans drainage systems (including possible expansion) may be required. Given the potential need for expansion of drainage systems serving the U.S. Highway 101 corridor, Alternative 4 would have greater hydrology impacts than the 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. In addition, Alternative 4 would fail to correct the elevated erosion associated with the existing steep cut slopes along the ocean bluffs, resulting in greater water quality impacts than the proposed project.
Land Use and Planning
As discussed under Biological Resources, above, because development would generally occur beyond the extent of the current biological survey area and the area of disturbance would be greater due to the length of the Alternative 4 trail, it is assumed that impacts to biological resources would be greater than the proposed project. Alternative 4 may require additional mitigation for impacts to sensitive vegetation communities, including County ESH and City ESHA. More specifically, Alternative 4 may require greater mitigation acreages, outlined in a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (see MM-BIO-5). Therefore, impacts to land use and planning would be greater compared to the project.
Noise
Alternative 4 would involve a trail length substantially longer than the project, which would increase the duration of activities involving concrete installation and the related necessary equipment. The additional trail segments under Alternative 4 would occur along the slope facing U.S. Highway 101, which is closer to the most proximate noisesensitive users than the remaining trail segments common to the proposed project. Rincon Point residences would remain the closest noise-sensitive receptors to project construction activities, which would now be as close as approximately 225 feet (reduced from a minimum distance of 775 feet for the project). At these closest distances, daytime construction noise levels would average approximately 6 dBA lower than ambient noise levels. However, construction noise levels in the evening or overnight period could be plainly audible above background levels and could also result in sleep disturbance for residential occupants. Therefore, as with the project, Alternative 4 temporary construction noise impacts are potentially significant. MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2 are required to reduce construction noise impacts to a less than significant level. Noise impacts from Alternative 4 would be similar to the proposed project, but somewhat greater due to the more extensive concrete work and reduced distance between construction work and adjacent residences.
Recreation
Under Alternative 4, a multi-use trail for cyclists and pedestrians would be constructed and operated, and the substantial gap that currently exists in the Coastal Trail system would be filled, achieving the desired enhancement of local and regional biking and hiking opportunities delivered by the project. In addition, with alignment of the trail along the slope adjacent to the freeway, rather than on the ocean bluff face, Alternative 4 would have reduced effects upon the existing wind and uplift conditions along the bluffs that currently support soaring opportunities in the air space above the trail alignment. However, Alternative 4 would not meet the objective of providing trail users with an experience oriented to the ocean environment north of the UPRR bridge to as great a degree as the project. Rather than a sweeping view of the ocean, beach, and Channel Islands, trail users east of the railroad bridge would overlook the U.S. Highway 101 corridor and be subject to elevated noise levels and emissions from vehicular traffic along this corridor. On the whole, the recreation impacts and benefits of Alternative 4 would be very similar to the project, in that lesser impacts on soaring opportunities under this alternative would be offset by eliminating ocean vistas southeast of the railroad bridge and providing a less noisy environment for enjoyment during walking and cycling along the path. 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-22
Transportation
Once again, Alternative 4 would provide a multi-use trail in nearly the same alignment as the project for cyclists and pedestrians. Alternative 4 would therefore also close the substantial gap that currently exists in the Coastal Trail system, similar to the project. The use of a vehicle by residents in visiting the Rincon Beach County Park would be expected to decline under Alternative 4 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 4, and a solution to existing pedestrian hazards of the project would also be realized. Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 4 would route the trail along the north side of the existing parking lot for Rincon Beach County Park, thereby avoiding potential cyclist and pedestrian conflicts with vehicle parking maneuvers. On the other hand, Alternative 4 may create similar hazards to the project by creating a crossing adjacent to the U.S. Highway 101 off-ramp at Bates Road. As such, Alternative 4 would have similar transportation impacts to the proposed project.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 4 would result in greater ground disturbance compared to the proposed project, due to the longer length of the trail. As discussed in Section 3.13, no previously recorded archaeological resources of Native American origin or TCRs were identified within the project site. Further, no TCRs have been identified by California Native American tribes as part of the City’s AB 52 notification process, and no California Native American tribes requested consultation with the City. However, there is still a potential for unknown subsurface TCRs to be significantly impacted by the project, which could result in a potentially significant impact. Development under Alternative 4 would result in development of a longer trail alignment, and could therefore result in greater impacts to TCRs.
However, the presence of existing tribal 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. Therefore, development in this area would require additional investigation to appropriately determine the potential presence of existing tribal cultural resources and potential impacts to these resources. MM-CR-1 through MM-CR-4 and MM-TCR-1 would still be required, and impacts would be potentially greater than the proposed project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 4 would involve a longer trail length than the project. The additional length would increase the impervious surface of the trail, resulting in greater volumes of stormwater runoff. Project storm drain systems would need to be expanded in capacity to accommodate the increased runoff; storm drain management has not been fully investigated for the portion of the Alternative 4 trail east of the UPRR alignment, but since the entire trail would be on the slope adjacent to U.S. Highway 101, some intertie with Caltrans drainage systems (including possible expansion) may be required. Given the potential need for expansion of drainage systems serving the U.S. Highway 101 corridor, Alternative 4 would have greater impacts to utilities and service systems than the project. MM-WAT-1, MM-WAT-2, MM-WAT-3, and MM-WAT-4 would continue to be required under this alternative and more mitigation may be required.
Relation to Project Objectives
Alternative 4 would be capable of achieving certain project objectives including closing a substantial gap in the Coast Trail System, which in turn would enable regional commuting opportunities that employ alternative transportation modes (i.e., cycling). Alternative 4 would also satisfy the objective to provide recreation opportunities for all residents, and a direct route to Rincon Beach County Park from Carpinteria, and to Rincon Bluffs from Rincon 6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-23
Point. Alternative 4 would not, however, meet the multiple project objectives associated with providing trail users with an experience oriented to the ocean environment to the same extent as the project and the other alternatives would provide. Rather than a sweeping view of the ocean, beach, and Channel Islands, trail users would overlook the U.S. Highway 101 corridor and be subject to elevated noise levels and emissions from vehicular traffic along this corridor. Lastly, Alternative 4 would not meet the objective of improving the local coastal bluff environment through improved water quality of surface water runoff through stabilization of ocean-facing bluff slope faces that are currently eroding into the Pacific Ocean, nor would it achieve enhancement of sensitive coastal bluff scrub habitats along the bluff top south of the UPRR alignment in the project area. In this regard, Alternative 4 would not satisfy a number of key objectives identified for the project.
6.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative
The No Project Alternative would result in the least environmental impacts and would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. In this case, the environmentally superior alternative is the Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative (Alternative 3). Alternative 3 would meet all of the project objectives. 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 would be reduced under this alternative, leading to fewer construction equipment emission contributions to greenhouse gas levels. This alternative would also marginally reduce erosion potential during construction (due to reduced earthwork volumes), and slightly reduce construction-related noise impacts, compared to the project. Lastly, alternative 3 would also have lesser impacts upon existing soaring opportunities above the trail alignment. The project’s impacts are compared to each alternative’s impacts in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts Comparison Environmental
Issue Project
No Project/
No Build
Alternative
(Alternative 1)
Maximize Existing
Benchwork/
Topography
Alternative
(Alternative 2)
Steeper Slopes/
Reduced
Earthwork
Alternative
(Alternative 3)
Freeway Adjacent
Trail Avoiding
Bluff Face
Alternative
(Alternative 4)
Aesthetics Less Than
Significant
with the
Incorporation
of Mitigation
Reduced Greater Similar Greater
Air Quality Less Than
Significant
Reduced Reduced for
construction;
similar for
operations
Reduced for
construction;
similar for
operations
Greater for
construction;
similar for
operations
Biological
Resources
Less Than
Significant
with the
Incorporation
of Mitigation
Reduced Reduced Similar Greater
6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-24
Table 6-1. Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts Comparison Environmental
Issue Project
No Project/
No Build
Alternative
(Alternative 1)
Maximize Existing
Benchwork/
Topography
Alternative
(Alternative 2)
Steeper Slopes/
Reduced
Earthwork
Alternative
(Alternative 3)
Freeway Adjacent
Trail Avoiding
Bluff Face
Alternative
(Alternative 4)
Cultural, Tribal
Cultural
Less Than
Significant
with the
Incorporation
of Mitigation
Reduced Similar Similar Greater
Energy Less Than
Significant
Reduced Reduced for
construction;
similar for
operations
Reduced for
construction;
similar for
operations
Greater for
construction;
similar for
operations
Geology and
Soils
Less Than
Significant
with the
Incorporation
of Mitigation
Reduced Greater Similar Greater
Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Less Than
Significant
Similar Reduced for
construction;
similar for
operations
Reduced for
construction;
similar for
operations
Greater for
construction;
similar for
operations
Hazards,
Hazardous
Materials
Less Than
Significant
with the
Incorporation
of Mitigation
Reduced Greater Similar Greater
Hydrology and
Water Quality
Less Than
Significant
with the
Incorporation
of Mitigation
Reduced Greater Reduced Greater
Land Use and
Planning
Less Than
Significant
with the
Incorporation
of Mitigation
Reduced Reduced Similar Greater
Noise Less Than
Significant
with the
Incorporation
of Mitigation
Reduced Greater Reduced Greater
Recreation Less Than
Significant
Similar Similar Reduced Similar
Transportation Less Than
Significant
with the
Incorporation
of Mitigation
Greater Similar Similar Similar
6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-25
Table 6-1. Project Alternatives Environmental Impacts Comparison Environmental
Issue Project
No Project/
No Build
Alternative
(Alternative 1)
Maximize Existing
Benchwork/
Topography
Alternative
(Alternative 2)
Steeper Slopes/
Reduced
Earthwork
Alternative
(Alternative 3)
Freeway Adjacent
Trail Avoiding
Bluff Face
Alternative
(Alternative 4)
Utilities and
Service
Systems
Less Than
Significant
the
Incorporation
of Mitigation
Reduced Greater Similar Greater
6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-26
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
Proposed
Parking Area
Pedestrian
Bridge
CARPINTERIA AVE
RINCON RD
BATES ROAD
RINCON BEACH COUNTY PARK
S. VIA REAL
Pedestrian
Bridge
AERIAL SOURCE: CIRGIS 2017 FIGURE 6-1
Proposed Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail EIR
0 500
Feet
Proposed Project
Alternative 1 / No Project
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
6 – Alternatives
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 6-28
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 7-1
7 List of Preparers
Report Preparers
City of Carpinteria (Lead Agency)
Nick Bobroff, Principal Planner
Dudek (Environmental Consultant)
Jonathan Leech, AICP, INCE, Environmental Technical Group Manager Iulia Roman, Environmental Planner
Adam Poll, Senior Technical Specialist
Heather Moine, Senior Biologist
Mackenzie Forgey, Associate Biologist
Heather McDevitt, Archeologist
James Lin, Planning and Urban Design Associate Planner
David Ortega, Environmental Technical Group Associate Analyst Kirsten Zecher, Mapping/Surveying Senior Specialist
Felisa Pugay, Publications Specialist
Daniela Yurovsky, Publications Specialist
EIR Contributors
Bengal Engineering, Inc
Ed Pongracz-Bartha, CEG, Engineering Geologist
Md. Wahiduzzaman, PE, Civil Engineer
Scott Onishuk, PE, Director and Principal Engineer
University of California Santa Barbara
Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz, PhD
Interwest Consulting Group, Inc.
Thomas Mericle, PE, TE, Traffic Engineer
7 – List of Preparers
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 7-2
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-1
8 References
Chapter 1 Executive Summary
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
Chapter 2 Introduction & Project Description
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
City of Carpinteria 2009. Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Study Report. September 30, 2009.
FRA (Federal Railroad Administration). 2020. Train Accident Reports. https://railroads.dot.gov/ accident-and-incident-reporting/train-accident-reports/train-accident-reports.
Santa Barbara County Grand Jury. 2019. Railway Fatalities in Santa Barbara County. http://www.sbcgj.org/ 2019/RailwayFatalities.pdf.
Chapter 3 Environmental Analysis
Section 3.1 Aesthetics
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2014. South Coast 101 HOV Lanes Project Final Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact. August 2014.
Caltrans. 2020a. California State Scenic Highway System Map. Accessed September 24, 2020. https://www.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2e921695c43643b1aaf7000dfcc19983.
Caltrans. 2020b. Scenic Highways System Lists. Accessed September 23, 2020. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/ design/lap-landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
City of Carpinteria. 2009. Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Study Report. September 30, 2009.
County of Santa Barbara. 2009. Comprehensive Plan – Environmental Resources Management Element (ERME).
May 2009.
8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-2
U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. City and Town Population Totals: 2010-2019. Accessed September 22, 2020. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-cities-and-towns.html.
Section 3.2 Air Quality
California Department of Public Health. 2019. “Epidemiologic Summary of Coccidioidomycosis in California, 2016.” June 2019. Accessed December 2020. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/ CDPH%20Document%20Library/CocciEpiSummary2019.pdf.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2 Prepared by Trinity Consultants and the California Air Districts. Accessed October 2017. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/ upgrades/2016.3/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. October 2000. Accessed August 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ diesel/documents/rrpfinal.pdf.
CARB. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April 2005. Accessed August 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm.
CARB. 2016a. “Glossary of Air Pollution Terms.” CARB website. Accessed June 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ html/gloss.htm.
CARB. 2016b. “Ambient Air Quality Standards.” May 4, 2016. Accessed August 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
CARB. 2020. “iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics.” Accessed July 2016. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/ topfour/topfour1.php.
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
County of Santa Barbara. 2020. Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. September. Accessed December 2020. https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/vtxutffe2n52jme97lgmv66os7pp3lm5.
County of Santa Barbara. 2021. Interactive Land Use Designation/Zoning Map. Accessed January 2021. https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fa3545a29dac49aeacc81669b956e3e5& extent=-120.9142,34.093,-118.9408,35.4355.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter. U.S.
EPA, EPA/600/R-08/139F, 2009.
EPA. 2013. Integrated Science Assessment of Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants. U.S. EPA, EPA/ 600R-10/076F, 2013.
8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-3
EPA. 2016a. “Criteria Air Pollutants.” July 21, 2016. Accessed August 2016. https://www.epa.gov/ criteria-air-pollutants.
EPA. 2016b. Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen-Health Criteria (2016 Final Report). U.S. EPA, EPA/600/R-15/068, 2016.
EPA. 2016c. “EPA Region 9 Air Quality Maps and Geographic Information.” Last updated April 27, 2016. Accessed August 2016. http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/maps/.
EPA. 2016d. “Area Designations for the 2010 Primary Sulfur Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard – Round 3.” July 22, 2016. Accessed February 2017. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/ 2016-07/documents/areadesign.pdf.
EPA. 2020. “AirData: Access to Air Pollution Data.” Last updated February 23, 2016. Accessed August 2016. http://www.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Risk Assessment Guidelines: The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. California Environmental Protection Agency, OEHHA. February 2015. Accessed April 3, 2018. http://oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/2015/2015GuidanceManual.pdf.
Santa Barbara County Public Health Department. 2018. Public Health Investigation into Reported Valley Fever Cases Between December 4, 2017 and March 31, 2018. Accessed December 2020. https://www.countyofsb.org/ uploadedFiles/phd/PROGRAMS/Epidemiology/Other/2018%20Valley%20Fever%20Investigation% 20General%20Data.pdf.
SBCAPCD (Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District). 2017. Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents. June. Accessed December 2020. https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/ uploads/ScopeContentJune2017-LimitedUpdate.pdf.
SBCAPCD. 2016. 2016 Ozone Plan. October 2016. https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/ Final-2016-Ozone-Plan-Approved-October-20-2016.pdf.
SBCAPCD. 2017. Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents. June. Accessed January 2021. https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/ScopeContentJune2017-LimitedUpdate.pdf.
SBCAPCD. 2019. 2019 Ozone Plan. Final. December 19, 2019. Accessed December 2020. https://www.ourair.org/ wp-content/uploads/2019-12-19-Final-Plan.pdf.
SBCAPCD. 2020. Modeling Guidelines for Health Risk Assessments. June. Accessed December 2020. https://www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/apcd-15i.pdf.
SBCAPCD and SBCAG 2011. 2010 Clean Air Plan. January. Accessed January 2021. https://www.ourair.org/ wp-content/uploads/Final2010CleanAirPlan.pdf.WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2020.
Temperature and Precipitation. Accessed October 2020. https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7902. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-4
Section 3.3 Biological Resources
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2010. Natural Communities List. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations. September 2010. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/ natural_communities.asp
CDFW. 2018. Rarefind 5: Commercial version. Online database. California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed April 2018–August 2019. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/ cnddb/mapsanddata.asp.
CDFW. 2019. California Natural Community Conservation Plans. April 2019. Accessed October 14, 2020. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline CDFW. 2020a. Rarefind 5: Commercial version. Online database. California Natural Diversity Database. CDFW, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed December 2020. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/ mapsanddata.asp.
CDFW. 2020b. "California Natural Community list." Sacramento, California: CDFW. September 9, 2020. Accessed December 2020 at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.
CDFW. 2020c. “California Sensitive Natural Communities” Sacramento, California: CDFW. September 9, 2020.
Accessed December 2020 at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April.
City of Carpinteria. 2015. Proposed Final Mitigated Negative Declaration. Carpinteria Rincon Trail. May 4, 2015.
City of Carpinteria. 2019. Proposed Final Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration. Carpinteria Rincon Trail.
December 31, 2019.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2020. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03
0.39). Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. Accessed December 6, 2020 at www.rareplants.cnps.org.
CNPS. 2021. Calscape. Restore Nature One Garden at a Time. Sacramento, California: California Native Plant Society. Accessed January 20, 2021. https://calscape.org/ Condor Environmental Planning Services. 1996. Carpinteria Bluffs Biological Resources and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat. Prepared for: City of Carpinteria. October 28.
County of Santa Barbara. 2008. Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. County of Santa Barbara, Planning and Development.
County of Santa Barbara 2019. County of Santa Barbara Coastal Land Use Plan. Republished 2019. Accessed October 20, 2020. https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/cx95k0r4hnfo58hg291fi5gzf5rrdurd 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-5
Dudek. 2012a. Draft Carpinteria Bluffs Area III Project Biological Resources Due Diligence Report. Prepared for:
The Theimer Group. February.
Dudek. 2012b. Wetland Delineation of Pool Features at Carpinteria Bluffs Areas III per the California Coastal Act, City of Carpinteria, California. July 18.
Firma. 2008. Carpinteria Bluffs Areas 2 and 3 Biological Resource Analysis & Mapping. Prepared for: King Ventures and The City of Carpinteria.
INTERFACE Planning and Counseling Corporation. 1981. Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Report Carpinteria Bluffs, Areas III Development Plan. C.E.I.R. No. 81-2. Prepared for the City of Carpinteria. May.
Jepson Flora Project. 2020. Jepson eFlora. Berkeley, California: University of California. Accessed December 6, 2020 at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange/index.html.
Lehman, P.E. 2020. "The Birds of Santa Barbara County, California", Revised edition, June. Accessed December 2020. http://www.sbcobirding.com/lehmanbosbc.html.
LSA Associates Inc. 1997. Evaluation Report Carpinteria Bluffs Biological Resources and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas. Prepared for: City of Carpinteria. May 29.
NatureServe. 2020. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Arlington, Virginia: NatureServe.
Accessed December 2020. https://explorer.natureserve.org/AboutTheData/Statuses.
Oberbauer, T., M. Kelly, and J. Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. March 2008. http://www.sdcanyonlands.org/pdfs/veg_comm_sdcounty_2008_doc.pdf.
Papenfuss, T.J., and Parham, J.F. 2013. "Four New Species of California Legless Lizards (Anniella)," Breviora 536(1), 1-17, (16 September 2013). https://doi.org/10.3099/MCZ10.1 Pelton, E., S. Jepsen, C. Schultz, C. Fallon, and S. H. Black. 2016. State of the Monarch Butterfly Overwintering Sites in California. 40+vi pp. Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Accessed December 2020. Monarch_Overwintering_Study.pdf (fws.gov) Sage Institute Inc. 2009. 2008-2009 Second Wet Season 90-Day Vernal Pool Branchiopod Survey Report, King Ventures Rincon Bluffs Carpinteria, California. Prepared for King Ventures. August.
Sawyer, J., T. Keeler-Wolf, J. Evens. 2009. Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento.
Shamoun-Baranes, Judy. Felix Leichti. Wouter M. G. Vansteelant. 2017. Atmospheric Conditions Create Freeways, Detours and Tailbacks for Migrating Birds. Accessed February 22, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pmc/articles/PMC5522504/
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2020a. Web Soil Survey. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey Staff. Accessed December 2020. https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ WebSoilSurvey.aspx.
8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-6
USDA. 2020b. “California.” State PLANTS Checklist. Accessed December 6, 2020 at http://plants.usda.gov/ dl_state.html.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2020a. Information for Planning and Consulting (IPaC). Accessed December 2020: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
USFWS. 2020b. Critical Habitat Mapper. Accessed December 2020. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/ table/critical-habitat.html
USFWS. 2020c. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Accessed September 2020 https://fws.gov/wetlands/USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2020. National Wetlands Inventory. Accessed December 2020. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2020. National Hydrography Dataset, Flowline Map. Accessed December 2020. http://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html.
VJS Biological Consulting. 2008. Initial Biological Assessment: Rincon Trail. Letter to Matt Roberts, City of Carpinteria, Director of Parks and Recreation. November 17.
Wilken, D. 2007. Rare Plants of Santa Barbara County. Central Coast Center for Plant Conservation, Santa Barbara Botanic Garden.
Wilken, D. 2018. DRAFT Rare Plants of Santa Barbara County. Santa Barbara Botanical Garden (SBBG). Version
2.0. March.
Xerces Society. 2020. Western Monarch New Year’s Count. Western Monarch Thanksgiving & New Year’s Count Data, 1997-2019. Available at https://www.westernmonarchcount.org/data/.
Section 3.4 Cultural Resources
Antevs, Ernst. 1948. "Climatic changes and pre-white man: the Great Basin, with emphasis on glacial and postglacial times." University of Utah Bulletin 38 (20): 168-191.
Arnold, Jeanne E. 1987. Craft specialization in the prehistoric Channel Islands, California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Arnold, J. 1992. "Complex hunter-gatherer-fishers of prehistoric California: chiefs, specialists and marine adaptations of the Channel Islands." American Antiquity 57: 60-84.
Arnold, J. 1995. "Transportation innovation and social complexity among maritime hunter-gatherer societies." American Anthropologist 97 (4): 733-747.
Arnold, J., ed. 2001. The origins of a Pacific Coast chiefdom. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Arnold, J., ed. 2004. Foundations of Chumash complexity. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 7. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-7
Arnold, Jeanne E., and A. P. Graesch. 2001. "The evolution of specialized shellworking among the Island Chumash." In The origins of a Pacific Coast chiefdom: the Chumash of the Channel Islands, edited by Jeanne E. Arnold, 71-112. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Arnold, Jeanne E., and Ann M. Munns. 1994. "Independent or attached specialization: the organization of shell bead production in California." Journal of Field Archaeology 21: 473-489.
Arnold, Jeanne E., Roger H. Colten, and S. Pletka. 1997. "Contexts of cultural change in insular California." American Antiquity 62 (2): 300-318.
Basgall, Mark E. 1987. "Resource intensification among hunter-gatherers: acorn economies in prehistoric California." In Research in Economic Anthropology, 21-52. JAI Press.
Basgall, Mark E., and Delbert L. True. 1985. Archaeological investigations in Crowder Canyon, 1973-1984:
excavations at sites SBR-421B, SBR-421C, SBR-421D, and SBR-713, San Bernardino County, California.
Report on file with the California Department of Transportation, District 8, San Bernardino, California.
Bennyhoff, James A., and Richard E. Hughes. 1987. "Shell bead and ornament exchange networks between California and the Western Great Basin." Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 64 (2).
Bernard, Julienne. 2004. "Status and the swordfish: the origins of large-species fishing among the Chumash." In Foundations of Chumash complexity, edited by Jeanne E. Arnold, 25-51. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 7.
Bettinger, Robert L. 1999. "From Traveler to Processor: regional trajectories of hunter-gatherer sedentism in the Inyo-Mono region, California." In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: fifty years since Viru, edited by B.R. Billman and Gary M. Feinman, 39-55. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Blackburn, Thomas C. 1976. "Ceremonial integration and social interaction in Aboriginal California." In Native Californians: a theoretical retrospective, edited by Lowell John Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn, 225-244.
Ramona: Ballena Press.
Bolton, Herbert Eugene. 1967. Spanish Exploration in the Southwest, 1542-1706. New York: Barnes and Noble.
Brown, Alan K. 1967. The aboriginal population of the Santa Barbara channel. Archaeological Survey Report, No.
69. Berkeley: University of California Archaeological Research Facility.
Brown, A. 2001. A description of distant roads: original journals of the first expedition into California, 1769-1770 by Juan Crespi. San Diego, CA: Sasn Diego State University.
Byrd, Brian F., and Shannon DeArmond. 2018. Vizualizing Indigenous persistence during Spanish colonization of the San Francisco Bay Area. Electronic document, web application : http://arcg.is/1u4DiD.
Byrd, Brian F., Shannon DeArmond, and Laurel Engbring. 2018. "Re-visualizing Indigenous persistence during colonization from the perspective of traditional settlements in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Area." Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 38 (2): 163-190. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-8
Dixon, E. James. 2001. "Human colonization of the Americas: timing, technology and process." Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 277-299.
Erlandson, Jon M. 1997a. "The middle Holocene along the California coast." In The archaeology of the California coast during the middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, 1-10. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 4.
Erlandson, J. 1997b. "The middle Holocene on the western Santa Barbara coast." In The archaeology of the California coast during the middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, 91-109.
Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 4.
Erlandson, Jon M., and Terry L. Jones, eds. 2002. Catalysts to complexity: late Holocene societies of the California coast. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Erlandson, Jon M., and Torben C. Rick. 2002. "Late Holocene cultural developments along the Santa Barbara coast." In Catalysts to complexity: late Holocene societies of the California coast, edited by Jon M.
Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, 166-182. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Erlandson, Jon M., Michael H. Graham, Bruce J. Bourque, Debra Corbett, James A. Estes, and Robert S. Steneck. 2007. "The kelp highway hypothesis: marine ecology, the coastal migration theory, and the peopling of the Americas." Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 2: 161-174.
Erlandson, Jon M., Theodore G. Cooley, and Richard Carrico. 1987. "A fluted projectile point fragment from the southern California coast: chronology and context at CA-SBA-1951." Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9 (1): 120-128.
Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Terry L. Jones, and Judith F. Porcasi. 2007. "One if by land, two if by sea: who where the first Californians?" In California Prehistory: colonization, culture, and complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, 53-62. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press.
Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Todd J. Braje, Molly Casperson, Brendan J. Culleton, Brian Fulfrost, Tracy Garcia, Daniel A. Guthrie, Nicholas Jew, Douglas J. Kennett, Madonna L. Moss, Leslie Reeder, Craig Skinner, Jack Watts, and Lauren Willis. 2011. "Paleoindian seafaring, maritime technologies, and coastal foraging on California's Channel Islands." Science 221: 1181-1185.
Fauvelle, Mikael. 2011. "Mobile mounds: assymetrical exchange and the role of the Tomol in the development of Chumash complexity." California Archaeology 3: 141-158.
Fitzgerald, Richard T., ed. 2000. Cross Creek: an Early Holocene / Millingstone Site. Vol. 12, California state Water Project, Coastal Branch Series. San Luis Obispo: San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society.
Fitzgerald, Richard T., and Terry L. Jones. 1999. "The Milling Stone Horizon revisited: new perspectives from Northern and Central California." Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 21 (1): 67-93. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-9
Fladmark, K.R. 1979. "Alternate migration corridors for early man in North America." American Antiquity 44 (1):
55-69.
Gamble, Lynn H. 2002. "Archaeological evidence for the origin of the plank canoe in North America." American Antiquity 67: 301-315.
Gamble, L. 2008. The Chumash world at European contact: power, trade, and feasting among complex huntergatherers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gamble, Lynn H., and Chester D. King. 1997. "Middle Holocene adaptations in the Santa Monica Mountains." In Archaeology of the California coast during the middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow, 61-72. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Glassow, Michael A. 1990. Archaeological Investigations on Vandenberg Air Force Base in Connection with the Development of Space Transportation System Facilities. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara. Submitted to USDI National Park Service, Western Region, Interagency Archaeological Services Branch, San Francisco, Contract No. CX-8099-2-0004.
Glassow, M. 1992. "The relative dietary importance of marine foods through time in western Santa Barbara County." In Essays on the Prehistory of California, edited by Terry L. Jones, 115-128. Davis: Center for Archaeological Research at Davis.
Glassow, M. 1996. Purisimeño Chumash Prehistory: Maritime adaptations along the Southern California coast.
Edited by Jeffrey Quilter.Case Studies in Archaeology. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.
Glassow, M. 1997. "Middle Holocene cultural development in the central Santa Barbara Channel region." In Archaeology of the California Coast during the middle Holocene, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Michael A. Glassow. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology University of California, Los Angeles.
Glassow, Michael A., Larry Wilcoxon, and Jon M. Erlandson. 1988. "Cultural and environmental change during the Early Period of Santa Barbara Channel prehistory." In The Archaeology of Prehistoric Coastlines, edited by G. N. Bailey and J. E. Parkington, 64-77. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Glassow, Michael A., Lynn H. Gamble, Jennifer E. Perry, and Glenn S. Russell. 2007. "Prehistory of the northern California Bight and the adjacent Transverse Ranges." In California Prehistory: colonization, culture, and complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, 191-213. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press.
Greenwood, Roberta S. 1972. 9000 years of prehistory at Diablo Canyon, San Luis Obispo County, California. Vol.
Occasional Paper No. 7. San Luis Obispo: San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society.
Greenwood, R. 1978. "Obispeño and Purisimeño Chumash." In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 520-529. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Groza, Randall G. 2002. "An AMS chronology for central California Olivella shell beads." MA Thesis, Anthropology, San Francisco State University.
8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-10
Groza, Randall G., Jeffrey S. Rosenthal, John R. Southon, and Randall Milliken. 2011. "A refined shell bead chronology for late Holocene Central California." Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 31 (2): 13-32.
Hale, Micah J. 2001. "Technological organization of the Millingstone Pattern in southern California." MA, Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento.---. 2009. "Santa Barbara and San Diego:
contrasting adaptive strategies on the southern California coast." PhD, Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Hale, Micah J. 2009. "Santa Barbara and San Diego: contrasting adaptive strategies on the southern California coast." PhD, Anthropology, University of California, Davis.
Hale, M. 2010. "Modeling socioeconomic discontinuity in southern Alta California." California Archaeology 2 (2):
223-270.
Harrington, John P. 1942. "Culture element distributions: XIX, Central California Coast." Anthropological Records 7: 1-46.
Harrison, William M., and Edith S Harrison. 1966. "An archaeological sequence for the Hunting People of Santa Barbara, California." University of California Archaeological Survey Annual Reports 7: 1-89.
Heizer, Robert F. 1972. California's oldest historical relic? Berkeley, CA: Robert H. Lowie Museum of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley.
Hollimon, Sandra E. 2004. "The role of ritual specialization in the evolution of prehistoric Chumash complexity." In Foundations of Chumash complexity, edited by Jeanne E. Arnold, 53-63. Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 7.
Johnson, John R. 1982. "An ethnohistoric study of the Island Chumash." MA, Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Johnson, J. 1988. "Chumash social organization: an ethnohistoric perspective." PhD, Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Jones, Terry L. 1992. "Settlement trends along the California coast." In Essays on the prehistory of maritime California, edited by Terry L. Jones, 1-38. Davis: Center for Archaeological Research at Davis.
Jones, Terry L., and Brian F. Codding. 2019. Foragers on America’s western edge: the archaeology of California’s Pecho Coast. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Jones, Terry L., and Douglas J. Kennett. 1999. "Late Holocene sea temperatures along the central California coast." Quaternary Research 51: 74-82.
Jones, Terry L., Nathan E. Stevens, Deborah A. Jones, Richard T. Fitzgerald, and Mark G. Hylkema. 2007. "The Central Coast: a midlatitude milieu." In California Prehistory: colonization, culture, and complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, 125-146. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-11
Kennett, Douglas J. 2005. The Island Chumash: behavioral ecology of a maritime society. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kennett, Douglas J., and James. P. Kennett. 2000. "Competitive and cooperative responses to climatic instability in southern California." American Antiquity 65 (2): 379-395.
Kennett, Douglas J., James P. Kennett, Jon M. Erlandson, and Kevin G. Cannariato. 2007. "Human responses to Middle Holocene climate change on California's Channel Islands." Quaternary Science Reviews 26 (3-4):
351-367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.07.019.
King, Chester D. 1978. "Protohistoric and historic archaeology." In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 58-68. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
King, C. 1990. Evolution of Chumash society: a comparative study of artifacts used for social system maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel region before A.D. 1804. New York: Garland.
Koerper, Henry C., Paul E. Langenwalter, and Adella Schroth. 1991. "Early Holocene adaptations and the transition phase problem: evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon." In Huntergatherers of early Holocene coastal California, edited by Jon Erlandson and Roger H. Colten, 43-52. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, Perspectives in California Archaeology Volume 1.
Lambert, Patricia M. 1997. "Patterns of violence in prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies of coastal southern California." In Troubled times, edited by D. L. Martek and D. W. Frayer, 77-109. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach.
Lambert, P. 2002. "The archaeology of war: a North American perspective." Journal of Archaeological Research 10 (3): 207-241.
Lambert, Patricia M., and Phillip L. Walker. 1991. "Physical anthropological evidence for the evolution of social complexity in coastal southern California." Antiquity 65 (249): 963-973.
Lantis, Margaret. 1938. "The Alaskan whale cult and its affinities." American Anthropologist 40 (3): 438-464.
Lebow, Clayton G., and Michael J. Moratto. 2005. Management of Prehistoric Archaeological Resources.
Vandenberg Air Force Base Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan, vol. 5, edited by MJ Moratto and BA Price. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Fresno, California. Submitted to U.S. Air Force, 30 CES/CEVPC, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
Lebow, Clayton G., Erin A. Enright, Leeann G. Haslouer, Georganna Hawley, and Ann M. Munns. 2010. Collection and management of radiocarbon data: fiscal years 2003–2009, including excavations at CA-SBA-612, - 760/761/1748, -2322, -2919, -3328, and -3949 pursuant to Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Lompoc, California. Submitted to 30th Civil Engineer Squadron, Environmental Flight, Cultural Resources Section (30 CES/CEVNC), Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. USAF Contract No. FA4610-06-A-0002.
Lebow, Clayton G., Leeann G. Haslouer, Erin A. Enright, Rebecca L. McKim, Douglas R. Harro, and Ann M. Munns. 2011. Evaluations of archaeological site significance, Lompoc Wind Energy Project, Pacific Renewable Energy Generation LLC, Santa Barbara County, CA.
8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-12
Lebow, Clayton G., Rebecca L. McKim, Douglas R. Harro, and Ann M. Munns. 2006. Prehistoric land use in the Casmalia Hills throughout the Holocene: archaeological investigations along Combar Road, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Lompoc, California. Submitted to 30 CES/CEVPC, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
Lebow, Clayton G., Rebecca L. McKim, Douglas R. Harro, Ann M. Munns, and Carole Denardo. 2007. Littoral adaptations throughout the Holocene: archaeological investigations at the Honda Beach Site (CA-SBA530), Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County, California. Applied EarthWorks, Inc., Lompoc, California. Submitted to 30th Civil Engineer Squadron, Environmental Flight, Cultural Resources Section (30 CES/CEVNC), Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.
Martin, S., and Virginia Popper. 2001. "Paleoethnobotanical investigations of archaeological sites on Santa Cruz Island." In The origins of a Pacific Coast chiefdom: the Chumash of the Channel Islands, edited by Jeanne E. Arnold, 245-259. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Masters, Patricia M., and Ivano W. Aiello. 2007. "Postglacial evolution of coastal environments." In California Prehistory: colonization, culture, and complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, 35-51.
Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press.
McDaniel McDevitt, Heather. 2013. "Exploration of Burton Mound continued: faunal analysis of a mainland Chumash site." MA, Anthropology, California State University, Northridge.
McGuire, Kelly R. 1993. Test excavations at CA-FRE-61, Fresno County, California. . California State University, Bakersfield, Museum of Anthropology, Occasional Papers in Anthropology 5. (Bakersfield, CA).
McLendon, Sally, and John R. Johnson. 1999. Cultural affiliation and lineal descent of Chumash peoples in the Channel Islands and the Santa Monica Mountains. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara, and Hunter College, City University of New York. Report submitted to the Archeology and Ethnography Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC.
Meighan, Clement W. 1959. "Calfornian cultures and the concept of an Archaic stage." American Antiquity 24 (3):
289-318.
Morgan, Christopher T. 2007. "Reconstructing prehistoric hunter-gatherer foraging radii: a case study from California's southern Sierra Nevada." Journal of Archaeological Science 35 (2): 247-258.
Nelson, Margaret C., and Heidi Lippmeier. 1993. "Grinding-tool design as conditioned by land-use pattern." American Antiquity 58 (2): 286-305.
NPS (National Park Service). 1990. National Register Bulletin: Technical Information on the National Register of Historic Places: Survey, Evaluation, Registration, and Preservation of Cultural Resources. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nationalregister/publications.htm Priestley, Herbert I. 1937. A historical, political, and natural description of California by Pedro Fages, soldier of Spain, dutifully made for the Viceroy in the year 1775. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Raab, L. Mark, and Daniel O. Larson. 1997. "Medieval climatic anomaly and punctuated cultural evolution in coastal southern California." American Antiquity 62 (2): 319-336. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-13
Ranch, Kohanya Jessica. 2012. "Changing perceptions and policy: redefining indigeneity through California Chumash revitalization." PhD, Anthropology, University of California, Riverside.
Rick, Torben C., and Michael A. Glassow. 1999. "Middle Holocene fisheries of the central Santa Barbara Channel, California: investigations at CA-SBA-53." Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 21 (2): 236-256.
Rick, Torben C., René L. Vellanoweth, Jon M. Erlandson, and Douglas J. Kennett. 2002. "On the antiquity of the single-piece shell fishook: AMS radiocarbon evidence from the southern California coast." Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 933-942.
Rindge, Ronald L. 1985. The rediscovery of the Pueblo de las Canoas. Malibu, CA: The Malibu Historical Society and The Malibu Lagoon Museum.
Rogers, David B. 1929. Prehistoric man of the Santa Barbara coast. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Rosenthal, Jeffrey S. 2011. "Building a new chronological framework for the west-central Sierra Nevada." In A new frame of reference: prehistoric cultural chronology and ecology in the north-central Sierra Nevada, edited by Jeffrey S. Rosenthal, 37-66. Davis, CA: Center for Archaeological Research at Davis Publication Number 16.
Rosenthal, Jeffrey S., Gregory G. White, and Mark Q. Sutton. 2007. "The Central Valley: a view from the catbird's seat." In California Prehistory: colonization, culture, and complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, 147-163. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press.
Sandos, James A. 1985. "Levantamiento!: The 1824 Chumash uprising reconsidered." Southern California Quarterly 67 (2): 109-033.
Smith, Donald E., and Frederick J. Teggart. 1909. Diary of Gaspar de Portola during the California expedition of 1769-1770. Berkeley: University of California Publications of the Academy of Pacific Coast History, Volume 1, Number 3.
Stevens, Nathan E. 2013. NRHP eligibility testing at CA-SBA-246, an early Holocene site on Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara, California. . Submitted to 30th Engineer Squadron, Environmental Flight, Cultural Resources Section (30 CES/CEVNC), Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. DRAFT.
Sutton, Mark Q., Joan S. Schneider, and Robert M. Yohe II. 1993. "Archaeological investigations at the Siphon Site (CA-SBR-6580): A Millingstone Horizon site in Summit Valley, California." San Bernardino County Museum Association Quarterly 40 (3).
Teggart, Frederick J. 1909. The official account of the Portola expedition of 1769-1770. Berkeley: University of California Publications of the Academy of Pacific Coast History, Volume 1, Number 2.
Wagner, Henry R. 1928. "Spanish voyages to the northwest coast in the sixteenth century, Chapter IV." California Historical Society Quarterly 7 (1): 20-77.---. 1929. Spanish voyages to the northwest coast of North America in the Sixteenth Century. San Francisco: California Historical Society. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-14
Wagner, H. 1929. Spanish voyages to the northwest coast of North America in the Sixteenth Century. San Francisco: California Historical Society.
Walker, Phillip L. 1989. "Cranial injuries as evidence of violence in prehistoric southern California." American Journal of Physical Anthropology 80: 313-323.
Wallace, William J. 1955. "A suggested chronology for Southern California coastal archaeology." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11 (3): 214-230.
Warren, Claude N. 1968. "Cultural tradition and ecological adaptation on the southern California coast." Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1 (3): 1-15.
Section 3.5 Geology and Soils
CGS (California Geological Survey). 1996. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of California.
DMG Open-File Report 96-08. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/psha/ofr9608/ Pages/Index.aspx
CGS. 2002. California Geomorphic Provinces, Note 36.
CGS. 2018a. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act.
CGS. 2018b. The Alquist–Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning (AP) Map. Released January 11, 2018. http://gmw.conservation.ca.gov/SHP/EZRIM/Maps/WHITE_LEDGE_PEAK_EZRIM.pdf.
CGS. 2018c. Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/ Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California. Special Publication 42, Revised 2018.
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
County of Santa Barbara. 2009. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan Environmental Resources Management Element.
County of Santa Barbara. 2011. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan Seismic Safety and Safety Element.
County of Santa Barbara. 2019. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan Coastal Land Use Plan.
Dibblee, T.W., and Ehrenspeck, H.E., ed. 1986. Geologic map of the Carpinteria quadrangle, Santa Barbara County, California: Dibblee Geological Foundation, Dibblee Foundation Map DF-04, scale 1:24,000 SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation). 1996. Phase 1 Cultural Resources Investigation Cellular Communications Facility, AT&T Wireless Services, Bates Road, Rincon Point, California.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2020. Web Soil Survey. USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Accessed October 2020. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-15
USGS (U.S. Geological Survey). 2009. Geologic Map of the Santa Barbara Coastal Plain Area, Santa Barbara County, California.
USGS. 2018. “Landslide Hazards.” Accessed November 9, 2018. https://www.usgs.gov/natural-hazards/ landslide-hazards.
Section 3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
14 CCR 15000–15387 and Appendices A–L. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended.
75 Federal Register (FR) 25324–25728. Final Rule: “Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.” July 6, 2010. 76 FR 57106–57513. Final Rule: “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles.” November 14, 2011. 77 FR 62624–63200. Final Rule: “2017 and Later Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.” October 15, 2012. 80 FR 64510–64660. Final rule: “Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units.”
80 FR 64661–65120. Final rule: “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units.” CALGreen (California Green Building Code). 2016. 2016 Green Building Standards Code. http://codes.iccsafe.org/ app/book/toc/2016/California/Green/index.html.
CalRecycle (California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery). 2015. AB 341 Report to the Legislature. August 2015.
CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association). 2017. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) User’s Guide Version 2016.3.2. Prepared by BREEZE Software, A Division of Trinity Consultants in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. Accessed May 2018. http://caleemod.com/.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2008. Climate Change Proposed Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change.
December 12, 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/psp.pdf.
CARB. 2011. Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons for Proposed Rulemaking, Public Hearing to Consider the “LEV III” Amendments to the California Greenhouse Gas and Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures and to the On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and to the Evaporative Emission Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. December 7, 2011. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-16
CARB. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32 – The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. May 2014. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ scopingplan/2013_update/first_update_climate_change_scoping_plan.pdf.
CARB. 2015. Glossary of Terms Used in GHG Inventories. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/faq/ ghg_inventory_glossary.htm.
CARB. 2017. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan Update. November 2017. Accessed December 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.
CARB. 2020. “California Greenhouse Gas Inventory – 2020 Edition.” Accessed December 2020. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2018/ghg_inventory_trends_00-18.pdf.
CAT (California Climate Action Team). 2006. Final 2006 Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legislature. Sacramento, California: California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team.
March 2006.
CAT. 2010. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. Sacramento, California: California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. December 2010. Accessed February 2014. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2010publications/CAT-1000-2010-005/CAT-1000-2010-005.PDF.
CCCC (California Climate Change Center). 2006. “Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California.” CEC500-2006-077. July 2006.
CCCC. 2012. “Our Changing Climate 2012: Vulnerability & Adaptation to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California.” CEC-500-2012-007. July 2012.
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2018. 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Frequently Asked Questions. March. Accessed January 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/ 2020-03/Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ_ada.pdf.
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
CNRA (California Natural Resources Agency). 2009. 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. A Report to the Governor of the State of California in Response to Executive Order S-13-2008. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/ climate/Statewide_Adaptation_Strategy.pdf.
CNRA. 2014. Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk. An update to the 2009 California Climate Adaptation Strategy. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/Final_Safeguarding_CA_ Plan_July_31_2014.pdf.
CRNA. 2016. Safeguarding California: Implementing Action Plans. March 2016. http://resources.ca.gov/ docs/climate/safeguarding/Safeguarding%20California-Implementation%20Action%20Plans.pdf. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-17
CNRA. 2017. Draft Report Safeguarding California Plan: 2017 Update, California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy.
May 2017. http://resources.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/DRAFT-Safeguarding-CaliforniaPlan-2017-Update.pdf.
CNRA. 2018. Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update, California’s Climate Adaptation Strategy. January 2018. http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/safeguarding/update2018/safeguarding-california-plan2018-update.pdf.
County of Santa Barbara. 2011. Santa Barbara County Climate Action Strategy. September. Accessed January 2021. https://www.countyofsb.org/csd/asset.c/172.
County of Santa Barbara. 2015. County of Santa Barbara Energy and Climate Action Plan. May. Accessed January 2021. https://www.countyofsb.org/csd/asset.c/173.
County of Santa Barbara. 2018. Energy and Climate Action Plan 2017 Progress Report. December. Accessed December 2020. https://www.countyofsb.org/csd/asset.c/270 County of Santa Barbara. 2020. Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. September. Accessed December 2020. https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/vtxutffe2n52jme97lgmv66os7pp3lm5.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2007. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Accessed August 2018. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-110hr6enr/pdf/BILLS-110hr6enr.pdf.
EPA. 2016. Glossary of Climate Change Terms. https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html.
EPA. 2017. “Climate Change.” Last updated January 19, 2017. Accessed January 2017 at https://www.epa.gov/ climatechange. Currently available at https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange_.html.
EPA. 2020. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2018. Accessed December 2020. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2020-04/documents/us-ghg-inventory-2020-main-text.pdf.
EPA and NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2016. EPA and NHTSA Adopt Standards to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel Efficiency of Medium- and Heavy-Duty Vehicles for Model Year 2018 and Beyond. August 2016. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/ P100P7NL.PDF?Dockey=P100P7NL.PDF.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 1995. IPCC Second Assessment: Climate Change 1995. A report of Working Group I of the IPCC. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. Accessed May 10, 2018. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-1995/ipcc-2nd-assessment/2nd-assessment-en.pdf.
IPCC. 2007. “Summary for Policymakers,” in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, edited by S.
Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller, 1–18. A report of Working Group I of the IPCC. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. Accessed December 29, 2009. https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf.
IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis—Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, G.- K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, and P.M. Midgley. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-18
IPCC. 2014. “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability – Summary for Policymakers.” In Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects, Working Group II Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by C.B. Field, V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N.
Levy, S. MacCracken, P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White, 1–32. Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf.
Olivier, J.G.J., and J.A.H.W. Peters. 2018. Trends in Global CO2 and Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions – 2018 Report. The Hague, Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. December 2018.
Accessed May 2019. https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/ pbl-2018-trends-in-global-co2-and-total-greenhouse-gas-emissons-2018-report_3125.pdf.
OPR (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research). 2008. CEQA and Climate Change: Addressing Climate Change through California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Technical Advisory.
Sacramento, California: OPR. June 19, 2008. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/june08-ceqa.pdf.
SBCAG. 2013. 2040 RTP-SCS. August 15. Accessed January 2021. http://www.sbcag.org/2013-rtp.html.
SBCAG. 2017. Fast Forward 2040. August 17. Accessed January 2021. http://www.sbcag.org/rtp.html.
Section 3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
CalEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2021. Unified Program. Accessed January 2021. https://calepa.ca.gov/cupa/about/.
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
County of Santa Barbara. 2009. Comprehensive Plan, Hazardous Waste Element, May 2009 County of Santa Barbara 2017. Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan.
DTSC (California Department of Toxic Substances Control). 2021. EnviroStor. Website. Accessed January 14, 2021. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/.
SFBRWQCB (San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2020. Environmental Screening Levels.
Website. Accessed October 2020. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay/ water_issues/programs/esl.html.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2021. GeoTracker Database. Accessed January 14, 2021. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/.
Section 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2018. Caltrans_Transportation_Asset_Management_Plan._Jan_2018 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-19
CDOC (California Department of Conservation). 2009. California Department of Conservation Tsunami Inundation Map For Emergency Planning - Carpinteria Quadrangle.
City of Carpinteria. 1997. Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970.
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
City of Carpinteria 2019. Sea Level Rise Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Project (Report). March 2019 County of Santa Barbara 2017. 2017 Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed October 2020. http://www.countyofsb.org/ceo/asset.c/3416 County of Santa Barbara. 2019. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan – Coastal Land Use Plan. June 2019.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2019. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Accessed October 2019. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/firmette?latitude= 34.38428478705369&longitude=- 119.45652897338809
RWQCB (Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2017. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin.
Central Coast Region. September 2017.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2019. Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California.
February 2019.
USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2019. Web Soil Survey. Accessed October 2020. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
Section 3.9 Land Use and Planning
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
City of Carpinteria. 2021. City of Carpinteria Municipal Code Title 14 Zoning. Accessed January 2021. https://library.municode.com/ca/carpinteria/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT14ZO.
County of Santa Barbara. 2019. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan Coastal Land Use Plan. June 2019.
County of Santa Barbara. 2020. Land Use Designation and Zoning Map. Accessed September 2020. https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fa3545a29dac49aeacc81669b956e3e5 &extent=-120.9142,34.093,-118.9408,35.4355
SBCAG (Santa Barbara County Association of Governments). 2013. 2040 Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy. August 2013.
8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-20
Section 3.10 Noise
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September 2013.
Caltrans. 2020. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020.
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
City of Carpinteria. 2020. Municipal Code, Chapter 12.04. June 2020.
County of Santa Barbara. 2008. Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. September 2008.
County of Santa Barbara. 2009. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan – Noise Element. May 2009.
FHWA (Federal Highway Administration). 2008. Federal Highway Administration’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).
FTA (Federal Transit Authority). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September 2018.
Section 3.11 Recreation
BHPA (British Hang-Gliding and Paragliding Association). 2021. Elementary Pilot Training Guide. Accessed January 2021. https://www.flyingfever.net/images/pdf/BHPAEPTrainingGuide.pdf California Coastal Conservancy 2010. Staff Recommendation Carpinteria Rincon Coastal Trail. Final No. 10-032-
01. December 2.
California Coastal Conservancy 2017. Strategic Plan 2018-2022.
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
City of Carpinteria. 2009a. Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Study Report. September 30, 2009.
City of Carpinteria. 2009b. Coastal Access Feasibility Study. Prepared by HDR for the City of Carpinteria Department of Parks and Recreation. Final Report. September 23.
City of Carpinteria 2016. Carpinteria Municipal Code, Title 14 – Zoning.
County of Santa Barbara 2009. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan – Open Space Element.
County of Santa Barbara. 2019. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan – Local Coastal Plan.
Torrey Pines Gliderport. 2021. Accessed January 2021. https://www.flytorrey.com/faqs/how-much-wind-do-you-need/ 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-21
Section 3.12 Transportation
Caltrans (California Department of Transportation). 2014. South Coast 101 HOV Lanes Project Final Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Assessment with Finding of No Significant Impact. August 2014.
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
Covina Residents for Responsible Development v. City of Covina; City Ventures Inc., et al., Real Parties in Interest. (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 712.
County of Santa Barbara. 2009. Comprehensive Plan – Circulation Element. May 2009.
County of Santa Barbara. 2019. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan – Coastal Land Use Plan. June 2019.
SBCAG (Santa Barbara County Association of Governments). 2016. Congestion Management Program.
October 2016.
SBCAG. 2017. Fast Forward 2040: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy.
Section 3.13 Tribal Cultural Resources
Blackburn, Thomas C. 1975. December’s child: a book of Chumash oral narratives. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bolton, Herbert Eugene. 1927. Fray Juan Crespi: missionary explorer on the Pacific coast, 1769-1774. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Brown, Alan K. 1967. The aboriginal population of the Santa Barbara channel. Archaeological Survey Report, No.
69. Berkeley: University of California Archaeological Research Facility.
Coues, Elliot. 1900. On the trail of a Spanish pioneer: the diary and itinerary of Francisco Garcés (missionary priest) in his travels through Sonora, Arizona, and California. New York: Francis P. Harper.
Gamble, L. 2008. The Chumash world at European contact: power, trade, and feasting among complex huntergatherers. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Geiger, Maynard. 1969. Franciscan missionaries in Hispanic California: 1769-1848. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library.
Geiger, Maynard, and Clement W. Meighan. 1976. As the padres saw them: California Indian life and customs as reported by the Franciscan Missionaries 1813-1815. Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Mission Archive LIbrary.
Gill, Kristina M., Mikael Fauvelle, and Jon M. Erlandson, eds. 2019. An archaeology of abundance: reevaluating the marginality of California's islands, Society and ecology in island and coastal archaeology. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-22
Goddard I. 1996. The classification of the Native languages of North America. In: Goddard I, editor. Handbook of North American Indiands, Volume 17, Languages. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution. p 290-324.
Golla, Victor. 2011. California Indian languages. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Grant, Campbell. 1978a. "Chumash: introduction." In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by Robert F.
Heizer, 505-508. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Grant, C. 1978b. "Eastern Coastal Chumash." In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by Robert F. Heizer, 509-519. Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Haley, Brian D., and Larry R. Wilcoxon. 1997. "Anthropology and the making of Chumash tradition." Current Anthropology 38 (5): 761-794.
Haley, B., and L.R. Wilcoxon. 1999. "Point Conception and the Chumash Land of the Dead: revisions from Harrington’s notes." Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 21 (2): 213-235.
Harrington, John P. 1942. "Culture element distributions: XIX, Central California Coast." Anthropological Records 7: 1-46.
Hudson, Travis, and Thomas C. Blackburn. 1979. The material culture of the Chumash interaction sphere.
Volume I: Food procurement and transportation.Ballena Press Anthropological Papers, No. 25. Los Altos and Santa Barbara: Ballena Press and the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Hudson, T., and T.C. Blackburn. 1983. The material culture of the Chumash interaction sphere. Volume II: Food preparation and shelter.Ballena Press Anthropological Papers, No. 27. Los Altos and Santa Barbara:
Ballena Press and the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History Hudson, T., and T.C. Blackburn. 1985. The material culture of the Chumash interaction sphere. Volume III:
Clothing, ornamentation, and grooming.Ballena Press Anthropological Papers, No. 28. Los Altos and Santa Barbara: Ballena Press and the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Hudson, T., and T.C. Blackburn. 1986. The material culture of the Chumash interaction sphere. Volume IV:
Ceremonial paraphernalia, games, and amusements.Ballena Press Anthropological Papers, No. 30. Los Altos and Santa Barbara: Ballena Press and the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Hudson, Travis, Thomas C. Blackburn, Rosario Curletti, and Janice Timbrook. 1981. The eye of the flute: Chumash traditional history and ritual as told by Fernando Librado Kitsepawit to John P. Harrington. Santa Barbara:
Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.
Johnson, John R. 1982. "An ethnohistoric study of the Island Chumash." MA, Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Johnson, J. 1988. "Chumash social organization: an ethnohistoric perspective." PhD, Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
King, Chester D. 1976. "Chumash intervillage economic exchange." In Native Californians: a theoretical retrospective, edited by Lowell John Bean and Thomas C. Blackburn, 289-318. Ramona: Ballena Press. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-23
King, Linda B. 1969. "The Medea Creek cemetery (LAN-243): an investigation of social organization from mortuary practices." In Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 23-68. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California.Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulleting 78. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
Priestley, Herbert I. 1937. A historical, political, and natural description of California by Pedro Fages, soldier of Spain, dutifully made for the Viceroy in the year 1775. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Wagner, Henry R. 1929. Spanish voyages to the northwest coast of North America in the Sixteenth Century. San Francisco: California Historical Society.
Section 3.14 Utilities and Service Systems
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
County of Santa Barbara. 2019. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan – Coastal Land Use Plan. June 2019.
CVWD (Carpinteria Valley Water District). 2017. Carpinteria Groundwater Basin AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan Annual Report Water Years 2015 and 2016. July 2017 Chapter 4 Effects Found Not to be Significant
Section 4.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
City of Carpinteria 2016. City of Carpinteria Zoning Districts. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_zoning-map.pdf
County of Santa Barbara. 2018. Santa Barbara County Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves and Farmland Security Zones. Accessed December 2020 http://www.countyofsb.org/plndev/policy/UniformRules.sbc County of Santa Barbara 2020. Santa Barbara County Land Use and Zoning Map. Accessed December 2020 https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fa3545a29dac49aeacc 81669b956e3e5&extent=-120.9142,34.093,-118.9408,35.4355 DOC. 2020. Santa Barbara County Important Farmland 2020. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).
Division of Land Resources Protection. Accessed December 2020. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ DLRP/CIFF/.
Santa Barbara County Resource Recovery & Waste Management Division. 2021. Trash and Recycling Haulers.
Accessed February 26, 2021. http://lessismore.org/materials/161-waste-hauler-contacts USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2011. Web Soil Survey. Accessed October 2020. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov.
8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-24
Section 4.2 Energy
California Gas and Electric Utilities. 2020. October. Accessed January 2021. https://www.socalgas.com/ sites/default/files/2020-10/2020_California_Gas_Report_Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Filing.pdf.
CARB (California Air Resources Board). 2012. LEV III Amendments to the California GHG and Criteria Pollutant Exhaust and Evaporative Emission Standards and Test Procedures and to the On-Board Diagnostic System Requirements for Passenger Cars, Light-Duty Trucks, and Medium-Duty Vehicles, and to the Evaporative Emission Requirements for Heavy-Duty Vehicles. March 22. Accessed January 2021. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/regact/2012/leviiighg2012/levfrorev.pdf.
CARB. 2013. “Clean Car Standards – Pavley, Assembly Bill 1493.” Last reviewed May 6, 2013. Accessed May 12, 2020. http://arb.ca.gov/cc/ccms/ccms.htm.
CARB. 2020. EMFAC2017 Web Database. V1.0.3. CARB, Air Quality Planning & Science Division, Mobile Source Analysis Branch. Accessed December, 2020. https://arb.ca.gov/emfac/emissions-inventory.
CEC (California Energy Commission). 2016. 2015 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Publication Number: CEC-100- 2015-001-CMF. Submitted June 18, 2016.
CEC. 2018a. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards Fact Sheet.” March 2018. Accessed June 9, 2020. https://calgreenenergyservices.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2018_Title_24_2019_ Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
CEC. 2018b. “2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards – Frequently Asked Questions.” March 2018. Accessed May 2019. https://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_ Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf.
CEC. 2018c. California Energy Demand 2018-2030 Revised Forecast. April 19. Accessed January 2021. https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/getdocument.aspx?tn=223244.
CEC. 2019. “Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Statistics.” Accessed May 12, 2020. https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/.
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
City of Carpinteria. 2016. Energy Action Plan. August. Accessed December 2020. http://www.sceep.org/ wp-content/uploads/2016/11/EAP-Carpinteria_2106.pdf.
County of Santa Barbara. 2015a. Energy Element. June. Accessed December 2020. https://cosantabarbara.app.box.com/s/mihghnn9kxxv7v60gtopyjeng1o998gc.
County of Santa Barbara. 2015b. Energy and Climate Action Plan. May. Accessed December 2020. https://www.countyofsb.org/csd/asset.c/173.
CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission). 2016. Biennial RPS Program Update. January 1, 2016. Accessed June 10, 2020. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=8323. 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-25
CPUC. 2018. 2018 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Annual Report. November 2018. Accessed February 18, 2019. http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUC_Public_Website/Content/ Utilities_and_Industries/Energy_-_Electricity_and_Natural_Gas/Renewables%20Portfolio%20Standard% 20Annual%20Report%202018.pdf.
EIA. 2018. Consumption and Expenditures. Accessed January 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/ data.php?sid=CA#ConsumptionExpenditures.
EIA. 2019a. California Electricity Profile 2019. Accessed January 2021. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/ state/california/index.php.
EIA. 2019b. California Natural Gas Consumption by End Use. Accessed January 2021. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ ng/ng_cons_sum_dcu_SCA_a.htm.
EIA. 2019c. Table CT7. Transportation Sector Energy Consumption Estimates, 1960-2018, California. Accessed January 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/data.php?incfile=/state/seds/sep_use/ tra/use_tra_CA.html&sid=CA.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. “Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS).” Last updated December 10, 2013. Accessed May 8, 2020. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels.
SCE. 2019. 2018 Power Content Label. July. Accessed January 2021. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/ files/2020-01/2018_PCL_Southern_California_Edison.pdf.
The Climate Registry. 2020. “2020 Default Emission Factors.” April 2020. Accessed December 2020. https://www.theclimateregistry.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/The-Climate-Registry-2020-DefaultEmission-Factor-Document.pdf.
Section 4.3 Mineral Resources
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
County of Santa Barbara. 2010. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan – Conservation Element. August 2010.http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/programs/genplanreformat/PDFdocs/Conservation.pdf.
County of Santa Barbara 2019. Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan – Coastal Land Use Plan. June 2019.
DOC (California Department of Conservation). 1989. Mineral Land Classification Map: Aggregate Resources and Active Mines of all Other Mineral Commodities. San Luis Obispo – Santa Barbara, P-C Region. Carpinteria Quadrangle. Plate 40.
DOGGR (California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources). 2021. Well Finder Web-Site. Accessed January 2021. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#/ 119.47953/34.37883/16.
8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-26
Section 4.4 Population and Housing
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
City of Carpinteria. 2014. City of Carpinteria General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan 2015-2023 Housing Element. November 2014. https://carpinteria.ca.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/ Housing-Element-2015-2023.pdf. Accessed September 22, 2020.
City of Carpinteria. 2016. City of City of Carpinteria Zoning Districts. October 20, 2016. Accessed October 20, 2020. http://www.ci.carpinteria.ca.us/PDFs/cd_zoning%20map.pdf.
County of Santa Barbara. 2020. Santa Barbara County Land Use and Zoning Map. Accessed October 20, 2020. https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=fa3545a29dac49aeacc81669b956e3e5& extent=-120.9142,34.093,-118.9408,35.4355.
SBCAG (Santa Barbara County Association of Governments). 2019. Regional Growth Forecast 2050 Santa Barbara County. January 2019. Accessed September 22, 2020. http://www.sbcag.org/uploads/2/4/ 5/4/24540302/regional_growth_forecast_2050.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. 2020. City and Town Population Totals: 2010-2019. Accessed October 20, 2002. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-total-cities-and-towns.html.
Section 4.5 Public Services
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
County of Santa Barbara. 2013. Santa Barbara Operation Area Emergency Management Plan. Available:
https://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/ceo/OEM/Docs/OEM_EMP_Final-2013.pdf.
County of Santa Barbara. 2019. Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan CUSD (Carpinteria Unified School District). 2019. Schools. https://www.cusd.net/our-schools CSFPD (Carpinteria – Summerland Fire Protection District). 2019. “Stations.” http://carpfire.com/stations Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department. 2019. “Stations.” http://www.sbsheriff.org/ Section 4.6 Wildfire
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2019. 2019 Strategic Fire Plan for California.
January 2019. http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/pub/fireplan/fpupload/fpppdf1614.pdf 8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-27
California Public Resources Code, Division 4, Part 3, Chapter 2. Accessed October 2020. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=4290.&lawCode=PRC California Public Resources Code, Title 5, Division 1, Part 1, Chapter 6.8. Accessed October 2020. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ionNum= 51175#:~:text=The%20Legislature%20hereby%20finds%20and,peace%2C%20health%2C%20or%20safety.
City of Carpinteria. 2003. General Plan/Local Coastal Land Use Plan & Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse No. 1997121111. April 2003. Accessed December 2020. https://carpinteriaca.gov/ wp-content/uploads/2020/03/cd_General-Plan.pdf.
County of Santa Barbara 2013. Emergency Management Plan. Accessed October 2020. https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=39294.
County of Santa Barbara 2017. 2017 Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed October 2020. http://www.countyofsb.org/ceo/asset.c/3416 County of Santa Barbara. 2019. Santa Barbara County Local Coastal Land Use Plan.
USFS, BLM, BIA, USFWS, and NPS (U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service). 2009. Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy. February 13, 2009. Accessed September 2020. https://www.doi.gov/ sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/2009-wfm-guidance-for-implementation.pdf.
USFS. 2019. National Fire Plan. Accessed February 2019. https://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/ overview/index.shtml.
USFS. 2021. “Environmental Analysis Requirements for HFI and HFRA Projects.” Accessed October 2020. https://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/field-guide/web/page03.php.
Chapter 5 Other CEQA Considerations
There are no references cited in this chapter.
Chapter 6 Alternatives
There are no references cited in this chapter.
Chapter 7 List of Preparers
There are no references cited in this chapter.
8 – References
Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project Environmental Impact Report 11032 March 2021 8-28
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment C
Exhibit 3: Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) Appendices
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022
Appendix A
NOP and Comment Letters
1LFN%REURII
)URP
:LOO\'\GR ZLOO\G\GR#KRWPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
5LQFRQ%LNH3DWK
ΎΎ
yd
ZE>
D/>ΎΎ
hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂ͘KEKdKW EĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŽƌ>/<ŽŶůŝŶŬƐƵŶůĞƐƐ
LJŽƵĂƌĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƐĂĨĞ͘ZĞŵĞŵďĞƌ͕ƌĞƉƵƚĂďůĞǀĞŶĚŽƌƐ͕ďĂŶŬƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ǁŝůůŶŽƚĂƐŬLJŽƵƚŽĚŝƐĐůŽƐĞƉĂƐƐǁŽƌĚƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ ƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘
,ŝEŝĐŬ͕
/ĂŵǁƌŝƚŝŶŐ/ŶƌĞŐĂƌĚƐƚŽƚŚĞƉůĂŶŶĞĚďŝŬĞƉĂƚŚŶĞĂƌĂƚĞƐďĞĂĐŚͬZŝŶĐŽŶ͘dŚŝƐƐŝƚĞĨŽƌWĂƌĂŐůŝĚŝŶŐĂŶĚ,ĂŶŐ'ůŝĚŝŶŐŝƐ ƚŚĞŽŶůLJĐŽĂƐƚĂůƐŽĂƌŝŶŐƐŝƚĞŝŶĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂĂŶĚƚŚĞďĞƐƚůŽĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚƐŽĂƌŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐďĞƚǁĞĞŶ^ĂŶŝĞŐŽ ĂŶĚ^ĂŶ&ƌĂŶĐŝƐĐŽ͘dŚŝƐůŝĨĨƐŝƚĞŝƐĐŚĞƌŝƐŚĞĚďLJƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚƐ͕ƚŽƵƌŝƐƚƐ͕ĂŶĚƉŝůŽƚƐĂůŝŬĞ͘/ƚĚĞƐĞƌǀĞƐƚŽďĞƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚ͘ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͕
tŝůůLJLJĚŽ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
DQGUHZFUDLJ#FR[QHW
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
$0
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
6DYH%$7(65,1&21SDUDJOLGLQJODXQFK
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
EŝĐŬ͕
/ĂŵŚŽƌƌŝĨŝĞĚƚŽŚĞĂƌƚŚĂƚƚŚĞĂƚĞƐͬZŝŶĐŽŶƉĂƌĂŐůŝĚŝŶŐůĂƵŶĐŚŝƐŝŶũĞŽƉĂƌĚLJ͘ /ƚƌĂǀĞůƚŽĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂĂƚůĞĂƐƚŽŶĐĞĞĂĐŚLJĞĂƌƚŽĨůLJƚŚŝƐŝŶĐƌĞĚŝďůLJƌĂƌĞƐŝƚĞ͘/ŽĨƚĞŶƐƚĂLJŝŶĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂĨŽƌƵƉƚŽϭϬ ĚĂLJƐĂƚĂƚŝŵĞƚŽŐĞƚŵLJĂŶŶƵĂů͞ƉĂƌĂŐůŝĚŝŶŐĨŝdž͘͟/͛ǀĞďĞĞŶĚŽŝŶŐƚŚŝƐĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĂƐƚϮϬLJĞĂƌƐ͘ /ŚĂǀĞƌĞǀŝĞǁĞĚƚŚĞƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƐĨŽƌĂďŝŬĞͬǁĂůŬŝŶŐƚƌĂŝůĂŶĚƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJƵƌŐĞLJŽƵƚŽĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌůŽĐĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞƉĂƚŚĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞ ŚŝŐŚǁĂLJ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐƉůĞŶƚLJŽĨŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJĨŽƌǁĂůŬĞƌƐͬďŝŬĞƌƐƚŽĞdžƉĞƌŝĞŶĐĞƚŚĞďĞĂƵƚLJŽĨƚŚĞŽĐĞĂŶǀŝĞǁ͕ĞǀĞŶ ǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐŚĂůĨͲŵŝůĞ͞ĚĞƚŽƵƌ͘͟
/ĨƚŚŝƐƐŝƚĞŝƐƌƵŝŶĞĚďLJƚŚŝƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƉĂƚŚ͕/ǁŝůůƐŝŵƉůLJĚƌŝǀĞƚŚƌŽƵŐŚĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂĂŶĚŵĂŬĞŵLJǁĂLJƚŽ ^ĞĂƐŝĚĞͬDŽŶƚĞƌĞLJƚŽĨůLJƚŚĞƌĞ͕ƐƉĞŶĚŝŶŐŵLJƌŽƵŐŚůLJΨϮϱϬϬǀĂĐĂƚŝŽŶŵŽŶĞLJĞůƐĞǁŚĞƌĞ͘ ^ƵĐŚƐŝƚĞƐĂƌĞƌĂƌĞĂŶĚŽŶĐĞĚĞƐƚƌŽLJĞĚ͕ƚŚĞLJĐĂŶŶĞǀĞƌďĞďƌŽƵŐŚƚďĂĐŬ͘WůĞĂƐĞƚŚŝŶŬůŽŶŐͲƚĞƌŵ͕ĨƌŽŵďŽƚŚĂŶ ŽƵƚĚŽŽƌƐŵĂŶ͛ƐƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞĂŶĚĂŶĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƉĞƌƐƉĞĐƚŝǀĞ͘ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͘
ŶĚƌĞǁƌĂŝŐ͕&ƌĞĚĞƌŝĐŬƐďƵƌŐsϱϰϬͲϮϰϰͲϬϳϰϰ
x
x
x :KDW%DWHVPHDQVWR\RXDQGZK\WKHULGJHVKRXOGEHSUHVHUYHG x :K\WKH(,5QHHGVWRDVVHVVLPSDFWVWRZLQGDQGUHFUHDWLRQ x :K\WKH&LW\VKRXOGFRQVLGHUDOWHUQDW Put the proposed trail along the highway and save money while preserving our precious paragliding site.I travel there at least once a year to paraglide and spend a lot of money in Carpinteria.If the site is gone, so am I.Andrew Craig, VirginiaBATES RINCON BIKE PATH, 11/17/2020
x LYHVOLNHWKH1RUWKVLGHRI%DWHV
1LFN%REURII
)URP
$QJHOD)LQGOH\ DQJHODILQGOH\
#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
5LQFRQ%LNH3DWK
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
+H\1LFN
-XVWHPDLOLQJWRUHLWHUDWHZK\,GRQ¶WVXSSRUWWKHSURSRVHGQHZELNHSDWKDW5LQFRQ ,W
VJRLQJWRUXLQIO\LQJDWDKLVWRULFDOIUHTXHQWO\XVHGZHOOORYHGIUHHIOLJKWORFDWLRQ ,W¶VJRLQJWRIHHGF\FOLVWVLQWRDVXSHUXQVDIHSDUNLQJORWZLWKDVWHHSJUDGHDWWKHHQG ,WZRXOGEHZD\PRUHDIIRUGDEOHDQGKDYHOHVVRIDQHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWLIWKHSDWKZDVMXVWEXLOWDORQJWKH KLJKZD\
7KDQNV
$QJHOD
1LFN%REURII
)URP
$QGUHZ/DEHG] UHDOWLPHGLJLPRE#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
%DWHVSDUDJOLGLQJ
ΎΎ
yd
ZE>
D/>ΎΎ
hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂ͘KEKdKW EĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŽƌ>/<ŽŶůŝŶŬƐƵŶůĞƐƐ
LJŽƵĂƌĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƐĂĨĞ͘ZĞŵĞŵďĞƌ͕ƌĞƉƵƚĂďůĞǀĞŶĚŽƌƐ͕ďĂŶŬƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ǁŝůůŶŽƚĂƐŬLJŽƵƚŽĚŝƐĐůŽƐĞƉĂƐƐǁŽƌĚƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ ƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘
EŝĐŬŽďƌŽĨĨ͕
,/EŝĐŬ͕/͛ŵĂǀŝƐŝƚŝŶŐƉŝůŽƚƚŚĂƚƉƵƌƉŽƐĞůLJĐĂŵĞƚŽƚŚĞ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂĂƌĞĂƚŽĨůLJƉĂƌĂŐůŝĚĞƌƐ͘/ŶĚŽŝŶŐƐŽ/ĨŽƵŶĚĂŶ ĂǁĞƐŽŵĞůŝƚƚůĞƚŽǁŶĐĂůůĞĚĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂ͘,ĂƐŝƚŶŽƚďĞĞŶĨŽƌĨůLJŝŶŐ/ǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞŶĞǀĞƌƐƚƵŵďůĞĚƵƉŽŶŝƚ͘>ŽŶŐƐƚŽƌLJƐŚŽƌƚ͕ ƉůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƌĞǀĂŵƉŝŶŐƚŚĞďŝŬĞƉĂƚŚƉůĂŶƐ͘
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͕
ŶĚƌĞǁĨƌŽŵKŚ/Ž
^ĞŶƚĨƌŽŵŵLJŝWŚŽŶĞ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
$DURQ/D3ODQWH DDURQ#FXVGQHW!
6HQW
6XQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
5H
):
1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ
123
IRU&DUSLQWHULD5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLO(QYLURQPHQWDO
,PSDFW5HSRUW
(,5
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
:KHQDUH\RXJRLQJWRWDNHDSDUDJOLGLQJOHVVRQ1LFN"$OOWKLVSDSHUSXVKLQJVWXIIKDVWREHPDNLQJ\RX LQVDQH/HW
VJRIO\
$DURQ
2Q)UL2FWDW
$01LFN%REURII QLFNE#FLFDUSLQWHULDFDXV!ZURWH
7KH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULDKDVUHOHDVHGD1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ 123
IRUDQ(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW
(,5
IRUWKH5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLOSURMHFW
7KH&LW\LVVROLFLWLQJFRPPHQWVIURPWKHSXEOLFFRQFHUQLQJWKHFRQWHQWVDQGDQDO\VLVWREHFRQVLGHUHGLQWKH (,5IRUWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFW7KHVFRSLQJFRPPHQWSHULRGZLOOUXQIURP2FWREHUWR1RYHPEHU DW
SP$YLUWXDOSXEOLFVFRSLQJPHHWLQJZLOOEHKHOGRQOLQHRQ7XHVGD\1RYHPEHUWKDW SP
YLD=RRP:HELQDU,QIRUPDWLRQRQKRZWRDWWHQGWKHYLUWXDOVFRSLQJPHHWLQJLVLQFOXGHGLQWKH123
7KH1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQDQGGHWDLOHGSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQDUHDYDLODEOHRQWKH&LW\¶V5LQFRQ7UDLOSURMHFW ZHESDJHDW
KWWSV
FDUSLQWHULDFDXVSXEOLFZRUNVHQJLQHHULQJGLYLVLRQULQFRQPXOWLXVHWUDLO $FRS\RIWKH123DQGSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQLVDOVRDWWDFKHGWRWKLVHPDLO
6KRXOG\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVDERXWWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWRUWKLV123SOHDVHIHHOIUHHWRFRQWDFWPH 7KDQN\RX
1LFN%REURII3ULQFLSDO3ODQQHU
&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW
1LFN%REURII
)URP
$DURQ/D3ODQWH DDURQ#FXVGQHW!
6HQW
)ULGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
5LQFRQ7UDLO
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
+L1LFNKRSH\RXUOHLVXUHOLIHLVPRUHSOHDVDQWWKDQGHDOLQJZLWKWKLVEDWWOH 7KH(,5VDOHVSLWFKE\GHVLJQSDLQWVDSUHWW\SLFWXUHEXWOHDYHVRXWWKHIDFWWKDWSDUDJOLGLQJDQGKDQJJOLGLQJ ZLOOEHORVWZLWKWKLVSURMHFWDWWKLVVLWH
3OHDVHNHHSLQPLQGWKDWSDUDJOLGHUVDQGKDQJJOLGHUVDUHDVDQFWLRQHGDLUFUDIWDQGDFWLYLW\E\WKH)HGHUDO $YLDWLRQ$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ
)$$
:HDUHEUHDNLQJQRUXOHVE\IO\LQJLQWKLVDLUVSDFH7KHUHDUHQR)$$ UHJXODWLRQVDERXWIO\LQJQHDUWUDLQVUDLOURDGWUDFNVELF\FOHVIUHHZD\VRUWUDQVSRUWDWLRQFRUULGRUV(YHQWKH 5LQFRQ3DUNUXOHRIQRODQGLQJLQWKHSDUNZRXOGQRWKROGXSLQDFRXUWRIODZDVZHDUHOHJDOO\DOORZHGWRODQG WKHUHDFFRUGLQJWRWKH)$$UXOHV
,WGRHVQRWPDWWHULIZHODXQFKIURPODFXPEUHSHDNWKHEHDFKWKHEOXIILQWKHSDUNWKHSULYDWHO\RZQHGEOXII RIIWKHWRSRIP\IULHQGVEXLOGLQJULQFRQPRXQWDLQHWFWKDWLWLVOHJDOWRIO\LQWKDWDLUVSDFHDQGRQO\WKH )$$FDQGHFLGHRWKHUZLVH
:HORRNIRUZDUGWRDFRPSOHWHLPSDFWUHSRUW7KDQNVIRUFRQVLGHULQJDOWHUQDWLYHV&DOOLI\RXZDQWWRFKDW $DURQ/D3ODQWH
1LFN%REURII
)URP
$QGUHZ4XLQH GUHZVNL#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
$0
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
3DUDJOLGLQJDW%DWHV
ΎΎ
yd
ZE>
D/>ΎΎ
hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂ͘KEKdKW EĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŽƌ>/<ŽŶůŝŶŬƐƵŶůĞƐƐ
LJŽƵĂƌĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƐĂĨĞ͘ZĞŵĞŵďĞƌ͕ƌĞƉƵƚĂďůĞǀĞŶĚŽƌƐ͕ďĂŶŬƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ǁŝůůŶŽƚĂƐŬLJŽƵƚŽĚŝƐĐůŽƐĞƉĂƐƐǁŽƌĚƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ ƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘
,ŝEŝĐŬ͕
ŝŬŝŶŐŝƐũƵƐƚĂƐŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŽŵĞĂŶĚŵĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌƐĂƐƉĂƌĂŐůŝĚŝŶŐ͘dŚĞŚĂƐďĞĞŶĂĨƌĞĞƐŽĂƌŝŶŐƐŝƚĞĨŽƌĂůŽŶŐƚŝŵĞ͘tĞĂƐ ĂĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJĂƌĞĂƐŬŝŶŐŶŽƚƚŚĂƚLJŽƵƐƚŽƉƚŚĞďŝŬĞƚƌĂŝůďƵƚƚŚĂƚLJŽƵĨŝŶĚĂǁĂLJƚŽŬĞĞƉƚŚĞĨůLJŝŶŐƐŝƚĞĂŶĚĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚƚŚĞ ďŝŬĞƉĂƚŚ͘dŚĞƌĞŝƐĂǁĂLJ͕ďƵƚŽŶĐĞƚŚĞĨůLJŝŶŐƐŝƚĞŝƐĚĞƐƚƌŽLJĞĚŝƚǁŝůůŶĞǀĞƌďĞƚŚĞƐĂŵĞ͘ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌƚŝŵĞĂŶĚĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͕
ƌĞǁYƵŝŶĞ
^ĞŶƚĨƌŽŵŵLJŝWŚŽŶĞ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
%LOO)RVGLFN IRVGLFN#PFQRUJ!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
%DWHV
ΎΎ
yd
ZE>
D/>ΎΎ
hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂ͘KEKdKW EĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŽƌ>/<ŽŶůŝŶŬƐƵŶůĞƐƐ
LJŽƵĂƌĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƐĂĨĞ͘ZĞŵĞŵďĞƌ͕ƌĞƉƵƚĂďůĞǀĞŶĚŽƌƐ͕ďĂŶŬƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ǁŝůůŶŽƚĂƐŬLJŽƵƚŽĚŝƐĐůŽƐĞƉĂƐƐǁŽƌĚƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ ƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘
,ĞůůŽ͕
/ŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĚƌŝǀŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂĂƌĞĂĨŽƌƉĂƌĂŐůŝĚŝŶŐĨŽƌĂƚůĞĂƐƚƚǁŽǁĞĞŬƐĂLJĞĂƌĨŽƌƚŚĞƉĂƐƚϭϬLJĞĂƌƐ͘/ƐƚĂLJĂƚ ƚŚĞŚŽƚĞůƐĂŶĚĞĂƚĂƚƚŚĞƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚƐ͘/ůŽǀĞĨůLJŝŶŐƚŚĞĂƌĞĂĂŶĚƚŚĞĂƚĞƐƐŽĂƌŝŶŐƐŝƚĞŝƐŽŶĞŽĨŵLJĨĂǀŽƌŝƚĞƐ͘dŚĞǁŝŶĚ ŚŝƚƐƚŚĞŚŝůůƐŝĚĞĂŶĚŵĂŬĞƐĂƉĞƌĨĞĐƚĨůLJŝŶŐƐŝƚĞ͙͘ƚĂŬŝŶŐĂĚǀĂŶƚĂŐĞŽĨĨƌĞƋƵĞŶƚǁŝŶĚĚŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶƐ͙ŵĂŬŝŶŐŝƚĂƉĞƌĨĞĐƚ ĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞǁŚĞŶŽƚŚĞƌƐŝƚĞƐĂƌĞŶŽƚĨůLJĂďůĞ͘
&ůLJŝŶŐŝƐĂůŽƚůŝŬĞƐƵƌĨŝŶŐ͙͘LJŽƵŶĞĞĚǀĞƌLJƐƉĞĐŝĂůƚĞƌƌĂŝŶĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐƚŽŵĂŬĞŝƚǁŽƌŬ͙͘ĂŶĚĂƚĞƐǁŽƌŬƐ͘ /ĂůƐŽƌŝĚĞĂďŝĐLJĐůĞĂůŽƚ͘/ůŽǀĞƌŝĚŝŶŐ͘,ŽǁĞǀĞƌƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƚŚŽƵƐĂŶĚƐŽĨŵŝůĞƐŽĨŐƌĞĂƚĐLJĐůŝŶŐƌŽƵƚĞƐĂŶĚŽŶůLJĂƐĞůĞĐƚĨĞǁ ĨůLJŝŶŐƐŝƚĞƐ͘
tŚLJĚĞƐƚƌŽLJĂǀĞƌLJƐƉĞĐŝĂůƐŝƚĞŝŶŽƌĚĞƌƚŽŵĂŬĞĂƉĂƚŚĨŽƌďŝĐLJĐůĞƐ͍ĂŶ͛ƚǁĞďĞĐƌĞĂƚŝǀĞĂŶĚĚĞƐŝŐŶƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚ ǁŽƌŬƐĨŽƌďŽƚŚ͍
/͛ŵƚƌƵůLJƐƵƌƉƌŝƐĞĚĂƚĂďŝĐLJĐůŝƐƚǁĂŶƚŝŶŐƚŽĚĞƐƚƌŽLJĂĨůLJŝŶŐƐŝƚĞ͘ /͛ŵǁŽŶĚĞƌŝŶŐŝĨƚŚĞƌĞŝƐƐŽŵĞŽŶĞĞůƐĞ͙͘ƐŽŵĞŽŶĞǁŚŽƐƚĂŶĚƐƚŽŵĂŬĞĂůŽƚŽĨŵŽŶĞLJŵŽǀŝŶŐĚŝƌƚĂƌŽƵŶĚǁŚŽŝƐ ƉƵƐŚŝŶŐƚŚŝƐ͙͘ŝƚĐĂŶ͛ƚďĞĐŽŵŝŶŐĨƌŽŵĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐ͘
WůĞĂƐĞĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌƐŽŵĞĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƚŽĚĞƐƚƌŽLJŝŶŐĂƚĞƐĨŽƌĨůLJŝŶŐ͘ dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌůŝƐƚĞŶŝŶŐ͘
tŝůůŝĂŵ&ŽƐĚŝĐŬ
ϳϬϳϳϰϮϵϮϵϲ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
%HFN\+LJEHH EHFN\KLJEHH#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
:HGQHVGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
%DWHVELNHSDWK
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
*RRGDIWHUQRRQ
7KHULGJHDERYH5LQFRQ%HDFKLVDZRUOGFODVVVKRUWULGJHIOLJKWIRUSDUDJOLGHUV7KHFXUUHQWELNHSDWKSODQ ZRXOGGHVWUR\WKHODXQFKDUHDPDNLQJIOLJKWVWKHUHQRORQJHUSRVVLEOH0\VSRXVHDQG,WUDYHOHGIURP&RORUDGR WREHDEOHWRIO\%DWHVDQGRWKHUVLWHVLQWKHUHJLRQ,KXPEO\UHTXHVWWKDW\RXWDNHWKHLQWHUHVWVRISDUDJOLGHUV LQWRFRQVLGHUDWLRQZLWKWKHVHSODQV,WZRXOGEHKHDUWEUHDNLQJWRKHDU%DWHVZDVGHVWUR\HG 7KDQN\RX
%HFN\+LJEHH
November 23, 2020
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Ave.
Carpinteria, Ca. 93013
Attn: Nick Bobroff
Re: Focused EIR for the Rincon Trail project
My name is Brian Nash and I reside at 6508 Camino Carreta. I am writing to you today with the purpose of giving my support to the Rincon trail project. As a 40-year resident of the city I have participated in numerous local projects including the community pool, Bluffs 1&3 and the proposed skate park. I believe that this project of connecting the city with the Rincon park via this bike path will be accretive to the residents and to the visitors of the area.
The current situation with bicycle riders using the highway or Bates road is simply dangerous. I drive to Rincon park daily via Bates road and observe the riders using good manners but the lack of shoulder gives them and motorists little room for error.
The opponents to this project are primarily from the Paraglider community. They use the parcel owned by King Ventures as their launching point. They apparently feel that their interests outweigh the interests of the rest of the community. I understand that they believe that this project will have detrimental effects on their ability to sail. The current geography that enables them to get the lift they require is not natural but rather man made from the time the original railroad line was bluff side. Since that time the railroad was moved, the current highway built and the old highway abandoned.
I want to be clear that I have no vendetta against the gliding community, however I do have issues with the logic that they are using. They are using private property to launch from and when the owner comes up with a plan to develop this parcel they will be forced to launch from an alternative site. They claim that this geography is natural and it clearly is not. They are looking at this project from their lens as it pertains to now and not looking forward to the future.
The legacy projects that have been accomplished in this community are amazing and this project of connecting the city to the Rincon park would be icing on the cake.
Respectfully submitted,
Brian Nash
1LFN%REURII
)URP
&DUO\9%DUKDP %DUKDP&#VEFDSFGRUJ!
6HQW
7KXUVGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
&DUS5LQFRQ7UDLO3URMHFW4XHVWLRQ
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
,ŝEŝĐŬ͕
tĞĂƌĞŝŶƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐŽĨƉƌĞƉĂƌŝŶŐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŽŶƚŚĞEKWŽĨĂŶ /ZĨŽƌƚŚĞĂƌƉZŝŶĐŽŶDƵůƚŝͲhƐĞdƌĂŝůWƌŽũĞĐƚ͘/ǁĂƐ
ŚŽƉŝŶŐƚŽŐĞƚĂůŝƚƚůĞŵŽƌĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŽŶƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĞƋƵŝƉŵĞŶƚĂŶĚĚƵƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨŝƚƐƵƐĞƐŽƚŚĂƚǁĞĐĂŶĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞ ƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƌĞŐƵůĂƚŽƌLJƌĞƋƵŝƌĞŵĞŶƚƐĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘
/ƐŝƚƉŽƐƐŝďůĞƚŽĨŝŶĚŽƵƚƚŚĞĂŶƚŝĐŝƉĂƚĞĚƚŝŵĞůŝŶĞĨŽƌƚŚĞďƌŝĚŐĞĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶͬŝŶƐƚĂůůĂƚŝŽŶƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͍dŚĞƚŽƚĂů ƉƌŽũĞĐƚĚƵƌĂƚŝŽŶŝƐƚǁŽLJĞĂƌƐ͕ďƵƚƵŶĐůĞĂƌŚŽǁůŽŶŐƚŚĞďƌŝĚŐĞƉŽƌƚŝŽŶŵĂLJƚĂŬĞ͘/ĂƐŬďĞĐĂƵƐĞ/͛ĚůŝŬĞƚŽĚĞƚĞƌŵŝŶĞŚŽǁ ůŽŶŐƚŚĞƚǁŽĐƌĂŶĞƐĐŽƵůĚďĞƵƐĞĚͬůŽĐĂƚĞĚŽŶƐŝƚĞĨŽƌƚŚŝƐƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘ ůƐŽ͕ŝĨŝƚ͛ƐƉŽƐƐŝďůĞƚŽŐĞƚŵŽƌĞĚĞƚĂŝůŽŶƚŚĞĐƌĂŶĞƐƚŚĂƚŵŝŐŚƚďĞƵƐĞĚ͕ƚŚĂƚǁŽƵůĚďĞŚĞůƉĨƵů͕ďƵƚ/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚŝĨƚŚŽƐĞ ƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐƐŵĂLJŶŽƚďĞŶĂŝůĞĚĚŽǁŶLJĞƚ͘
dŚĂŶŬƐ͕
ĂƌůLJ
7RKHOSSURWHFW\RXUSULYDF\ 0LFURVRIW2 IILFHSUHYHQWHGDXWRPDWLFGRZQORDGRIWKLVSLFWXUHIURPWKH,QWHUQHW &DUO\%DUKDP 3ODQQLQJ'LYLVLRQ
$LU3ROOXWLRQ&RQWURO'LVWULFW
6DQWD%DUEDUD&RXQW\
%DUKDP&#VEFDSFGRUJ
Available Tues, Thurs, Fri
RXUDLURUJ #2XU$LU6%&
6LJQ8SIRU$LU$OHUWV
1LFN%REURII
)URP
&KULV&ORQW] FKULVJRJOLGH#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
5LQFRQWUDLOFRQFHUQV
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
7R&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW ,KDYHEHHQD6DQWD%DUEDUDUHVLGHQWIRUWKHSDVW\HDUVDVZHOODVWKHVROHSURSULHWRURIP\RZQEXVLQHVV DQGDFDUHHUVWDIIPHPEHURIWKH8&6DQWD%DUEDUD'HSDUWPHQWRI5HFUHDWLRQ,DPDOVRDQRXWGRRUUHFUHDWLRQ HQWKXVLDVWZKRIUHTXHQWVWKHPDQ\KLNLQJWUDLOVDQGELNHSDWKVRI6RXWK6DQWD%DUEDUD&RXQW\DQG9HQWXUD &RXQW\<RXPD\UHPHPEHUPHIURPP\RULJLQDOPHVVDJHWR\RXEDFNLQ'HFHPEHURI UHJDUGLQJP\
FRQFHUQVDERXWWKHSURSRVHG5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLOSURMHFW )LUVWDQGIRUHPRVWDOWKRXJK,VWURQJO\DJUHHWKDWDPXOWLXVHWUDLOVKRXOGEHFRQVWUXFWHGWRSURYLGHDVDIH HFRQRPLFDODQGHDVLO\PDLQWDLQDEOHSDWKIRUF\FOLVWVDQGSHGHVWULDQV,VWURQJO\GLVDJUHHZLWKWKHFXUUHQWO\ SURSRVHGSODQE\WKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW,EHOLHYHWKDWWKHFXUUHQWO\SURSRVHGSODQ DLPOHVVO\IRFXVHVPRUHRQDHVWKHWLFVWKDQSUDFWLFDOLW\ZKLFKLVDGHWULPHQWWRWKHODQGSURSRVHGWREHXVHGIRU WKHSURMHFW
VFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGIXUWKHUPRUHJHQHUDWHVZDVWHIXOVSHQGLQJRIILQDQFLDOUHVRXUFHVERWKQRZDQG ZHOOLQWRWKHIXWXUH3OHDVHYLHZP\VSHFLILFSRLQWVRIFRQFHUQDVIROORZV
x 8QVWDEOHVHDVLGHVORSHSURSRVHGDVDVLWHIRUWKHSDWK 6FLHQFHKDVSURYHQWKDWVHDOHYHOVDUHULVLQJ
VWRUPDFWLYLW\KDVLQFUHDVHGDQGERWKDUHFRQWULEXWLQJWRWKHHURVLRQRIFRDVWDOVHDZDOOVEHDFKHVDQG FOLIIV,EHOLHYHLWPDNHVQHLWKHUSUDFWLFDOQRUHFRQRPLFDOVHQVHWRVSHQGWKHWLPHDQGILQDQFLDO UHVRXUFHVEXLOGLQJDQGPDLQWDLQLQJDPXOWLXVHWUDLOQH[WWRWKHVHDWKDWZLOODOPRVWFHUWDLQO\EHHURGHG EH\RQGUHSDLUZLWKLQWKHQH[WGHFDGHRUWZR$PRUHFRVWHIILFLHQWUHOLDEOHPXOWLXVHSDWKZRXOGEHVWEH URXWHGPRUHLQODQGDORQJWKHKLJKZD\DQGDZD\IURPWKHVHD x 8QVDIHURXWLQJRISDWKWKURXJKYHKLFOHSDUNLQJORW
,EHOLHYHLWLVWKH&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW
'HSDUWPHQW
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
$JDLQ,VWURQJO\DJUHHWKDWDPXOWLXVHWUDLOVKRXOGEHFRQVWUXFWHGEXW,VWURQJO\GLVDJUHHZLWKWKHFXUUHQWSODQ ,LPSORUH\RXWRSOHDVHOLVWHQWR\RXUORFDOFRPPXQLW\DQGZRUNZLWKHYHU\RQHWRGHYHORSDVDIHUORQJHU ODVWLQJDQGPRUHFRVWHIIHFWLYHSURGXFWWKDWDGGUHVVHVDOOFRQFHUQV,QGRLQJVR,EHOLHYHWKDWWKHUHYLVHG ILQLVKHGSURGXFWZLOOEHWKHVXEMHFWRIHIILFLHQF\DSSUHFLDWLRQDQGFRPUDGHU\IRUWKHSHRSOHRI&DUSLQWHULDIRU PDQ\JHQHUDWLRQVWRFRPH
Chris Clontz
Owner/Proprietor,
Isla Vista Adventure Services
Santa Barbara, CA USA
1LFN%REURII
)URP
&DOHE3KLOOLSV FSKLOOLSV#VPDOOZKLWHFXEHFRP!
6HQW
:HGQHVGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
6DYH%DWHV3DUDJOLGLQJ
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
+L1LFN
,OLYHLQ&RORUDGREXWYLVLW6DQWD%DUEDUDWRSDUDJOLGH,W VZKHUH,OHDUQHGDQGLVRQHRIWKHEHVWSODFHVIRUWKH VSRUWLQWKHFRXQWU\7KH%DWHVEHDFKULGJHLVDZRUOGFODVVORFDWLRQIRUULGJHVRDULQJ$ELNHSDWKLVDJUHDW DGGLWLRQWRWKHDUHDDQGZRXOGEHHQMR\HGE\PDQ\EXWWKHUHFHUWDLQO\PXVWEHDZD\WRDGGDELNHSDWKDQG VDYHWKLVUHQRZQHGIUHHIO\LQJVLWH"$SSUHFLDWH\RXUFRQVLGHUDWLRQDQGWKDQNVIRUUHFLHYLQJLQSXWIURPWKH FRPPXQLW\
&KHHUV
&DOHE3KLOOLSV
1LFN%REURII
)URP
5LVWLJ&LDUD FULVWLJ#FRVDQWDEDUEDUDFDXV!
6HQW
:HGQHVGD\1RYHPEHU
$0
7R
1LFN%REURII
&F
+DUULV7HVV
6XEMHFW
5LQFRQ7UDLO6LWH9LVLW
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
,ŝEŝĐŬ͕
tŽƵůĚŝƚƉŽƐƐŝďůĞĨŽƌdĞƐƐĂŶĚ/ƚŽĐŽŵĞĚŽǁŶĨŽƌĂƐŝƚĞǀŝƐŝƚƐŽŵĞƚŝŵĞƐŽŽŶ͍tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚǁĂŶƚƚŽƚĂŬĞƵƉƚŽŽŵƵĐŚŽĨ LJŽƵƌƚŝŵĞ͕ďƵƚŝƚǁŽƵůĚŐƌĞĂƚŝĨLJŽƵĐŽƵůĚƐŚŽǁƵƐƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝƚĞĂŶĚŚĞůƉƵƐŐĞƚŽƵƌďĞĂƌŝŶŐƐ͘ tĞ͛ƌĞĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞƚŚŝƐ&ƌŝĚĂLJƚŚĞϲƚŚŝŶƚŚĞĂĨƚĞƌŶŽŽŶŽƌƚŚĞϭϯƚŚ͘ dŚĞϵƚŚŽƌϭϲƚŚĂƌĞĂůƐŽŽƉƚŝŽŶƐ͘
dŚĂŶŬƐŝŶĂĚǀĂŶĐĞ͊
dŚĂŶŬƐ͕
ŝĂƌĂ
&LDUD5LVWLJ
3ODQQHU
3ODQQLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW
'HYHORSPHQW5HYLHZ
($QDSDPX6W
6DQWD%DUEDUD&$
FULVWLJ#FRXQW\RIVERUJ
ŚƚƚƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ĐŽƵŶƚLJŽĨƐď͘ŽƌŐͬƉůŶĚĞǀͬŚŽŵĞ͘ƐďĐ
/ŶůŝŐŚƚŽĨƚŚĞŵĞĂƐƵƌĞƐƌĞĐŽŵŵĞŶĚĞĚďLJƚŚĞĂŶĚ^ƚĂƚĞ'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚ͕WůĂŶŶŝŶŐΘĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚŚĂƐĞŶĂĐƚĞĚĂΗǁŽƌŬ ƌĞŵŽƚĞůLJΗƉƌŽŐƌĂŵ͘tĞĂƌĞĐŽŵŵŝƚƚĞĚƚŽĂĚǀĂŶĐŝŶŐƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐĂŶĚǁŝůůƐƚĂLJŝŶƌĞŐƵůĂƌĐŽŵŵƵŶŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͘tŚŝůĞǁĞ ƌĞŐƵůĂƌůLJĐŚĞĐŬǀŽŝĐĞŵĂŝů͕ŝƚŝƐďĞƐƚƚŽĐŽŶƚĂĐƚƵƐǀŝĂĞŵĂŝů͘dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵ͘ Board of Directors:
Ted Rhodes
President
nSusan Allen
VP–Land Use
Marty Selfridge
VP–Education
John Tilton
Treasurer
Whitney Abbott
Recording Secretary
Andrea Adams-Morden
Christie Boyd
Gary Campopiano
Mauricio Gomez
Bunni Lesh
Arturo Tello
Advisory Board:
David Anderson
Jack Baker*
Bud Bottoms*
Jeff Bridges
Nancy Broeker
Dorothy Campbell*
Frank Davis*
Owen Dell
Jennifer DeSandre
Devon Dibble
Susette Doubek*
Sally Eagle
Ellen Easton
Dan Emmett
Rae Emmett
Wayne Ferren
Gordon Ghirann
Karen Gruszka
Roger Green*
Sue Higman*
Peter Howorth
Peggy Jones
Bunni Lesh
Louise Moore
Kim Neilsen
Patsy Noveski
Peggy Oki
Ralph Philbrick*
Joyce Powell
Jean Schuyler*
San Francisco:
Frank Boren
Mark Massara
San Luis Obispo
Michael Jencks
Ventura:
Suzanne Benech Field
Yvon Chouinard
*Deceased PO Box 700, Carpinteria, CA 93014 website: carpinteriabluffs.org
Nick Bobroff, City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue, Carpinteria, CA 93013
11-23-2020
Dear Mr. Bobroff,
Citizens for the Carpinteria Bluffs supports the development of the Carpinteria Rincon Multi-Use Trail project. It will provide a much needed link from the Carpinteria and Rincon Bluffs to the coastal walking/bike path that now runs from Rincon south to Ventura. However, we do have a concern that the current plan offers no on-site parking, unlike the original plan’s inclusion of a small parking lot planned near the intersection of Carpinteria Ave and Highway 150. We anticipate that some bikers will choose to park near that intersection, whether or not there is a parking lot.
With the acquisition and improvements at the Rincon Bluffs preserve, it is important to note that the current parking lot proposed is small and intended for preserve use. Perhaps, parking in that area by bikers and hikers may never become a problem, but we suggest that the City include a backup plan to accommodate future parking should that need arise.
One possible remedy in lieu of an additional parking lot might be to offer some on-street parking slots near that intersection and making them slightly longer than usually delineated to safely accommodate bikers as they unload their bikes. In addition, it would be helpful for City planners to make a determination of how many of these larger on-street parking spaces might be possible. A sign at the trailhead encouraging bikers to park at the larger Viola Fields lot also might be helpful.
We look forward to the development and completion of this critical link in our coastal trail system and support the City in its work on this project.
Sincerely,
President, Citizens for the Carpinteria Bluffs
1LFN%REURII
)URP
'\ODQ/DXJKOLQ G\ODQODXJKOLQ#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
5LQFRQELNHSDWK
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
+L1LFN
7RNHHSLWVKRUWZKLOHF\FOLQJLVSRSXODULWFDQEHGRQHQHDUO\DQ\ZKHUH,QDQLFKHVSRUWOLNHSDUDJOLGLQJZH KDYHWRVWDQGXSIRURXUIO\DEOHDUHDVVLQFHWKH\DUHVKULQNLQJ:HDUHWU\LQJWRJURZRXUVSRUWLQWKH6DQWD %DUEDUDDUHDDQGQDWLRQZLGH7KHUHLVSOHQW\RIF\FOLQJWKDWFDQEHGRQHKHUHDWDQ\WLPHEXWIO\LQJUHTXLUHV VSHFLILFJHRJUDSK\7RWHDUGRZQDJUHDWFRQVLVWHQWIHDWXUHOLNHWKH5LQFRQEOXIIZRXOGEHDVKDPH&\FOLVWV FXUUHQWO\KDYHDFFHVVWRWKHELNHSDWKDVLV:RXOGQ¶WDEDUULHURQWKHFXUUHQWKLJKZD\SDWKEHPXFKPRUHFRVW HIIHFWLYHWKDQWHUUDIRUPLQJDODUJHKLOOIRUPLOHRISDWK",EHOLHYHDOWHUQDWLYHSODQVDUHGHILQLWHO\ZRUWK H[SORULQJLQWKLVFDVH
'\ODQ/DXJKOLQ
'\ODQ/DXJKOLQ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
GHVPRQG#FR[QHW
6HQW
6XQGD\1RYHPEHU
$0
7R
1LFN%REURII
&F
RWWLVJLOOHVSLH#JPDLOFRP
6XEMHFW
%DWHVSDUDJOLGLQJDQGWKHELNHSDWKH[WHQVLRQSURMHFW
ΎΎ
yd
ZE>
D/>ΎΎ
hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂ͘KEKdKW EĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŽƌ>/<ŽŶůŝŶŬƐƵŶůĞƐƐ
LJŽƵĂƌĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƐĂĨĞ͘ZĞŵĞŵďĞƌ͕ƌĞƉƵƚĂďůĞǀĞŶĚŽƌƐ͕ďĂŶŬƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ǁŝůůŶŽƚĂƐŬLJŽƵƚŽĚŝƐĐůŽƐĞƉĂƐƐǁŽƌĚƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ ƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘
,ĞůůŽEŝĐŬ͕/ĂŵĂůŽĐĂůƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚĂŶĚ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂŽƵŶƚLJƚĂdžƉĂLJĞƌ͕ĂŶĚ/ĂŵĐŽŶƚĂĐƚŝŶŐLJŽƵŽƵƚŽĨĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĨŽƌƚŚĞ ĐƵƌƌĞŶƚďŝŬĞƉĂƚŚĞdžƚĞŶƐŝŽŶƉůĂŶĂƐƉƌĞƐĞŶƚůLJĐŽŶƐƚŝƚƵƚĞĚ͘tĞĂůůŬŶŽǁŚŽǁŵƵĐŚƚŚĞƚŽƵƌŝƐƚŝŶĚƵƐƚƌLJĨŝƐĐĂůůLJďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘dŚĞďĞĂĐŚĞƐŽĨ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂĐŽƵŶƚLJ͕ƉĂƌƚŝĐƵůĂƌůLJĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂ^ƚĂƚĞĞĂĐŚ͕ĂƌĞĂƉƌŝŵĞƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ ĨŽƌ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂĐŽƵŶƚLJΖƐƚŽƵƌŝƐƚŝŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ͕ĂŶĚ/ĂŵƐƵƌĞǁĞǁŽƵůĚĂůůĂŐƌĞĞƚŚĂƚƐƵĐŚĂƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞƐŚŽƵůĚďĞƉƌŽƚĞĐƚĞĚ ĂŶĚƉƌĞƐĞƌǀĞĚďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨŚŽǁŵƵĐŚŝƚďĞŶĞĨŝƚƐ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘ >ŝŬĞǁŝƐĞƚŚĞĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂďůƵĨĨƐŝŶƚŚĞĂƌĞĂŽĨĂƚĞƐZŽĂĚϭϬϭĞdžŝƚĚƌĂǁƐƉĂƌĂŐůŝĚŝŶŐǀŝƐŝƚŽƌƐĨƌŽŵĂůůŽǀĞƌƚŚĞĐŽƵŶƚƌLJĂŶĚ ƚŚĞǁŽƌůĚďĞĐĂƵƐĞŽĨŝƚƐƵŶŝƋƵĞĐŽŶĨŝŐƵƌĂƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞƉƌĞǀĂŝůŝŶŐǁŝŶĚ͘dŚĞďƵůůĚŽnjŝŶŐŽĨƚŚĞůŝƚƚůĞŝĂŵŽŶĚ,ĞĂĚďůƵĨĨĂƚ ƚŚĞĂƚĞƐZĚĂƌĞĂǁŽƵůĚĚĞƐƚƌŽLJĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞƚŽƉŽŐƌĂƉŚLJƚŚĂƚĂůůŽǁƐƌĞŐƵůĂƌƉĂƌĂŐůŝĚŝŶŐŝŶƚŚĂƚĂƌĞĂĂŶĚĂƐ ƐƵĐŚǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞĂƐŝŐŶŝĨŝĐĂŶƚĨŝƐĐĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚŽŶƚŚĞ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂͲĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂƚŽƵƌŝƐƚŝŶĚƵƐƚƌLJ͘ tŚĂƚ/ĂŶĚŽƚŚĞƌůŽĐĂůĨƌĞĞͲĨůŝŐŚƚƉŝůŽƚƐĂƌĞƉƌŽƉŽƐŝŶŐŝƐƚŚĂƚŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨďƵůůĚŽnjŝŶŐƚŚĞůŝƚƚůĞŝĂŵŽŶĚ,ĞĂĚďůƵĨĨĂŶĚ ĚĞƐƚƌŽLJŝŶŐĂƉƌĞĐŝŽƵƐůŽĐĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ͕LJŽƵƐŝŵƉůLJƌĞůŽĐĂƚĞƚŚĞďŝŬĞƉĂƚŚƚŽƚŚĞŵŽƵŶƚĂŝŶƐŝĚĞŽĨƚŚĞďůƵĨĨĂŶĚĂůůŽǁ ƉĂƌĂŐůŝĚŝŶŐĂŶĚďŝŬŝŶŐƚŽĐŽͲĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŚĂƌŵŽŶLJǁŚĞƌĞŶĞŝƚŚĞƌƚŽƵƌŝƐƚƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞŝƐŝƌƌĞƉĂƌĂďůLJŚĂƌŵĞĚ͘/ǁŽƵůĚŶŽƚĞƚŚĂƚ ƚŚĞƌĞŝƐĂĐƵƌƌĞŶƚĚŝƌƚďŝŬĞƉĂƚŚĂƚƚŚĞďĂƐĞŽĨƚŚĞďůƵĨĨƚŚĂƚĐŽƵůĚďĞĂŶŽƚŚĞƌĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƚŽƚŚĞďƵůůĚŽnjŝŶŐŽĨĂƉƌĞĐŝŽƵƐ ůŽĐĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞ͘^ŝŵƉůLJƉƵƚ͕ǁŚLJĚĞƐƚƌŽLJŽŶĞŝŶǀĂůƵĂďůĞůŽĐĂůƌĞƐŽƵƌĐĞǁŚĞŶLJŽƵĐĂŶŚĂǀĞďŽƚŚ͕ĂůůƚŽƚŚĞĨŝƐĐĂůďĞŶĞĨŝƚŽĨ ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂĐŽƵŶƚLJ͘
dŚĂŶŬŝŶŐLJŽƵŝŶĂĚǀĂŶĐĞĨŽƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚŝƐŝŶLJŽƵƌďŝŬĞƉĂƚŚƉůĂŶƐ͕ĞƐŵŽŶĚDĐ/ŶƚŽƐŚ ^ĞŶƚĨƌŽŵŵLJŝWĂĚ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
*PDLO GPXVDVKH#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
&RPPHQWVRQWKH5LQFRQELNHSDWKSURMHFW
ΎΎ
yd
ZE>
D/>ΎΎ
hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂ͘KEKdKW EĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŽƌ>/<ŽŶůŝŶŬƐƵŶůĞƐƐ
LJŽƵĂƌĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƐĂĨĞ͘ZĞŵĞŵďĞƌ͕ƌĞƉƵƚĂďůĞǀĞŶĚŽƌƐ͕ďĂŶŬƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ǁŝůůŶŽƚĂƐŬLJŽƵƚŽĚŝƐĐůŽƐĞƉĂƐƐǁŽƌĚƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ ƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘
,ŝEŝĐŬ͕
/ĂŵĂůŽĐĂůƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚĂŶĚƉĂƌĂŐůŝĚŝŶŐƉŝůŽƚ͕ĂŶĚ/ĂŵƚŚĞsWŽĨWĂƌĂŐůŝĚŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂ^ŽĂƌŝŶŐƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ͘ /͛ǀĞŵĂĚĞŵƵůƚŝƉůĞƉƵďůŝĐĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐŝŶƚŚĞǀĂƌŝŽƵƐƚŽǁŶŚĂůůƐƚŚĂƚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶŽƉĞŶƚŽƉƵďůŝĐĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞZŝŶĐŽŶďŝŬĞƉĂƚŚ ƉƌŽũĞĐƚ͘
/ǁŽŶ͛ƚƌĞŚĂƐŚĞǀĞƌLJƚŚŝŶŐ/ŚĂǀĞƐĂŝĚĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚƉĂƐƚ͕ďĞĐĂƵƐĞŵLJĐŽŵŵĞŶƚƐĂƌĞĂŵĂƚƚĞƌŽĨƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĐŽƌĚ͕ďƵƚ/ ũƵƐƚǁĂŶƚƚŽƌĞŝƚĞƌĂƚĞŚŽǁŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŚŝƐĐŽĂƐƚĂůďůƵĨĨŝƐƚŽĨƌĞĞĨůŝŐŚƚƌĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶŝŶĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂ;ĂŶĚƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞƌĞŐŝŽŶ͕ ƌĞĂůůLJͿ͘ZĞŵŽǀŝŶŐĂƐŵƵĐŚƐŽŝůĂƐŚĂƐďĞĞŶƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚǁŽƵůĚƵƚƚĞƌůLJĚĞƐƚƌŽLJŽƵƌĨůLJŝŶŐƐŝƚĞĂƌŽƵŶĚƚŚĞďůƵĨĨ͕ĂŶĚǁŽƵůĚ ŶĞŐĂƚŝǀĞůLJĂĨĨĞĐƚƐŽĂƌŝŶŐďŝƌĚƐĂƐǁĞůůƚŚĂƚƌĞůLJŽŶƚŚĂƚďůƵĨĨƚŽƚƌĂǀĞůĂůŽŶŐƚŚĞĐŽĂƐƚ͘ dŚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůŝŵƉĂĐƚƌĞǀŝĞǁƌĞĂůůLJŵƵƐƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞƐƚŽĂŝƌĨůŽǁŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽũĞĐƚĂŶĚŝƚƐŝŵƉĂĐƚƐŽŶƌĞĐƌĞĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚ ǁŝůĚůŝĨĞ͘dŚŝƐƐŝƚĞŝƐũƵƐƚƚŽŽŝŵƉŽƌƚĂŶƚƚŽƐĐƌĞǁƵƉ͕ĂŶĚ/ƐƉĞĂŬĨŽƌƚŚĞĞŶƚŝƌĞƉĂƌĂŐůŝĚŝŶŐĂŶĚŚĂŶŐŐůŝĚŝŶŐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ ǁŚĞŶ/ƐĂLJƚŚĂƚ/ŚŽƉĞǁĞĐĂŶĨŝŶĚĂŶĂůƚĞƌŶĂƚŝǀĞƐŽůƵƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚĞĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƉƌŽƉŽƐĂůƚŚĂƚǁŝůůƐƚŝůůĂůůŽǁĂƉĂƚŚĨŽƌĐLJĐůŝƐƚƐ ĂŶĚƉĞĚĞƐƚƌŝĂŶƐǁŚŝůĞƐƚŝůůƉƌĞƐĞƌǀŝŶŐƚŚŝƐŚŝƐƚŽƌŝĐƐŽĂƌŝŶŐƐŝƚĞ͘ dŚĂŶŬƐŝŶĂĚǀĂŶĐĞĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶ͘
^ŝŶĐĞƌĞůLJ͕
ĞƌĞŬDƵƐĂƐŚĞ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
'DYLG3DWWHUVRQ GDYHSDWWHUVRQ#XFVEHGX!
6HQW
)ULGD\1RYHPEHU
$0
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
6XSSRUWIRUPDLQWDLQLQJWKHIO\DELOLW\RI%DWHV%OXII
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
1LFN
0\QDPHLV'DYH3DWWHUVRQ
,DPDSURIHVVRUDW8&6%DQGDUHVLGHQWRI6DQWD%DUEDUD ,
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
\RXWXEH69,G(I:+0S(PDGHE\DORFDOSLORW,IQRWKLQJHOVH,VWURQJO\GLVDJUHHZLWKWKHFXUUHQW &DUSLQWHULD5LQFRQ7UDLOUHSRUW
VFRQFOXVLRQWKDWWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWZLOOKDYHQRLPSDFWRQUHFUHDWLRQDWWKH VLWHWRWKHFRQWUDU\LWZLOOGUDPDWLFDOO\UHGXFHWKHIO\DELOLW\RIWKHVLWH$OWHUDWLRQWRWKHDLUIORZLV XQDPELJXRXVO\DSK\VLFDOFKDQJHWRWKHVLWHMXVWDVLQFUHDVHGQRLVHRUXQSOHDVDQWVPHOOZRXOGEH3OHDVHOHWPH NQRZLIWKHUH
VDQ\WKLQJ,FDQGRWRPDLQWDLQWKHVLWHLQDIO\DEOHIRUP 7KDQN\RXIRUWDNLQJWKHWLPHWRFRQVLGHUWKLVPDWWHUZKLFKLVYHU\LPSRUWDQWWRVRPDQ\RIXV 'DYH3DWWHUVRQ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
(G6 GUDZGH\OI#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
%DWHV%HDFK
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
1LFN
$JDLQWKH(,5KDVWRLQFOXGHWKH0RQDUFKEXWWHUIO\KDELWDWLQWKH(XFDO\SWXVWUHHV7KHZLQGZLOOKLJKO\HIIHFW WKHLU:,17(5*URXQGV
7KHFRDVWDOPLJUDWRU\ELUGVWKHIO\XSQGRZQWKHFRDVWWZLFHDZHHN7KDWXVHWKHULGJHOLQHIRUOLIWDQG VWDJLQJWRIO\DURXQGWKHQH[WFRUQHU:LWK;DPRXQWRIOLIWREWDLQHGDWWKHFOLIIIDFH7KDWZLOOQRORQJHUEH REWDLQDEOH
7KHEDQDQDIDUPWKDWVPLFURFOLPDWHZLOOQRORQJHUEHLQD3HUIHFWZLQGVKDGRZ7KDWZLOOQRORQJHUJURZ 7KH&RULROLVHIIHFWWKHZLQGZLOO$8720$7,&$//<+DSSHQWKURXJKWKH0,//,21'ROODUKRPHV$OVRD %XWWHUIO\KDELWDW
7KHIDFWLV(QGDQJHUHGVSHFLHVOLNHWKH0RQDUFKLVD3ULRULW\ 7KHVDPHZLWKWKHJURZWKRQWKHIURQWRIWKHKLOO7KDWXVEHLQJGHVWUR\HG 7KRVHSODQWVFDQQRWEH728&+('2575$163/$17('XQGHUODZ (YHQ&DOLIRUQLDFRQGRUVFRPHWRWKHIDFHHYHU\ZLQWHU,WLVWKHHQGRIWKHLUIHHGLQJIOLJKWOLQH7KDWZLOOQRW DOORZWKHPWRVRDUDQGUHWXUQWR/D&RQFKHWDDQEDFNWRWKH)LOOPRUHKDELWDW 7KHVHHQGDQJHUHGVSLFHVQHHGWREHLQYROYHG$VGRHVWKHEDQDQDIDUPHWF 0U(G6
1LFN%REURII
)URP
HIWKDFKHU#\DKRRFRP
6HQW
:HGQHVGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
&DUS5LQFRQPXOWLXVHWUDLO
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
dŽtŚŽŵŝƚDĂLJŽŶĐĞƌŶ͖
:ƵƐƚǁĂŶƚĞĚƚŽůĞƚLJŽƵŬŶŽǁƚŚĂƚ/ƚŚŝŶŬƚŚŝƐƚƌĂŝůĐŽŶŶĞĐƚŝŶŐZŝŶĐŽŶƚŽĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂĂŶĚďĞLJŽŶĚŝƐĂƐƉůĞŶĚŝĚŝĚĞĂ͊^ŽŵĞ ŽĨƵƐŝŶƚŚĞĨĂŵŝůLJůŽŽŬĨŽƌǁĂƌĚƚŽďŝŬŝŶŐŝŶƚŽĂƌƉĨƌŽŵŽƵƌďĞĂĐŚŚŽƵƐĞƌĂƚŚĞƌƚŚĂŶƵƐŝŶŐĂĐĂƌĂŶĚƚŚĞĨƌĞĞǁĂLJ͘ tĞŚŽƉĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐƌĞƐƉĞĐƚƐƚŚĞƚƌĂŝůĂŶĚƚŚĂƚŵĂŝŶƚĞŶĂŶĐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐĂĚĞƋƵĂƚĞƚƌĂƐŚƌĞĐĞƉƚĂĐůĞƐĂŶĚŵŽŶŝƚŽƌŝŶŐĨŽƌ ŐƌĂĨĨŝƚŝ͕ĞƚĐ͘
tĞŚŽƉĞƚŚĂƚƚŚĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŐŽĞƐǁŝƚŚŽƵƚĂŚŝƚĐŚ͕
ŵŝůLJLJĂůĂ
dŚĞdŚĂĐŚĞƌ&ĂŵŝůLJĞĂĐŚ,ŽƵƐĞ
ϭϯϮZŝŶĐŽŶWƚ͘ZĚ͕
ZŝŶĐŽŶWŽŝŶƚ
ĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
0U(- JQLGLOJ#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
5H
1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ
123
IRU&DUSLQWHULD5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLO(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW 5HSRUW
(,5
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
*RRG0RUQLQJ
,QWKHSUHFHHGLQJPHHWLQJVWKHUHZDVEODWDQWGLVUHJDUGVIRUHQGDQJHUHGVSHFLHVZKHWKHUDQLPDORUSODQWV 7KH0RQDUFKEXWWHUIOLHVWKH:,17(5LQWKH(XFDO\SWXVWUHHVEHKLQGWKHSURSRVHGSDWK7KDWZLOO12 /21*(5DOORZVDIHKDUERULQJLQWKHWUHHVZLWKVXFKKLJKZLQGEORZLQJWKUXWKHP&DXVHGE\FKDQJLQJWKH VORSHRIWKHKLOO
7KH)('(5$/DQG67$7(ODZVLJQRUHGRI0LJUDWRU\VSLFHV %LUGV%XWWHUIOLHV5DSWRUV&21'25
6
7KDWDOOIUHTXHQWWKHDUHD7KDWXVHWKHULGJHOLIWWRFRQWLQXHWKHUHMRXUQH\ 7KH(QGDQJHUHGSODQWOLIHWKDWFDQQRWEH/(*$//<FXWPRYHGRUWRXFKHG $OOSURWHFWHGE\IHGHUDOODZ&$&RVWDOFRPPLVVLRQHWF 7KHDLUIORZFKDQJHDORQHZLOOSXWHQRUPRXVDPRXQWRIZLQGWKURXJKWKH0,//,21'2//$5KRPHV2Q WKHSRLQW
7KHDQRQO\SODFHEDQDQDVJURZDORQJWKHFRDVWZLOOEHJUHDWO\$IIHFWHG3RWHQWLDOO\GHVWUR\LQJWKHFURS DQIDUP7KDWJURZLQDSHUIHFWZLQGVKDGRZ&DXVHGE\WKHEOXII7KDWLVEHLQJSURSRVHGWRFKDQJH 7KHSDWKLV127$'$&RPSOLDQW
,WFDQQRWEHGRQHZLWKWKH(QRUPXVHVORSHWKUXWKH3DUNLQJORW 7KHRULJLQDOSDWKKDVWKH6$0(6/23(LVVXH
,WZLOOQHYHUEHFRQQHFWHGZLWKDPLOOLRQGROODUEULGJHDQGUHZRUNRIWKH:+2/(SDWK 7KHVHLVVXHVDUHEH\RQGLJQRUHQW
,NQRZWKHOLWWOHZKLWHERRNRIUXOHV
'HDOWZLWKPLOOLRQGROODUILQHVEXLOGLQJQHZKRVSLWDOVLQ9HQWXUD$SSUR[PLOOLRQLQILQHV)RUWKHPLOOLRQ \RXDUHILJKWLQJWRJHW
3HUKDSVRQHQHHGVWRORRNDWWKHELJJHUSLFWXUH
'RZHDVFLWL]HQVZDQWWRGR/(*$/%DWWOHZLWKDOOWKHDERYHVRFLHWLHV$QSURWHFWHGXQGHUIHGHUDOODZ SODQWVDQZLOGOLIH
,KRSHWKH(,5+DVUHDOSHRSOHLQYROYLQJWKHVHLVVXHVEHLQJ758/<$GGUHVVHG1RWVZHSWDVLGHZLWK EODWDQWGLVUHJDUG
$OWKRXJK,FDQQRWDWWHQGWKH=RRPPHHWLQJDV,ZLOOEHZLWKSDWLHQWVWKDWGD\WLPH ,KRSHWKLVLV5($'DQGEURXJKWWR$OOSHRSOHVDWWQ
(GZRUG6NRZ
2Q7KX2FW
301LFN%REURII QLFNE#FLFDUSLQWHULDFDXV!ZURWH
7KH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULDKDVUHOHDVHGD1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ 123
IRUDQ(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW
(,5
IRUWKH5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLOSURMHFW
7KH&LW\LVVROLFLWLQJFRPPHQWVIURPWKHSXEOLFFRQFHUQLQJWKHFRQWHQWVDQGDQDO\VLVWREHFRQVLGHUHGLQWKH (,5IRUWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFW7KHVFRSLQJFRPPHQWSHULRGZLOOUXQIURP2FWREHUWR1RYHPEHU DW
SP$YLUWXDOSXEOLFVFRSLQJPHHWLQJZLOOEHKHOGRQOLQHRQ7XHVGD\1RYHPEHUWKDW SP
YLD=RRP:HELQDU,QIRUPDWLRQRQKRZWRDWWHQGWKHYLUWXDOVFRSLQJPHHWLQJLVLQFOXGHGLQWKH123
7KH1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQDQGGHWDLOHGSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQDUHDYDLODEOHRQWKH&LW\¶V5LQFRQ7UDLOSURMHFW ZHESDJHDW
KWWSV
FDUSLQWHULDFDXVSXEOLFZRUNVHQJLQHHULQJGLYLVLRQULQFRQPXOWLXVHWUDLO $FRS\RIWKH123DQGSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQLVDOVRDWWDFKHGWRWKLVHPDLO
6KRXOG\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVDERXWWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWRUWKLV123SOHDVHIHHOIUHHWRFRQWDFWPH 7KDQN\RX
1LFN%REURII3ULQFLSDO3ODQQHU
&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW
1LFN%REURII
)URP
(OL]DEHWK=HUQLN (OL]DEHWK=HUQLN#EVLJURXSFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
6WRUPZDWHUIRU5LQFRQWUDLOSURMHFW
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
+L1LFN
,¶PDORFDO6WRUPZDWHUSURIHVVLRQDOZLWKDSDVVLRQIRUSURWHFWLQJWKHRFHDQVRSOHDVHNHHSPHLQPLQGZKHQ \RXZLOOEHORRNLQJIRU46'DQGRU463VHUYLFHVRQWKH5LQFRQ7UDLOSURMHFW ,¶GORYHWRKHOSPDNHDGLIIHUHQFHLQRXURZQEDFN\DUG ,¶YHZRUNHGSUHYLRXVO\RQDZLGHUDQJHRIFRQVWUXFWLRQSURMHFWVLQFOXGLQJUHPRWHPRXQWDLQWRSVLQVHQVLWLYH KDELWDWVSXEOLFVSDFHVDQGZLWKEULGJHLQVWDOODWLRQV 7KDQN\RXDQGVHH\RXRQWKH=RRPVRRQ
(OL]DEHWK=HUQLN46'4634,63
%6,
3OHDVHH[FXVHDQ\W\SRV
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB 9LVLWWKH%6,ZHEVLWHDWZZZEVLJURXSFRP
7KLVHPDLOPD\FRQWDLQFRQILGHQWLDOLQIRUPDWLRQDQGRUFRS\ULJKWPDWHULDO7KLVHPDLOLVLQWHQGHGIRUWKHXVHRI WKHDGGUHVVHHRQO\$Q\XQDXWKRULVHGXVHPD\EHXQODZIXO,I\RXUHFHLYHWKLVHPDLOE\PLVWDNHSOHDVHDGYLVH WKHVHQGHULPPHGLDWHO\E\XVLQJWKHUHSO\IDFLOLW\LQ\RXUHPDLOVRIWZDUH 7KH%ULWLVK6WDQGDUGV,QVWLWXWLRQLVLQFRUSRUDWHGE\5R\DO&KDUWHU 7KLVHPDLOKDVEHHQVFDQQHGIRUDOONQRZQYLUXVHV
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
1LFN%REURII
)URP
-DPLH%LVKRS MDPLHE#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
&F
-HII/RQJFRU
6XEMHFW
5LQFRQ7UDLO%LNH3DWK
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
'HDU1LFN
,KDYHFRQFHUQVDERXWWKH5LQFRQ7UDLO%LNH3DWK,WZLOOUXLQIO\LQJDW%DWHVDQGKDSKD]DUGO\DQGRQO\WHPSRUDULO\OLQNWKHH[LVWLQJ ELNHSDWKV
$OWHUQDWLYHURXWHVDQGVROXWLRQVH[LVWWKDWZRXOGVDWLVI\DOOUHFUHDWLRQDOXVHUV7KHFXUUHQWGHVLJQH[SDQGVDFFHVVWRF\FOLVWVDWWKH H[FOXVLRQRIIUHHIO\HUV7KHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKLVPLOHVHFWLRQGRHVQRWQHHGWRUHVXOWLQWKHXWWHUGHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHRQO\VRDULQJ VLWHLQ&DUSLQWHULD
7KLV3URMHFWQHHGVWREHUHDVVHVVHGIURPWKHSHUVSHFWLYHRIWKHYHU\JURXSVLW VWU\LQJWRKHOS7KHFXUUHQWGHVLJQLVIRFXVHGRQ
SURYLGLQJD³EOXHRFHDQYLHZ´UDWKHUWKDQDVDIHXVHIXOORQJODVWLQJVROXWLRQ x 7KHFXUUHQWGHVLJQZLOOQRWODVWORQJ
DUDLOURDGDQGKLJKZD\KDYHDOUHDG\IDLOHGDQGZHPD\UHDVRQDEO\ DVVXPHWKDWDQ\DGGLWLRQDOSURMHFWVDORQJWKLVHURGLQJVHDZDOOZLOOIDFHDVLPLODUIDWH x 7KHFXUUHQWGHVLJQLVQRWVDIH
OLQNLQJWKHELNHSDWKVEXWWKHQGXPSLQJF\FOLVWVLQWRDFRQJHVWHGDQG LQFUHGLEO\VWHHS5LQFRQ%HDFKSDUNLQJORWEHOLHVWKHSODQQLQJDQGKXPDQUHVRXUFHVWKDWDUHJRLQJLQWR WKLVSURMHFW
,
PDOVRLQVXSSRUWRI3ODQQHUVUHDVVHVVLQJWKHIDXOW\ORJLFWKDWXQGHUSLQVWKHSODQWRWDNHWRQVRIGLUWDZD\WRPDNHWKH UHPDLQLQJGLUWVWD\)UHHIOLJKWGRHVQRWUHTXLUHDOWHUDWLRQWRWKHH[LVWLQJQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQGWKHVFRSHRIWKH(,5RXJKWWR DGGUHVVZD\VWRDYRLGPDVVLYHHDUWKZRUNDWWKLVVLWH 7KDQN\RXIRU\RXUWLPHDQGFRQVLGHUDWLRQ
6LQFHUHO\
-DPLH%LVKRS6DQWD%DUEDUD6RDULQJ$VVRFLDWLRQPHPEHU
1LFN%REURII
)URP
-DPLH%LVKRS MDPLHE#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
7XHVGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
&F
-HII/RQJFRU
6XEMHFW
FRPPHQWVRQ5LQFRQ7UDLQ3URMHFWVFRSLQJ
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
'HDU1LFN
,
PIRUZDUGLQJRQP\FRPPHQWVIURPWKLVHYHQLQJ
VVFRSLQJPHHWLQJ
&RQVLGHUWKHKLVWRU\RIUHFUHDWLRQRWKHUWKDQF\FOLQJDORQJWKHEOXIIV7KHSURSRVHGJUDGLQJZRXOGGHVWUR\WKHVLWHIRUIUHH IOLJKW
&RQVLGHUF\FOLVWVDIHW\7KHFXUUHQWGHVLJQGXPSVVRXWKERXQGF\FOLVWVGRZQDVWHHSJUDGHLQWRDKHDYLO\XVHGSDUNLQJORW7KH PDMRULW\RIF\FOLVWVDQGSDUWLFXODUO\WKRVHFRPPXWLQJE\ELNHZRXOGJODGO\IRUJRDQRFHDQYLHZIRUWHQWKVRIDPLOHIRUD VDIHUULGH
&RQVLGHUWKHSRLQWVDWZKLFKWKHQHZELNHSDWKOLQNVXSZLWKWKHH[LVWLQJELNHSDWKV$SDUNLQJORWRXJKWQRWWREHWKHWRS ORFDWLRQLQZKLFKWRGRVR
&RQVLGHUWKHQDWXUDOIRUFHVWKDWDFWRQWKHFRDVWOLQH7KHFRDVWOLQHLVVXEMHFWWRHURVLRQDQGRWKHUSXEOLFSURMHFWVKDYHZDVKHG DZD\'HVSLWHWKDWKLVWRU\WKHSODQQHUVZRXOGUHPRYH
WRQVRIGLUWDQGDGGPRUHGUDLQDJHYLDV
&RQVLGHUUHVSRQVLEOHVWHZDUGVKLSRIQDWXUDOUHVRXUFHV7KHSURSRVHGURXWHVHHPVHQWLUHO\LQFRQVLVWHQWZLWK&DUSLQWHULD¶VWUDFN UHFRUG7KHSURSRVHGURXWHLVLOORJLFDOQHHGOHVVO\H[SHQVLYHGHVWUXFWLYHWRWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDVZHOODVIUHHIOLJKWDQGLW ZRXOGEHXJO\
&RQVLGHUZKHWKHUDQ\RQHVWDQGVWRJDLQLHIURPDFRQWUDFWIRUWKHUHPRYDORI WRQVRIHDUWKYHUVXVWKHYDVWO\PRUH
HFRQRPLFDODQGORJLFDOVROXWLRQRIH[WHQGLQJWKHELNHSDWKDORQJWKHZLGHVKRXOGHURIWKHRUVRPHZKHUHDORQJWKHQRUWK VLGHRIWKHEOXII&RQVLGHUSRWHQWLDOFRQIOLFWVRILQWHUHVW 7KDQN\RX
-DPLH%LVKRS6%6$PHPEHU
1LFN%REURII
)URP
-RQ%ODNH VENLWHU#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
$0
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
%DWHVELNHSDWKSURMHFW
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
+L1LFN
,ZDQWHGWRYRLFHP\FRQFHUQVDURXQGWKHFXUUHQWSODQVIRUWKHELNHSDWKWKDWSDVVHVWKURXJKWKH%DWHVDUHD $VDPHPEHURIWKH6DQWD%DUEDUD6RDULQJ$VVRFLDWLRQ
6%6$
,DPLQIXOOVXSSRUWRIWKHPXFKQHHGHGELNH
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
SDWKH[SDQGVDFFHVVWRRQHJURXSDWWKHH[FOXVLRQRIDQRWKHU:KLOHELNHUVDQGMRJJHUVKDYHPDQ\PLOHVRI UHFUHDWLRQDOSDWKVWRDFFHVVWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKLVPLOHVHFWLRQZLOOGUDVWLFDOO\LPSDFWZLQGIORZHQGLQJ IUHHIOLJKWIRUPDQ\PHPEHUVRIWKHVRDULQJFRPPXQLW\DQGUXLQLQJWKHRQO\VRDULQJVLWHLQ&DUSLQWHULD 7KHVFRSHRIWKH(,5VKRXOGDGGUHVVZD\VWRDYRLGPDVVLYHHDUWKZRUNDWWKLVVLWH7KH&HUWLILHG6DQWD %DUEDUD&RXQW\&RDVWDO/DQG8VH3ODQDGRSWHGLQ
VWDWHVUHFUHDWLRQDOXVHVRQRFHDQIURQWODQGVERWK SXEOLFDQGSULYDWHWKDWGRQRWUHTXLUHH[WHQVLYHDOWHUDWLRQWRWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWVKDOOKDYHSULRULW\RYHU XVHVUHTXLULQJVXEVWDQWLDODOWHUDWLRQ$FFRUGLQJWRWKLVJXLGDQFHIUHHIOLJKWDW%DWHVVKRXOGKDYHSULRULW\RYHU WKLVPDVVLYHHDUWKZRUN3URMHFWEHFDXVHRXUUHFUHDWLRQDOXVHVGRQRWUHTXLUHDOWHUDWLRQWRWKHH[LVWLQJQDWXUDO HQYLURQPHQW
7KHFXUUHQWGHVLJQLVIRFXVHGRQSURYLGLQJD³EOXHRFHDQYLHZ´UDWKHUWKDQDVDIHXVHIXOORQJODVWLQJ VROXWLRQ7KHUHLVQRSODQIRUPDLQWDLQLQJWKLVELNHSDWKDIWHULW VFRQVWUXFWHGRQD\HDUROGHURGLQJVHDZDOO
ZKHUHDUDLOURDGDQGKLJKZD\KDYHDOUHDG\IDLOHG7KHUHLVDOVRQRSODQIRUPDQDJLQJWUDIILFLQWKHDOUHDG\ FRQJHVWHGDQGLQFUHGLEO\VWHHS5LQFRQ%HDFKSDUNLQJORWZKHUHWKHELNHSDWKWHUPLQDWHV7KLV3URMHFWQHHGVWR EHUHDVVHVVHGIURPWKHSHUVSHFWLYHRIWKHYHU\JURXSVLW VWU\LQJWRKHOS
,UHTXHVWSURMHFWDOWHUQDWLYHVWKDWSUHVHUYHWKHULGJHDW%DWHV$SRVVLEOHRSWLRQLVFRQVWUXFWLQJWKH%LNH3DWK
RQWKH1RUWKVLGHRIWKHULGJHHLWKHUDORQJWKHKLJKZD\RURQWKH1RUWKVLGHRIWKHKLJKZD\7KHXVHRIEDUULHUV DORQJWKHKLJKZD\VKRXOGHUIRUH[DPSOHZRXOGEHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHELNHSDWKGHVLJQWKDWH[LVWVIURP5LQFRQ WR9HQWXUDDQGZRXOGEHPRUHFRVWHIIHFWLYHZKLOHSUHVHUYLQJWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW 3OHDVHHQVXUHWKH(,5LQFOXGHVDQGLQYHVWLJDWHVWKHFXUUHQWLPSDFWWRRXUVSRUWDVZHOODVWRWKHIORZRIWKHZLQG WKDWVXSSRUWVRXUIO\LQJ
6LQFHUHO\
-RQ%ODNH
6%6$%RDUGRI'LUHFWRUV6HFUHWDU\
1LFN%REURII
)URP
-RKQ&DOOHQGHU FDOOHQGHUMRKQ#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
7KXUVGD\2FWREHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
5H
1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ
123
IRU&DUSLQWHULD5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLO(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW 5HSRUW
(,5
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
,VWKLVWKHVDPHSURMHFWIRUZKLFKWKHFLW\SUHYLRXVO\DUJXHGWKDWDQ01'ZDVVXIILFLHQW",VWKHFLW\QRZWDNLQJ WKHSRVLWLRQWKDWDIXOO(,5LVUHTXLUHG":KDWFKDQJHGVLQFHWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQYRWHGWRDSSURYHWKH 01'"
-RKQ
2Q7KX2FW
DW
301LFN%REURII QLFNE#FLFDUSLQWHULDFDXV!ZURWH
7KH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULDKDVUHOHDVHGD1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ 123
IRUDQ(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW
(,5
IRUWKH5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLOSURMHFW
7KH&LW\LVVROLFLWLQJFRPPHQWVIURPWKHSXEOLFFRQFHUQLQJWKHFRQWHQWVDQGDQDO\VLVWREHFRQVLGHUHGLQWKH (,5IRUWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFW7KHVFRSLQJFRPPHQWSHULRGZLOOUXQIURP2FWREHUWR1RYHPEHU DW
SP$YLUWXDOSXEOLFVFRSLQJPHHWLQJZLOOEHKHOGRQOLQHRQ7XHVGD\1RYHPEHUWKDW SP
YLD=RRP:HELQDU,QIRUPDWLRQRQKRZWRDWWHQGWKHYLUWXDOVFRSLQJPHHWLQJLVLQFOXGHGLQWKH123
7KH1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQDQGGHWDLOHGSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQDUHDYDLODEOHRQWKH&LW\¶V5LQFRQ7UDLOSURMHFW ZHESDJHDW
KWWSV
FDUSLQWHULDFDXVSXEOLFZRUNVHQJLQHHULQJGLYLVLRQULQFRQPXOWLXVHWUDLO $FRS\RIWKH123DQGSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQLVDOVRDWWDFKHGWRWKLVHPDLO
6KRXOG\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVDERXWWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWRUWKLV123SOHDVHIHHOIUHHWRFRQWDFWPH 7KDQN\RX
1LFN%REURII3ULQFLSDO3ODQQHU
&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW
1LFN%REURII
)URP
-RH\-XKDV]/XNRPVNL MRH\#ELNHYHQWXUDRUJ!
6HQW
7KXUVGD\2FWREHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
5H
1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ
123
IRU&DUSLQWHULD5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLO(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW 5HSRUW
(,5
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
+L1LFN
,UHPHPEHUWKHSODQQLQJFRPPLVVLRQPHHWLQJZKHUHWKHUHZHUHPDQ\SXEOLFFRPPHQWVIURPVRDUHUVEXWWKH FRPPLVVLRQUHFRPPHQGHGDJDLQVWUHGRLQJWKH(,5IRUWKHDGMXVWPHQWVWRWKHWUDLOGHVLJQ'LGFLW\FRXQFLO GHFLGHGLIIHUHQWO\":LOOWKLVDIIHFWWKHWLPLQJRIFRQVWUXFWLRQDQGWKXVWKH$73IXQGLQJ" 7KDQNV
-RH\
2Q7KX2FW
DW
301LFN%REURII QLFNE#FLFDUSLQWHULDFDXV!ZURWH
7KH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULDKDVUHOHDVHGD1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ 123
IRUDQ(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW
(,5
IRUWKH5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLOSURMHFW
7KH&LW\LVVROLFLWLQJFRPPHQWVIURPWKHSXEOLFFRQFHUQLQJWKHFRQWHQWVDQGDQDO\VLVWREHFRQVLGHUHGLQWKH (,5IRUWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFW7KHVFRSLQJFRPPHQWSHULRGZLOOUXQIURP2FWREHUWR1RYHPEHU DW
SP$YLUWXDOSXEOLFVFRSLQJPHHWLQJZLOOEHKHOGRQOLQHRQ7XHVGD\1RYHPEHUWKDW SP
YLD=RRP:HELQDU,QIRUPDWLRQRQKRZWRDWWHQGWKHYLUWXDOVFRSLQJPHHWLQJLVLQFOXGHGLQWKH123
7KH1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQDQGGHWDLOHGSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQDUHDYDLODEOHRQWKH&LW\¶V5LQFRQ7UDLOSURMHFW ZHESDJHDW
KWWSV
FDUSLQWHULDFDXVSXEOLFZRUNVHQJLQHHULQJGLYLVLRQULQFRQPXOWLXVHWUDLO $FRS\RIWKH123DQGSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQLVDOVRDWWDFKHGWRWKLVHPDLO
6KRXOG\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVDERXWWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWRUWKLV123SOHDVHIHHOIUHHWRFRQWDFWPH 7KDQN\RX
1LFN%REURII3ULQFLSDO3ODQQHU
&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW
:ŽĞLJ:ƵŚĂƐnj>ƵŬŽŵƐŬŝ;ŚĞͬŚŝŵͿ
džĞĐƵƚŝǀĞŝƌĞĐƚŽƌͲŝŬĞsĞŶƚƵƌĂ
KĨĨŝĐĞ;ϴϬϱͿϲϰϭͲϮϲϲϱ
Ğůů;ϯϰϳͿϱϲϯͲϲϰϰϰ
ǁǁǁ͘ŝŬĞsĞŶƚƵƌĂ͘ŽƌŐ 7RKHOSSURWHFW\RX USULY DF\ 0LFURVRIW2 IILFHSUHYHQWHGDXWRPDWLFGRZQORDGRIWKLVSLFWXUHIURPWKH,QWHUQHW 7RKHOSSURWHFW\RXUSULYDF\ 0LFURVRIW2 IILFHSUHYHQWHGDXWRPDWLFGRZQORDGRIWKLVSLFWXUHIURPWKH,QWHUQHW
1LFN%REURII
)URP
-HIIUH\$/RQJFRU MORQJFRU#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
3XEOLF&RPPHQWV(,56FRSLQJ
$WWDFKPHQWV
5LQFRQ7UDLO&RQFHUQV6%6$/HWWHUSGI
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
+L1LFN
,DSSUHFLDWH\RXUWHDP
VZRUNRQWKLVSURMHFW$VDQDYLGF\FOLVWDQGSDUDJOLGHU,DPKRSHIXOWKDWDQDOWHUQDWLYH GHVLJQFDQEHHQJLQHHUHGWKDWPHHWVWKHQHHGVRIDOOUHFUHDWLRQDOXVHUV,PRYHGIURP%RVWRQWR&DUSLQWHULDIRU WKHELNLQJEXW,VWD\HGIRUWKHIO\LQJEHFDXVHLW
VZKDWPDNHV&DUSLQWHULDWUXO\VSHFLDODQGXQLTXH,IHHOWKH VFRSHRIWKH(,5VKRXOGFRYHUWKHLWHPVEHORZLQRUGHUWRSUHVHUYHZKDW,GHHSO\YDOXHLQWKLV&LW\DQGZKDW PDQ\RWKHUVFDUHDERXWWRR
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
FULWHULD
WKHELNHSDWKH[SDQGVDFFHVVWRRQHJURXSDWWKHH[FOXVLRQRIDQRWKHU:KLOHELNHUVDQGMRJJHUV KDYHDFFHVVWRPDQ\PLOHVRIUHFUHDWLRQDOSDWKVWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKLVPLOHVHFWLRQZLOOUXLQWKH RQO\VRDULQJVLWHLQ&DUSLQWHULDVLJQLILFDQWO\LPSDFWLQJWKHUHFUHDWLRQDOXVHRIFRXQWOHVVSLORWV7KH(,5 QHHGVWRDVVHVVDOWHUQDWLYHVWKDWDYRLGWKLVLPSDFWDQGHTXDOO\DFFRPPRGDWHVDOOH[LVWLQJDQGSURSRVHG UHFUHDWLRQDOXVHUV
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
7KH(,5VKRXOGHYDOXDWHDOWHUQDWLYHVWKDWEHWWHUVHUYHXVHUV7KHFXUUHQWGHVLJQLVWRRIRFXVHGRQ SURYLGLQJD³EOXHRFHDQYLHZ´UDWKHUWKDQDVDIHXVHIXOORQJODVWLQJVROXWLRQ7KHUHLVQRSODQIRU PDLQWDLQLQJWKLVELNHSDWKDIWHULW
VFRQVWUXFWHGRQD\HDUROGHURGLQJVHDZDOOZKHUHDUDLOURDGDQG KLJKZD\KDYHDOUHDG\IDLOHG7KHUHLVDOVRQRSODQIRUPDQDJLQJWUDIILFLQWKHDOUHDG\FRQJHVWHGDQG LQFUHGLEO\VWHHS5LQFRQ%HDFKSDUNLQJORWZKHUHWKHELNHSDWKWHUPLQDWHV7KLV3URMHFWQHHGVWREH UHDVVHVVHGIURPWKHSHUVSHFWLYHRIWKHYHU\JURXSVLW
VWU\LQJWRKHOS
7KH(,5FDQQRWUHO\RQDVWDWHPHQWRIRYHUULGLQJFRQVLGHUDWLRQEHFDXVHDOWHUQDWLYHVFOHDUO\H[LVW$ SRVVLEOHRSWLRQLVFRQVWUXFWLQJWKH%LNH3DWKRQWKH1RUWKVLGHRIWKHULGJHHLWKHUDORQJWKHKLJKZD\RU RQWKH1RUWKVLGHRIWKHKLJKZD\7KHXVHRIEDUULHUVDORQJWKHKLJKZD\VKRXOGHUIRUH[DPSOHZRXOG EHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKHELNHSDWKGHVLJQWKDWH[LVWVIURP5LQFRQWR9HQWXUDDQGZRXOGEHPRUHFRVW HIIHFWLYHDQGHDVLHUIRUF\FOLVWVWRXVHZKLOHSUHVHUYLQJWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQW ,
YHDOVRDWWDFKHGDOHWWHUIURPWKH6DQWD%DUEDUD6RDULQJ$VVRFLDWLRQ 6%6$
WKDWZDVVXEPLWWHGWR&LW\
&RXQFLOLQ$XJXVWDVDUHVSRQVHWRWKH01'GHFLVLRQ$VVWDWHGDWWKH01'KHDULQJZHKDYHDQXPEHURI H[SHUWVZLOOLQJWRSURYLGHWHVWLPRQ\RUWHFKQLFDOVXSSRUWLQFOXGLQJJHRWHFKQLFDOHQJLQHHUV)$$VSHFLDOLVWV DQG&(4$ODQGXVHDWWRUQH\V:HORRNIRUZDUGWRSDUWLFLSDWLQJLQWKH(,5:H UHQRWWU\LQJWRFDXVHLVVXHV
ZH
UHWU\LQJWRKHOS
,QFRQFOXVLRQ,DPLQIXOOVXSSRUWRIWKHPXFKQHHGHGELNHSDWKKRZHYHU,RSSRVHWKHFXUUHQWSURMHFWGHVLJQ EHFDXVHLWGLVSODFHV&<RIVRLO
DSSUR[LPDWHO\WRQV
IURPWKHQDWXUDOHQYLURQPHQWDQG
GHVWUR\VWKHXQLTXHJHRJUDSKLFIHDWXUHVWKDWKDYHPDGH%DWHVDWUHDVXUHGUHFUHDWLRQDOIDFLOLW\DQGZRUOG UHQRZQHGVRDULQJVLWHIRUWKHODVW\HDUV,DPDVNLQJWKH&LW\WRUHGHVLJQWKLVPLOHELNHSDWKVRWKDWLWLV LQFOXVLYHRIDOOXVHUVDQGSUHVHUYHVWKHIO\LQJSRWHQWLDORIWKHDUHD 3OHDVHFRQVLGHUSURMHFWDOWHUQDWLYHVWKDWDYRLGFXWWLQJLQWR%DWHVULGJHDQGZRUNWRDFKLHYHQR LPSDFWWRIUHHIOLJKWUHFUHDWLRQZLWKFRUURERUDWLRQIURPVFLHQWLILFHYLGHQFHDQGH[SHUWWHVWLPRQ\ 7KDQN\RX
-HII/RQJFRU
&DUSLQWHULD5HVLGHQW
%LNHU 3DUDJOLGHU
August 21, 2020
RE: Concerns Regarding the Rincont Trail Project
To the Carpinteria City Council Members,
The Santa Barbara Soaring Association (SBSA) is submitting this official letter to members of the City Council in the interest of working together to minimize the impact of the Rincon Trail Project. We are in full support of the much needed bike path, however, the current design virtually eliminates coastal soaring in Carpinteria, destroying a treasured recreational facility.
We’re sending this letter in response to the MND determination made on January 6, 2020. We initially delayed transmission in order to respect the difficulties caused by Covid-19. Our hope is to use this letter in lieu of a legal appeal to convey our concerns and demonstrate our willingness to collaborate with the City and public. We are asking the City to help us implement design changes that will preserve airflow along Bates ridge and allow continued use of this widely-celebrated flying site. Bates is visited by countless pilots from around the world. It would be tragic to lose this special place because 0.2 miles of bike path couldn't be routed elsewhere.
Paragliding and Hang Gliding are established sports that have been happening regularly at Bates for over 40 years and are fully established there. It is the only coastal soaring site in Carpinteria and the best known site with consistent soaring wind between San Diego and San Francisco. Unique geographic features combine Southwest facing terrain with prevailing channel winds, allowing airflow to hit Bates ridge like the swells hit Rincon Point. This is a recreational airpark that attracts visitors from afar and deserves preservation with the City.
Our local group of 500 members is concerned the MND was rushed to avoid our inclusion.
Those attempting to participate early in the Project were told it did not concern us. While this was true for the previous designs, the current proposal will significantly impact our recreational site. We were surprised to hear of this latest iteration when it was announced in November 2019, especially because the City’s website still carried the outdated Alternative Proposal.
It’s difficult to understand the City’s lack of outreach given that the MND includes a photograph of a paraglider flying over the project site. Our frustration with this treatment is evident in the public comments of Appendix E in the MND. To push this Project past our group, last minute changes were made to the Proposed Final MND (Exhibit 2) for the purpose of denying CEQA consideration, disqualifying free flight as a form of recreation, and bypassing the EIR. These changes included inaccurate statements that we have addressed in the attached Appendix.
SBSA Letter to Carpinteria Council: Rincon Trail Concerns Page 1 of 6 We are fortunate to live in Carpinteria, a place where many land uses coexist. This is especially true at Bates. This coastal gem creates pockets of diversity where small groups like ours can use the same natural resources for recreation as the local bikers, surfers, beachgoers, and joggers. The current Project design runs counter to this sentiment: the bike path expands access to one group at the exclusion of another. While bikers and joggers have many miles of recreational paths to access, the construction of this 0.2 mile path will likely end free flight for many of the soaring community members and ruin the only soaring site in Carpinteria.
Additionally, the Certified Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan adopted in 1982 states "recreational uses on oceanfront lands, both public and private, that do not require extensive alteration to the natural environment...shall have priority over uses requiring substantial alteration". According to this guidance, free flight at Bates should be given priority over this Project because our recreation requires no alteration to the existing environment.
We would like to challenge the City to design a Project that is inclusive of all users and that avoids ruining this 40-year flying site. This is the one place in Carpinteria where we can pursue our passion and practice our craft, sharing the joy of free flight with residents and tourists alike.
Please consider Project alternatives that avoid cutting into Bates ridge and work to achieve no impact to free flight recreation, with corroboration from scientific evidence and expert testimony.
We look forward to building a bike path that meets everyone's needs. Rather than creating conflict around this Project, SBSA is focused on working with the City to find solutions. We have nationwide resources to support these efforts, including our membership with the United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (USHPA). Please contact us to review next steps using the email addresses provided. Thank you for considering the importance of this matter.
Sincerely,
Santa Barbara Soaring Association Officers
James Zender, President
Daniel Garcken, Vice President, Hang Gliding
Derek Musashe, Vice President, Paragliding
Cort Flinchbaugh, Treasurer
Jon Blake, Secretary
Mike Harrington, Activities, Hang Gliding
Chris Heckman, Activities, Paragliding
John McMahon, Website Design and Maintenance
John Greynald, Public Relations
Rob Sporrer, Safety Officer
Aaron LaPlante, Site Preservation
Jeff Longcor, Director at Large
SBSA Letter to Carpinteria Council: Rincon Trail Concerns Page 2 of 6 Appendix
Corrections to the Proposed Final MND
SBSA Letter to Carpinteria Council: Rincon Trail Concerns Page 3 of 6 Appendix:
Corrections to the Proposed Final MND
1. Inaccuracy #1: free flight at Bates is an unsanctioned activity (p.133) a. We legally fly in this airspace as a recognized group by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and United States Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association (USHPA). We have federal permission to use this airspace. b. Paragliding and Hang Gliding have been happening regularly at the Bates bluff for over 40 years and is fully established in this location. It is the only coastal soaring site in Carpinteria and the best known site with consistent prevailing wind soaring between San Diego and San Francisco. Unique geographic features combine Southwest facing terrain with channel winds, allowing airflow to hit Bates ridge like the swells hit Rincon Point.
c. Bates is special in allowing cross country flight. The Project site generates lift that allows pilots to transition to the surrounding bluffs and travel dozens of miles along the coastline, making this activity suited to the “transportation corridor”. d. Exhibit 2 lists official rules governing free flight while also claiming it’s an unrecognized recreational activity. This is an obvious contradiction resulting from the City’s selective use of the term “unsanctioned” to fit their needs. How do activities become publicly recognized? Are bikers or surfers sanctioned? No guidelines or examples are provided to address a shared space like Bates. e. Exhibit 2 states there are safety hazards regarding the freeway and UPRR, yet no evidence is provided. No free flying accidents have occured in these areas.
Meanwhile, the MND has no mitigation plan for the significant impact of bike traffic in Rincon Park caused by the Project. This congested area is already the site of numerous collisions that regularly occur between bikers and vehicles. f. Exhibit 2 states that flying at Bates is questionable because foot traffic across the UPRR is restricted. However, pilots are not crossing the tracks by foot and there are no airspace restrictions around the UPRR.
g. FAA officials and career airline pilots provided expert testimony during the MND hearing to confirm that no aviation rules are being violated at this site.
2. Inaccuracy #2: the preferred launch site disqualifies free flight from CEQA (p.134) a. The Rincon Trail Project has no bearing on the current launch locations, it is outside the scope of the project and irrelevant to the MND. b. The ownership status of the launch location parcels is subject to change before, during, and after the project, and should not factor into the MND. c. Pilots have the capacity to launch from public and private locations to arrive at Bates, at times flying from National Forest property, but can only soar Bates ridge if the existing geological features remain within this unique recreational facility. d. On rare windy days, pilots launch from the county property portion below the bluff, which is not in the Rincon Beach County Park or any private property.
SBSA Letter to Carpinteria Council: Rincon Trail Concerns Page 4 of 6 e. The Certified Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan adopted in 1982 states "recreational uses on oceanfront lands, both public and private, that do not require extensive alteration to the natural environment...shall have priority over uses requiring substantial alteration". According to this plan, whether the land is public or private, free flight at Bates should be given priority over this Project because our recreation requires no alteration to the natural environment.
3. Inaccuracy #3: the Project will not have a negative impact on uplift and airflow (p.135) a. During the Public Workshop and the MND hearing, SBSA provided expert testimony and evidence from engineers and FAA officials to substantiate the Project’s negative impact on uplift and airflow.
b. SBSA created a video describing in detail how the Project will drastically affect airflow. This video was provided to the Planning Commission and City Employees, and discussed at length during the MND hearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVIdEfWHMpE&t= .
c. Despite SBSA’s efforts, Exhibit 2 states that the flying community has not provided evidence of negative impact. This assertion is made without acknowledgement of what SBSA already provided and without explanation of what more is needed. Additionally, the City fails to share the burden of proof. If a study of scaled models is required to demonstrate the before and after conditions of wind deflection, the City should take responsibility for gathering this data. d. The City should be responsible for proving that this Project will not change airflow and will be inclusive of all current users. Where is the proof that this project will not ruin a treasured flying site that has been lovingly used for decades? e. Exhibit 2 claims that the Project will not have a negative impact on airflow. No expert testimony, data, or evidence is provided. It also appears that Exhibit 2 confuses our sport with parasailing, which is a separate activity involving a boat.
How can the City make assertions without even knowing the name of our sport? f. Exhibit 2 states that the Project will improve uplift, yet no scientific proof is provided. Wind gradient models are readily available online and SBSA is willing to further demonstrate how uplift is less productive at lower elevations and severely disrupted by benches like the two proposed for this Project. Below are two online articles that speak to soaring dynamics in areas of ridge lift.
Ridge Lift Research: http://journals.sfu.ca/ts/index.php/ts/article/viewFile/608/571 Ridge Soaring: https://chessintheair.com/what-conditions-produce-good-ridge-lift/ g. Exhibit 2 wrongly suggests that uplift is equal across all seaside bluffs in the area. While pilots may launch from a lower bluff, rarely is there enough uplift to sustain flight. Pilots immediately transition to the Bates ridge, which has a steep, unobstructed face that generates adequate lift in a wide range of wind conditions. h. The Project will cause permanent damage to a unique, treasured flying site, yet there are no assurances it will withstand rising sea levels and increased storm activity on the unstable slopes where it’s being proposed. The MND has not SBSA Letter to Carpinteria Council: Rincon Trail Concerns Page 5 of 6 demonstrated compliance with the Carpinteria Rising Sea Policy and does not account for long term maintenance or provide a plan for preventing eventual slope failure, which has already happened for the old railroad and highway. i. The City has not provided evidence of exploring a North Side alternative on either the North or South sides of the highway. This approach would satisfy all potential end users and potentially save costs. If not for the blue view directive, this project could be replaced by a line of barriers along the 101 South to protect bikers between exits.
SBSA Letter to Carpinteria Council: Rincon Trail Concerns Page 6 of 6
1LFN%REURII
)URP
-HIIUH\$/RQJFRU MORQJFRU#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
*HRUJH-LPHQH]
6XEMHFW
(,56FRSLQJ=RRP5HFRUGLQJ
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
+L1LFN
:KHQ\RXJHWDFKDQFHSOHDVHVHQGDOLQNRUILOHWUDQVIHULQIRUPDWLRQIRUWKH]RRPUHFRUGLQJRIWKH(,5 6FRSLQJPHHWLQJ,NQRZ*HRUJHDQGRWKHUVPD\KDYHDOUHDG\UHTXHVWHGWKLVEXW,KDYHQ WVHHQLWFRPHWKURXJK
LQDQ\SULRUHPDLOV
$OVR,ZDQWHGWRPDNHVXUHWKLVYLGHRLVSDUWRIWKH(,56FRSLQJDVLWDGGUHVVHVUHFUHDWLRQDOLVVXHVDQG VXJJHVWHGVRPHDOWHUQDWLYHVDQGPLWLJDWLRQVZKLOHSHUKDSVEHLQJUHDGLO\DFFHVVLEOHIRUYLHZHUV KWWSV
ZZZ\RXWXEHFRPZDWFK"Y 69,G(I:+0S(
7KDQNVDJDLQ
-HII
1LFN%REURII
)URP
-3ODHKQ VSHFLDOEXLOGX#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
JQLGLOJ#JPDLOFRP
6XEMHFW
%DWHVHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWVWXG\&DUSLQWHULDSXEOLFPHHWLQJ ΎΎ
yd
ZE>
D/>ΎΎ
hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂ͘KEKdKW EĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŽƌ>/<ŽŶůŝŶŬƐƵŶůĞƐƐ
LJŽƵĂƌĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƐĂĨĞ͘ZĞŵĞŵďĞƌ͕ƌĞƉƵƚĂďůĞǀĞŶĚŽƌƐ͕ďĂŶŬƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ǁŝůůŶŽƚĂƐŬLJŽƵƚŽĚŝƐĐůŽƐĞƉĂƐƐǁŽƌĚƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ ƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘
^ĞŶƚŵLJŝWŚŽŶĞ
dŽǁŚŽŵŝƚŵĂLJĐŽŶĐĞƌŶŵLJŶĂŵĞŝƐ:ĂLJWůĂĞŚŶ/ĂƚƚĞŶĚĞĚƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂŵĞĞƚŝŶŐƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐĂůƚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞĂƚĞƐ ďůƵĨĨ͘/ƚŝƐĂŵĂƚƚĞƌŽĨƉƵďůŝĐƌĞĐŽƌĚƚŚĂƚŵLJƚĞƐƚŝŵŽŶLJďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞĐŽƵŶĐŝůĂŶĚŵĂŶLJŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚƉŝůŽƚƐĨƌŽŵƚŚĞ ^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂ&ůLJŝŶŐƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚŝŶĚĞƉĞŶĚĞŶƚůLJǁĞƌĞǀŽŝĐĞĚ͘DĂŶLJŽĨƚŚĞƐĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐĂŶĚǁĂƌŶŝŶŐƐǁĞƌĞĂůƐŽ ƉƵďůŝĐůLJƌĞƉŽƌƚĞĚŝŶŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞůŽĐĂůĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂŶĞǁƐƉĂƉĞƌƐƐŚŽƌƚůLJƚŚĞƌĞĂĨƚĞƌĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĐŽŶĨŝƌŵŝŶŐƚĞƐƚŝŵŽŶLJĂŶĚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌ ƉƵďůŝĐůLJĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐŽĨŵĂŶLJůŽĐĂůĐŝƚŝnjĞŶƐ͘DLJƚĞƐƚŝŵŽŶLJďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞĐŽƵŶĐŝůĨŽĐƵƐĞĚŽŶƚŚĞĨĂĐƚƚŚĂƚ ĂƚĞƐƉŽŝŶƚŝƐĂŚŝŐŚůLJƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞŐĞŽůŽŐŝĐĂůƌĞŐŝŽŶǁŚĞƌĞǁŝŶĚƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐĂĨĨĞĐƚƚŚĞŵŝĐƌŽĐůŝŵĂƚĞŶŽƌƚŚĂŶĚƐŽƵƚŚŽĨƚŚĞ ƉŽŝŶƚ͘/ƚŝƐŬŶŽǁŶƚŚĂƚƚŚŝƐŵŝĐƌŽĐůŝŵĂƚĞƉƌŽǀŝĚĞƐŐƌŽǁŝŶŐĐŽŶĚŝƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĂƚĂůůŽǁĐĞƌƚĂŝŶƉůĂŶƚƐƚŽďĞĨĂƌŵĞĚĂŶĚŐƌŽǁŶ ŝŶ>ĂŽŶĐŚŝƚĂ͘ƐŝŶďĂŶĂŶĂƐĨŽƌĞdžĂŵƉůĞ͕ŽŶĞŽĨƚŚĞĨĞǁ͕ŝĨŶŽƚƚŚĞŽŶůLJƉůĂĐĞŝŶĂůŝĨŽƌŶŝĂĂƐŝƐůŽĐĂůůLJƚŚŽƵŐŚƚ͘'ŝǀĞŶ ƚŚŝƐƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐŝƚLJŽĨĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůĨĂĐƚŽƌƐƚŚĞƌĞŵĂLJďĞŽƚŚĞƌƉůĂŶƚŽƌĂŶŝŵĂůůŝĨĞŽƌŝŶƐĞĐƚƐĂƐŝŶŵŝŐƌĂƚŝŶŐďƵƚƚĞƌĨůŝĞƐƚŚĂƚ ĐŽƵůĚďĞĂĨĨĞĐƚĞĚďLJĂůƚĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĞǁŝŶĚƉĂƚƚĞƌŶƐ͕ƚĞŵƉĞƌĂƚƵƌĞĂŶĚƚŚĞůŽĐĂůĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚǁŝƚŚŵĂƐƐŝǀĞĞĂƌƚŚŵŽǀŝŶŐ͘/ƚŝƐ ŶŽƚƵŶƌĞĂƐŽŶĂďůĞƚŽĞdžƉĞĐƚƚŚĂƚƚŚĞůĂǁďĞĨŽůůŽǁĞĚĂŶĚĂƉƌŽƉĞƌĂŶĚĐŽŵƉůĞƚĞĞŶǀŝƌŽŶŵĞŶƚĂůƐƚƵĚLJďĞŵĂĚĞ͘dŚŝƐŝƐ ǁŚĂƚƚŚĞůĂǁǁĂƐŵĞĂŶƚƚŽĂƉƉůLJƚŽĂƐŝŶƚŚĞĂƚĞƐWŽŝŶƚ͘ĂƚĞƐWŽŝŶƚŝƐƚŚĞĚĞĨŝŶŝƚŝŽŶŽĨĂŵŝĐƌŽĐůŝŵĂƚĞ͘WůĞĂƐĞŝŶĐůƵĚĞ ŵLJĐŽŶĐĞƌŶƐŝŶĂŶLJĨŽƌŵĂůƌĞǀŝĞǁŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚƵĂƚŝŽŶ͘dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌLJŽƵƌĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌĂƚŝŽŶƐ͘:ĂLJWůĂĞŚŶ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
WKURJURJ#DROFRP
6HQW
6XQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
5H
1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ
123
IRU&DUSLQWHULD5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLO(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW 5HSRUW
(,5
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
,L1LFN
dŚĂŶŬLJŽƵĨŽƌƚŚĞŽƉƉŽƌƚƵŶŝƚLJWRSURYLGHLQSXWIRUWKH(,5WKDWLVUHTXLUHGIRUWKHSURSRVHG&DUSLQWHULD5LQFRQ 0XOWL8VH7UDLO 3OHDVHLQFOXGHWKLVLQWKHUHFRUG
7KHFXUUHQWSODQKDVQRLQIRUPDWLRQRQDOWHUQDWLYHSODQVIRUWKHSDWKRWKHUWKDQWRPHQWLRQWKDWSUHYLRXVYHUVLRQ KDGODQGVOLGHLVVXHV:LWKRXWGHWDLOHGFRVWGDWDRQRWKHUSRVVLEOHURXWHVVXFKDVIROORZLQJWKHIUHHZD\DQGXVLQJ H[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUHVWKH(,5ZRXOGEHLQFRPSOHWH
:LWKWKHKLJKWLGHVDQGVWRUPVWKDWDUHSUHGLFWHGWRHURGHWKHEOXIIGXHWRFOLPDWHFKDQJHDSODQWRKDYHDSDWKRQ WKHRFHDQVLGHRIWKHEOXIIWKDWZLOOIDLOZLWKLQWKHQH[W\HDUVLVZRXOGEHDQH[SHQVLYHPLVWDNHZLWKRXWWKHPRVW FXUUHQWGDWDRQWKHSRWHQWLDOIRUVHULRXVHURVLRQ
7KHSODQWRWHUPLQDWHWKHSDWKRQWRVWHHSDQGEXV\SDUNLQJORWDIWHUJRLQJWKURXJKDOOWKHHIIRUWWRPDNHLW$'$ FRPSOLDQWPDNHVQRVHQVHZKHQWKHUHDUHVDIHUDOWHUQDWLYHV$OWHUQDWLYHVWKDWQHHGWREHLQWKH(,5
7KHSODQZLOOSHUPDQHQWO\GHVWUR\DQH[WUHPHO\UDUHDQGYDOXDEOHH[LVWLQJUHFUHDWLRQDOUHVRXUFHWKHEOXIIIRU VRDULQJJOLGHUV7KHUHLVQRPLWLJDWLRQSRVVLEOHIRUWKLVVLJQLILFDQWORVV WKHUHIRUHWKHSURMHFWDVLWLVFXUUHQWO\
SURSRVHGVKRXOGEHWHUPLQDWHG$6$37KHUHJXODWRU\HQWLWLHVQHHGHGIRUDSSURYDOZLOOQHYHUVLJQRIIRQWKLV ZKHQWKH\VHHKRZLOOHJDODQGLOOFRQFHLYHGLWLV
,)PRUHWLPHDQGPRQH\,6 WREHVSHQWRQDQ(,5IRUWKHFXUUHQWSODQWKHQWKHYDOXHRIWKHEOXIIIRUVRDULQJKDQJ JOLGHUVDQGSDUDJOLGHUVZRXOGQHHGWREHDVLJQLILFDQWVHFWLRQRIWKH(,57KHQHHGIRUZLQGWXQQHOWHVWLQJRQWKH SODQQHGUHGXFHGVORSHDQGDQJOHRID'PRGHORIWKHEOXIIZRXOGSUREDEO\QRWEHQHFHVVDU\EHFDXVHWKHSURSRVHG FKDQJHLQWKHDELOLW\WRVRDUWKHEOXIIZRXOGEHVLJQLILFDQWHQRXJKWREHHDVLO\FDOFXODWHGRQSDSHUXVLQJFRPPRQ ZLQGIORZGDWDDQGIRUPXODV
,WLVJUHDWWRVHHWKDWDQ(,5ZLOOEHXVHGLQWKHSURFHVV,WZLOOOLNHO\EHOHVVH[SHQVHWRSURGXFHDFRPSUHKHQVLYH (,5WKDQWRKDYHWKHFLW\GHIHQGDODZVXLWIURPWKH*OLGHUSLORWV7KHIDFWWKDWWKHSLORWVZHUHVREODWDQWO\OHIWRXWRI WKHSURFHVVUDLVHVTXHVWLRQVWKDWKDYH\HWWREHDQVZHUHG'LGWKHSODQHUVUHDOO\WKLQNWKDWWKHVRDULQJZRXOGQRWEH DIIHFWHG"'LGORQJVPDOOWRZQSHUVRQDOFRQIOLFWVFUHDWHDSODQWKDWZLOOOLNHO\QHYHUEHSHUPLWWHG" :ŽŚŶ'ƌĞLJŶĂůĚ
ŝƌĞĐƚŽƌ͕^ĂŶƚĂĂƌďĂƌĂ^ŽĂƌŝŶŐƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶ
ϴϬϱͲϴϴϲͲϲϭϲϬ
2ULJLQDO0HVVDJH
)URP
1LFN%REURII QLFNE#FLFDUSLQWHULDFDXV!
7R
1LFN%REURII QLFNE#FLFDUSLQWHULDFDXV!
6HQW
7KX2FW
SP
6XEMHFW
1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ
123
IRU&DUSLQWHULD5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLO(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW (,5
7KH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULDKDVUHOHDVHGD1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQ 123
IRUDQ(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW
(,5
IRUWKH
5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLOSURMHFW
7KH&LW\LVVROLFLWLQJFRPPHQWVIURPWKHSXEOLFFRQFHUQLQJWKHFRQWHQWVDQGDQDO\VLVWREHFRQVLGHUHGLQWKH(,5IRUWKH SURSRVHGSURMHFW7KHVFRSLQJFRPPHQWSHULRGZLOOUXQIURP2FWREHUWR1RYHPEHUDW SP$
YLUWXDOSXEOLFVFRSLQJPHHWLQJZLOOEHKHOGRQOLQHRQ7XHVGD\1RYHPEHUWKDW SPYLD=RRP:HELQDU,QIRUPDWLRQ
RQKRZWRDWWHQGWKHYLUWXDOVFRSLQJPHHWLQJLVLQFOXGHGLQWKH123
7KH1RWLFHRI3UHSDUDWLRQDQGGHWDLOHGSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQDUHDYDLODEOHRQWKH&LW\¶V5LQFRQ7UDLOSURMHFWZHESDJHDW
KWWSV
FDUSLQWHULDFDXVSXEOLFZRUNVHQJLQHHULQJGLYLVLRQULQFRQPXOWLXVHWUDLO $FRS\RIWKH123DQGSURMHFWGHVFULSWLRQLVDOVRDWWDFKHGWRWKLVHPDLO
6KRXOG\RXKDYHDQ\TXHVWLRQVDERXWWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWRUWKLV123SOHDVHIHHOIUHHWRFRQWDFWPH 7KDQN\RX
1LFN%REURII3ULQFLSDO3ODQQHU
&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW
1LFN%REURII
)URP
.HYLQ&DUWHU [FNHYLQF#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
%DWHV
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
+L1LFN
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
.HYLQ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
.DUHQ&DVWOH NDULFDVWOH#PHFRP!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
+LQLFN
ΎΎ
yd
ZE>
D/>ΎΎ
hd/KE͗dŚŝƐĞŵĂŝůŽƌŝŐŝŶĂƚĞĚĨƌŽŵŽƵƚƐŝĚĞƚŚĞŝƚLJŽĨĂƌƉŝŶƚĞƌŝĂ͘KEKdKW EĂƚƚĂĐŚŵĞŶƚƐŽƌ>/<ŽŶůŝŶŬƐƵŶůĞƐƐ
LJŽƵĂƌĞƐƵƌĞƚŚĞLJĂƌĞƐĂĨĞ͘ZĞŵĞŵďĞƌ͕ƌĞƉƵƚĂďůĞǀĞŶĚŽƌƐ͕ďĂŶŬƐ͕ĞƚĐ͘ǁŝůůŶŽƚĂƐŬLJŽƵƚŽĚŝƐĐůŽƐĞƉĂƐƐǁŽƌĚƐŽƌŽƚŚĞƌ ƐĞŶƐŝƚŝǀĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘
^ŽƌƌLJĨŽƌŶŽƚƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶŐƐŽŽŶĞƌ͘,ŽǁĐĂŶ/ŚĞůƉƐĂǀĞĂƚĞƐ͍͍/ůŽǀĞƚŚĂƚĨůLJŝŶŐƐŝƚĞ͊͊ <Ăƌŝ
^ĞŶƚĨƌŽŵŵLJŝWŚŽŶĞ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
.DUHQ(QVLJQ HQVLJQNDUHQ#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
6DWXUGD\1RYHPEHU
$0
7R
6WHYH*RJJLD
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
&DUSLQWHULD5LQFRQ0XOWL8VH7UDLO3URMHFW
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
7R:KRP,W0D\&RQFHUQ
:HDUHDJDLQVWWKHLQLWLDOVFRSHRIWKLVSURMHFW7KHKDQJJOLGHUVKDYHEHHQXVLQJWKLVVSDFHIRU \HDUVDQGWKH\EULQJMR\WRWKRVHRIXVZKRZDWFKWKHPVDLOLQJRYHUWKHEOXIIVDQGWKHRFHDQ :HORYHWRULGHRXUELNHVDQGZRXOGDSSUHFLDWHDFRQWLQXRXVWUDLOIURP&DUS$YHQXHWR5LQFRQ %HDFK3DUNEXW127DWWKHH[SHQVHRIKDQJJOLGHUVZKRKDYHHQMR\HGWKLVVSRWIRUGHFDGHV :HDUHFRQFHUQHGWKDWDQ(,5LVQRWEHLQJGRQH
KRZZLOOWKLVSURMHFWDIIHFWWKHKLOOVLGHDIWHUVWHHS JUDGLQJ"+RZZLOOWKLVSURMHFWDIIHFWWKHORFDOIORUDDQGIDXQD":HXQGHUVWDQGWKDWWKHUHLVDVDIHW\ LVVXHLQYROYHGGXHWRF\FOLVWVXVLQJWKHIUHHZD\RUUDLODFFHVV ZK\QRWHQFRXUDJHWKHPWRXVH
+Z\WR5LQFRQ+LOO5RDG"
:HDUHKRSHIXOWKDWWKH&DUSLQWHULD3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQZLOOOLVWHQWRWKHYRLFHVRIWKHVRDULQJ FRPPXQLW\DQGWRDYHUDJHFLWL]HQVOLNHXVDQGUHFRQVLGHUWKLVSURMHFWRUDWOHDVWDOORZDQ(,5 WREHGRQH
6LQFHUHO\
.DUHQ(QVLJQDQG6WHYH7RQQHVHQ
1LFN%REURII
)URP
.DWH)DXONQHU NHUIDXONQHU#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
7XHVGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
5LQFRQ7UDLO(,56FRSLQJ0HHWLQJ
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
+HOOR1LFN
,DPDPHPEHURIWKH&KDQQHO,VODQGV%LF\FOH&OXEDQGDIUHTXHQW ELF\FOLVWEHWZHHQ9HQWXUDDQG&DUSLQWHULD,DPKRSLQJWRMRLQWKH=RRP 123PHHWLQJWKLVDIWHUQRRQ+RZHYHUWKHUHLVWKHSRVVLELOLW\WKDWD FRQIOLFWZLOOSUHYHQWPHIURPMRLQLQJ:LOOWKH=RRPEHUHFRUGHGDQG DYDLODEOHRQ\RXUZHEVLWH"
,DPUHDOO\ORRNLQJIRUZDUGWRWKHSURSRVHG5LQFRQ7UDLOSURMHFW5LQFRQ %HDFKLVDWHUULILFSDUNDQGWKHWUDLOVKRXOGPDNHWKHSDUNPRUHDFFHVVLEOH WRZDONHUVDQGF\FOLVWVIURP&DUSLQWHULD
0\ELJJHVWFRQFHUQLVWKHVDIHDFFRPPRGDWLRQRIWKHLQFUHDVHGQXPEHUV RIELNHVWKDWZLOOEHWUDQVLWLQJ5LQFRQ%HDFK&RXQW\3DUN7KHSDUNLQJ ORWLVDOUHDG\GLFH\IRUFDUVSHGHVWULDQVDQGELF\FOLVWV7KHSURSRVHGWUDLO VKRXOGJUHDWO\LQFUHDVHWKHQXPEHURIELNHV+RSHIXOO\6%&RXQW\3DUNV LVHQJDJHGDQGZLOOEHSODQQLQJEHWWHUURXWLQJELNHVSHGVDQGFDUV WKURXJKWKHSDUN
,SODQWRVXEPLWDOHWWHUSULRUWRWKH1RYGHDGOLQH,WZLOOEHKHOSIXOLI, DPDEOHWRUHYLHZWRGD\
VGLVFXVVLRQVRWKDW,KDYHDIXOOXQGHUVWDQGLQJRI
WKHSURSRVHG5LQFRQ7UDLOSURMHFW
7KDQNV
.DWH)DXONQHU
1LFN%REURII
)URP
.DWKOHHQ5HGGLQJWRQ UHGGLQJWRQ#YHUL]RQQHW!
6HQW
0RQGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
)ZG
5LQFRQ7UDLO3URMHFW(,56FRSLQJ&RPPHQWV
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
2ULJLQDO0HVVDJH
)URP
.DWKOHHQ5HGGLQJWRQ UHGGLQJWRQ#YHUL]RQQHW!
7R
QLFNE#FDUSLQWHULDFDXV QLFNE#FDUSLQWHULDFDXV!
6HQW
0RQ1RY
SP
6XEMHFW
5LQFRQ7UDLO3URMHFW(,56FRSLQJ&RPPHQWV
+L1LFN
3OHDVHDFFHSWWKHVXJJHVWLRQWRWKRURXJKO\LQYHVWLJDWHDQGUHVHDUFKWKHLWHPVVWDWHGEHORZDVSDUWRIWKH6FRSLQJ 3URFHVVZLWKLQWKH(,5IRUWKH5LQFRQ7UDLO3URMHFW
7R
'XGHN(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW6FRSLQJ6XJJHVWLRQV &LW\RI&DUSLQWHULDDQGWKH&&&PXVWH[DPLQHDOWHUQDWLYHURXWHVRQWKH1RUWKVLGHRIWKH%OXIIVUXQQLQJSDUDOOHOWRWKH )UHHZD\
&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULDDQGWKH&&&WKRURXJKO\UHVHDUFKWKHJHRORJ\RIWKHDUHDDQGZKDWHURVLRQPLJKWEHFDXVHGLQWKH UHPRYDORIWRQVRIGLUWGXULQJWKHFRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKLVWUDLOZKLFKLQFOXGHVEULGJHVFRQFUHWHVXSSRUWV\VWHPVDQG H[WHQVLYHGUDLQDJH+RZGRHVWKLVHIIHFWWKHVWDELOLW\DQGDOVRWKHOLDELOLWLHVRIWKHSXEOLFIDOOLQJRULQMXULQJWKHPVHOYHVRQ WKLVWUDLO:KRLVUHVSRQVLEOHIRUWKRVHOLDELOLWLHVDQGZKDWVDIHW\SUHFDXWLRQVFDQZLOOEHWDNHQWRSUHYHQWLQMXU\WRWKH SXEOLF"
:LOGOLIHKDELWDWWKHSUHVHQFHRI(6+$DQGWKHRYHUDOOSODQWDQGDQLPDOVSHFLHVQDWLYHWRWKHDUHDVKRXOGEH WKRURXJKO\UHVHDUFKHGDQGGRFXPHQWHG'LVSODFLQJDQ\RIRXUQDWLYH&DOLIRUQLD:LOGOLIHPXVWEHDYRLGHGDWDOOFRVWV :RXOGWKH5LQFRQ7UDLOLQWHUUXSWGHVWUR\DQHVWDEOLVKHGZLOGOLIHFRUULGRU"7KLVTXHVWLRQPXVWEHDQVZHUHG 7KH+DQJJOLGHUVDQG3DUDJOLGHUVODXQFKSDGFDQQRWDQGVKRXOGQRWEHGHVWUR\HG,W VLVDORQJHVWDEOLVKHGVLWHRI
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
5HVSHFWIXOO\6XEPLWWHG
.DWKOHHQ5HGGLQJWRQ
1RYHPEHU
1LFN%REURII
)URP
.DWKDULQD5RHVOHU NDWURHVOHU#JPDLOFRP!
6HQW
)ULGD\1RYHPEHU
30
7R
1LFN%REURII
6XEMHFW
%LNHSDWKSURSRVDO
(;7(51$/(0$,/
&$87,21
7KLVHPDLORULJLQDWHGIURPRXWVLGHWKH&LW\RI&DUSLQWHULD'212723(1DWWDFKPHQWVRU&/,&. RQOLQNVXQOHVV\RXDUHVXUHWKH\DUHVDIH5HPHPEHUUHSXWDEOHYHQGRUVEDQNVHWFZLOOQRWDVN\RXWR GLVFORVHSDVVZRUGVRURWKHUVHQVLWLYHLQIRUPDWLRQ
'HDU0U%REURII
$V\RXUHYLHZWKHSURSRVDOWRFUHDWHDELNHSDWKLQ&DUSLQWHULDSOHDVHFRQVLGHUWKHLPSDFWWKLVZRXOGKDYHRQ SDUDJOLGLQJ,DPDSLORWDQGIUHTXHQWO\YLVLW6DQWD%DUEDUDLQRUGHUWRIO\WKHUH,EHOLHYHWKLVKHOSVWKHFLW\ V
WRXULVPDQGLVDEHDXWLIXOSDUWRILWVFKDUDFWHUWKDWZRXOGEHDVKDPHWRORVH 3OHDVHFRQVLGHUILQGLQJDQDOWHUQDWLYHSURSRVDOWKDWGRHVQRWGHVWUR\WKHULGJH $OOWKHEHVW
.DWKDULQD5RHVOHU
State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director South Coast Region 3883 Ruffin Road
San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 467-4201
www.wildlife.ca.gov
Conserving California’s Wildlife Since 1870
November 30, 2020
Nick Bobroff
Principal Planner
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
[email protected]
Subject: Comments on the Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Carpinteria Rincon Multi-Use Trail, SCH #2020060534, Santa Barbara County
Dear Mr. Bobroff:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has reviewed the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Carpinteria Rincon Multi-Use Trail (Project). The City of Carpinteria (City) is the lead agency preparing a DEIR pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et. seq.) with the purpose of informing decision-makers and the public regarding potential environmental effects related to the Project.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.
CDFW’s Role
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State [Fish & Game Code, §§ 711.7, subdivision (a) & 1802; Public Resources Code, § 21070; California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, § 15386, subdivision (a)]. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect state fish and wildlife resources.
CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Public Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code, including lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority (Fish & Game Code, § 1600 et seq.). Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” (see Fish & Game Code, § 2050) of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA; Fish & Game
Nick Bobroff
City of Carpinteria
Nov. 30, 2020