Carpinteria City Council
March 28, 2022

November 19, 2020
County Connector Trail Proposal – Rincon Park Project Components Study:

County of Santa Barbara, California
To Whom It May Concern,
Bengal Engineering is pleased to present this proposal to provide component feasibility associated with the County Connector Trail – Rincon Park Project.

The trail is proposed to run through/near Rincon Park, to the existing Bike Path at Bates Road and Highway 101. We understand a safe route through the County’s Rincon Park is of importance. We also understand the engineering challenges involved in investigating the design.

The attached project scope was developed based on discussions during meetings held on 29 September, 1 October, and 5 November with County and SBCAG officials.

Regards,
Scott Onishuk, P.E.

Bengal Engineering
County Connector Trail
Rincon Park Project

Scope of Work:

Project Administration
This item provides budget for Bengal’s internal project administration along with some effort to coordinate with others.

Project Components:

Bengal will investigate project components and determine their feasibility – Components are broken up into West-End and East-End components.

Exhibit 1: various alignments to be studied
West-End Components
This is a new option, based on November 5 meeting:

Project will investigate using 2 trail connections simultaneously—for two different types of users:

1. “Yellow line” trail on ocean side of parking lot for recreational users stopping at park

2. “Orange line” trail on freeway side of parking lot: for “pass though” users County Connector Trail
Rincon Park Project

Components of Ocean Side Recreational User Segment
Photo 1: Example provided by Jeff Lindgren: Cabrillo Blvd. Application at Rincon Park would allow recreational users to stop in the park:

Note: sidewalk adjacent to parking lot and separate beach way trail on ocean side of planter The trail will be 8-feet wide with two 2-foot wide shoulders for a total paved width of 12-feet; this compares to the 16-foot paved width for the rest of the trail to the west. This is a “mixed use path” not a dedicated Class 1 bike path.

On the ocean side of the parked cars, a 5-foot wide sidewalk and a planter strip will separate the mixed-use trail. Because the park is small, the planter strip will likely be narrow: 6 to 8- feet wide is envisioned.

Photo 2: Rincon County Park, looking east from west end of parking lot Note:
x “yellow line” multi-user path, on a new alignment will replace winding sidewalk in park x A new raised sidewalk will replace bioswale
County Connector Trail
Rincon Park Project

Photo 3: Rincon County Park, looking near restroom; note sewer lift station. This area will likely be a “pinch point”. Current restroom appears be a potential conflict.

Parking may be affected here too.

Photo 4: looking West from Rest Room
Parking Lot Configuration
The project design will preserve parking to the extent possible. x Preserve head-in parking stall geometry (90-degree stalls): Parking lot will remain generally unchanged to preserve parking spaces and minimize loss of Park space. x As previously mentioned, behind the cars (on freeway side) separate vehicle drive aisle, between parking lot and trail, using S.B. harbor chain fencing concept.

Sewer lift Station
Restroom
County Connector Trail
Rincon Park Project

x Provide new sidewalk adjacent to parking stalls.
x Provide concept to replace the open bioswale and gravel-filled pavers that exist west of the restrooms with current generation permeable pavers or permeable pavement.

Photo 5: “orange line” on freeway side of parking lot: looking east; location of possible “pass-through alignment”.

On Freeway side of parking lot, a “pass through” alignment could be provided for users who will not likely stop in the park. Room for this trail will be created by regrading the cut-slope, shifting the toe-of-slope back toward the freeway. Use of a retaining wall to support the cut slope was discussed, but considering 1) the amount of grading which is already required for the project, 2) the opportunity to remove more of the old bridge piers which are buried inside the slope, and 3) the chance to provide a vegetated slope to reduce erosion, the regrading option seems a cheaper and better solution.

This trail will include two 4-foot wide travel lanes, a 2-foot wide paved shoulder on the freeway side and a 3-foot wide paved shoulder on the ocean side (adjacent to the chain-andpost) barrier) for a total paved width of 13-feet.

County Connector Trail
Rincon Park Project

Exhibit 2: Typical Cross section from Caltrans Highway Design Manual with some items of interest for ‘Orange Line’ alignment.

Photo 6: Santa Barbara Harbor: Chain-and-post barrier concept for use at Rincon County Park
The chain-and-post barrier will require a width on the ocean side of 5-feet (2- feet for the barrier and 3-foot buffer on ocean / traffic side).

Barrier separates
drive-aisle from path
County Connector Trail
Rincon Park Project

Exhibit 1: various alignments to be studied
East-End Components

1. “Pink line” trail, beginning east of sewer lift station, running along southbound offramp terminating at Bates Road.

2. “Green line” trail, beginning east of sewer lift station, running outside of the existing parking lot. Trail to terminate at Bates Road.

3. New component, based on 5 November meeting: provide a crossing across the parking lot to the ocean side “yellow line” east of the sewer lift station.

County Connector Trail
Rincon Park Project

Photo 7: “Green line” alignment will pass along the mountain side of the parking lot This view is looking easterly
Photo 8: “Green line” alignment looking westerly. Note utility pole and guy wires will be impacted. Sewer lift station is highlighted by yellow circle.

County Connector Trail
Rincon Park Project

Photo 9: “Pink Line” alignment looking westerly.

Photo 10: Looking easterly from proposed end of “Pink Line” alignment County Connector Trail
Rincon Park Project

Deliverable:

1. Draft Project Component Memo - Bengal will provide a summation of the components as noted above. Memo will highlight “pros-and-cons”.

2. Draft Cost Estimates for each alignment

3. Support for a Project Study Workshop – Bengal will create exhibits necessary to present the components for discussion by the project team: Bengal will document the decisions made in the workshop for use in the next item.

4. Using the Project Component Memo and the comments from the workshop, we will create a Preferred Project Component Memo to document the team’s decisions for future use.

5. Updated Cost Estimates: The draft cost estimates provided at the project study workshop will be updated to accommodate the components included in the Preferred Project Component Memo.

Fee:

Bengal Engineering has provided a not-to-exceed budget shown on the attached spreadsheet.

Assumptions/Exclusions:

1. This project will develop planning-level concept plans for future design and consideration provided by the limited budget shown in the Fee Estimate.

2. Because of budget restrictions, we will not be able to include much detail of the areas which will require more engineering effort; specifically the termini of the alignments and the intersection of Bates Road.

3. The concept designs for the alignments will focus on grading, rather than using retaining walls. No walls will be investigated.

4. No subsurface exploration or laboratory testing will be performed.

5. Budget for survey is rough, fill-in topo for planning purposes. This does not include details such as the trees.

6. We assume stakeholders will participate proactively in the project.

7. We assume that the project will proceed uninterrupted.

Appendix L
Tribal Cultural Resources – CONFIDENTIAL

Attachment D
Planning Commission Action
Letter and Adopted Resolution
No. PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022
CITY of CARPINTERIA, CALIFORNIA
5775 CARPINTERIA AVENUE  CARPINTERIA, CA 93013-2603 (805) 684-5405  FAX (805) 684- 5304 www.carpinteria.ca.us
January 20, 2022
Matt Roberts, Director
Parks & Recreation Department
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Re: Notification of Planning Commission Action
Rincon Trail, 19-2015-CUP/CDP
Eastern Terminus of Carpinteria Ave (APNs 001-220-032, -092, -100, -101) Dear Mr. Roberts:

On Tuesday, January 18, 2022, the Planning Commission took action on the following item:

Request to accept and certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Rincon Trail project; select Alternative 3, Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative, as the preferred project; and grant a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the 850-foot length segment of the Rincon Trail located in the jurisdiction of the City of Carpinteria.

The Planning Commission approved the project subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval as recommended.

This decision to approve the project is appealable to the City Council. The appeal period is ten days commencing on Wednesday, January 19, 2022 and ending on Friday, January 28, 2022 at 5:00 p.m. An appeal must be filed in writing with the City Clerk, and must state specifically in the appeal wherein the decision of the Planning Commission was not in accord with the purposes of Title 14, Zoning, of the Carpinteria Municipal Code, or wherein it is claimed there was an error of discretion by the Planning Commission. No appeal fee is required for projects located within the Coastal Appeals (CA) Overlay.

The project is not subject to the payment of the City’s Development Impact Fees as the project does not involve the addition of any new commercial or industrial square footage, or residential units.

A copy of the adopted Resolution, Findings for Approval, and Conditions of Approval for the project are attached to this letter for your records. A separate copy of the last page of the Conditions of Approval is also attached. Please sign and return this page to the Community Rincon Trail EIR & CUP/CDP PC Action Letter
Hearing Date: January 18, 2022

Development Department. Should you have any questions or need further information regarding this action letter or the project, please contact Nick Bobroff at (805) 755-4407 or by email at: [email protected]
Sincerely,
Steve Goggia, Director
Community Development Department
Attachment: Planning Commission Resolution with Attachments cc: John Ilasin, Public Works Director
Fred Luna, SBCAG
City Council
Project file, 19-2015-CUP/CDP
RESOLUTION NO. PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

RESOLUTION NO. PC-22-001

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CARPINTERIA PLANNING COMMISSION

TO ADOPT AND CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PREPARED FOR THE RINCON TRAIL PROJECT; AND TO APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 19- 2015-CUP/CDP TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 850-FOOT

SEGMENT OF THE CLASS I MULTI-USE PATH LOCATED IN THE CITY OF CARPINTERIA. THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPOSED 2,800-FOOT TRAIL

WOULD CONNECT THE EAST END OF CARPINTERIA AVENUE TO

RINCON BEACH COUNTY PARK IN UNINCORPORATED SANTA BARBARA COUNTY. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN CITY AND CALTRANS RIGHTOF-WAY AT THE EASTERN END OF THE CITY OF CARPINTERIA.

REQUESTED BY MATT ROBERTS, DIRECTOR, CITY OF CARPINTERIA

PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, in October 2015, the California Coastal Commission certified City of Carpinteria Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA) LCP-4-CPN-15-0018-1 / City Project 09-1522-LCPA/ORD to establish the Transportation Corridor Wetland Overlay (TCWO) District, which required completion of the Rincon Trail Project as a condition of approval for the Linden Casitas Interchanges and Via Real Extension Project, as a balancing provision to offset unavoidable wetland impacts through completion of one of two regionally important improvements to alternative transportation modes for the purpose of increasing access to coastal resources for all members of the public; and WHEREAS, the City of Carpinteria Planning Commission previously certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and considered and approved a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for an earlier iteration of the Rincon Trail Project in May 2015; and
WHEREAS, in May 2017, the previously granted entitlements for the Rincon Trail project expired due to failure to initiate construction within the allotted two-year timeframe from project approval while construction drawings and specifications were still in development; and
WHEREAS, the City of Carpinteria Planning Commission considered a new application for a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit filed by Matt Roberts, City of Carpinteria Parks and Recreation Department, on October 17, 2019 to allow for the construction of a 850-foot segment of the larger 2,800-foot class I multi-use path between the east end of the City of Carpinteria and Rincon Beach County Park in unincorporated Santa Barbara County; and
RESOLUTION NO. PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

WHEREAS, the current application was subsequently deemed complete and accepted by the City as being consistent with the applicable submittal requirements on November 15, 2019; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission previously accepted and certified a Subsequent Mitigated Negative Declaration (SMND) for the project in January 2020; and WHEREAS, the acceptance and certification of the SMND by the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council, and while the appeal was never taken up by the City Council, the Council directed staff in September 2020 to proceed with the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report in order to allow for a more in-depth analysis of key issue areas identified during consideration of the SMND; and WHEREAS, in response to direction received from the City Council, and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated December 2021 was prepared for the project and has been noticed and subject to public review as required under CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has provided public notice of the intent of the Planning Commission, acting on behalf of the City of Carpinteria as Lead Agency, to accept and certify the EIR prepared for the project as having fulfilled all procedural and statutory requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the EIR, together with any comments received during the public review process; and WHEREAS, the City of Carpinteria Architectural Review Board considered the proposed project at their October 28, 2021 meeting wherein the project was recommended for preliminary approval; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a hearing and received evidence regarding the application for the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the policies of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan and the Zoning Code standards that are relevant to the project.

NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The EIR prepared for the project is accepted and certified as having satisfied the requirements of CEQA;

Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING

RINCON TRAIL PROJECT
PROJECT 19-2015-CUP/CDP
JANUARY 18, 2022

FINDINGS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE, LOCAL COASTAL PLAN, GENERAL PLAN, AND TITLE 14 OF THE CARPINTERIA MUNICIPAL CODE

1.0 Administrative Findings
The Planning Commission hereby incorporates by reference as though set forth in full all Community Development Department staff reports and attachments thereto presented to the Planning Commission and all comments made or received either orally or in writing at the public hearings on this project and the associated Environmental Impact Report.

1.1 Procedures
Pursuant to the California Coastal Act, the Administrative Regulations of the California Coastal Commission and the City of Carpinteria’s (“City”) Local Coastal Program, it has been found that the process for public review of the subject Local Coastal Development Permit has been properly conducted as follows:
a. An application for a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit was submitted on October 17, 2019, and deemed complete and accepted by the City as being consistent with the applicable submittal requirements on November 15, 2019. Said application and all related material have been available for public review at City offices since the date of submittal.
b. The application has been evaluated and found to conform to the applicable zone districts and to be consistent with the City’s Coastal Land Use Plan, the Interpretive Guidelines of the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Act. c. The project has been reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing which included, but is not limited to, mailed notice to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property and residents within 100 feet of the property. d. The project has been reviewed by the City’s Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing which included, but is not limited to, mailed notice to all property owners within Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

300 feet of the subject property, residents within 100 feet of the property and publication in the local newspaper, the Coastal View News.

1.2 California Environmental Quality Act
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) findings pursuant to CEQA (California Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.6) and State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Sections 15090, 15091, 15092, 15097):
a. The Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) dated December 2021 was presented to the Planning Commission and all voting members of the Planning Commission have reviewed and considered the EIR prior to approving this project. The EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is adequate for this proposed project. b. The Planning Commission finds and certifies that the EIR dated December 2021 constitutes a complete, accurate, adequate and good faith effort at full disclosure under CEQA. The Planning Commission further finds and certifies that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA.
c. The Planning Commission selects Alternative 3, Steeper Slopes/Reduced Earthwork Alternative from among the Proposed Project and Alternatives 1-4 as the preferred project, finding that it meets the project objectives and results in the fewest and least severe impacts to the environment.
d. The documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceeding upon which this decision is based are in the custody of the Planning Commission Secretary located at 5775 Carpinteria Ave, Carpinteria, CA.
e. Adoption of Environmental Reporting and Monitoring Program. The project description, and conditions of approval, with their corresponding permit monitoring requirements, are hereby adopted as the reporting and monitoring program for this project to ensure compliance during project implementation.
f. Pursuant to Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code and Section 15091(a)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Planning Commission finds that design features incorporated as part of the project description and mitigation measures applied as conditions of project approval would result in the avoidance or reduction to insignificant levels the following environmental impacts identified in the EIR. These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the EIR dated December 2021, and associated appendix materials. The EIR identified the potential for Class II, significant but mitigable impacts in the areas of Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems.

Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

i. Aesthetics: U.S. Highway 101 in the project area is identified as being eligible for scenic highway designation. Additionally, both City and County of Santa Barbara (“County”) planning regulations reflect a high concern for protecting visual resources along U.S. Highway 101 in the project area, as well as protecting public views from the project area towards the ocean and mountains. The project would result in visual changes to the area, introducing new human-scale activity from trail users, as well as physical alteration of the area primarily associated with the removal of existing vegetation, earthwork and grading, the construction of the new bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad (“UPRR”) crossing, and fencing and barriers along the proposed path alignment. Trail features have been designed to be visually subordinate to the setting, but due to the high scenic value of the area, potentially significant aesthetic impacts may result. Temporary construction activities, such as staging areas and clearing of vegetation, may also degrade the visual quality of the project area.

With the incorporation of the following mitigation measures as project conditions of approval, all impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Measure AES-1 requires the project to be reviewed and approved by both the City Architectural Review Board and the County South Board of Architectural Review to ensure all project elements reflect quality design and are appropriate for their setting.

Measure BIO-5 requires the development and implementation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, prepared by a qualified biologist, to mitigate for impacts to ESHA vegetation communities. The Plan may include in-kind on-site restoration of impacted areas, and enhancement/restoration of degraded or disturbed areas adjacent to the impacted areas. A total of 4.32 acres of impacts to ESHA vegetation communities will be required to be mitigated at replacement ratios ranging from 2:1 to 4:1, depending upon the habitat types impacted. To the extent feasible, restoration will occur onsite, and any additional mitigation required shall be carried out on areas within adjacent land controlled by the County or City. ii. Biological Resources: Construction of the trail project would require removal of ESHA vegetation communities that provide potential habitat for two special status species: California legless lizard and San Diego desert woodrat. Construction activities could result in injury or mortality to these special status species, which would be potentially significant absent mitigation.

There are five native vegetation communities found in the project area that are considered to be ESHA by the City, County and California Department of Fish & Wildlife (“CDFW”), and that would suffer permanent impacts as a result of the proposed project: California Brittle Bush – Ashy Buckwheat Scrub Alliance: 0.42 acres; Quailbush Scrub Alliance: 1.73 acres; California Sagebrush – (Purple Sage) Scrub Alliance: 1.29 acres; Coyote Brush Scrub Alliance: 0.71 acres; Lemonade Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

Berry Scrub Alliance: 0.17 acres. In total, 4.32 acres of ESHA vegetation communities would suffer permanent impacts resulting from the project.

A total of 22 species of native birds were detected on site, including several with the potential to nest there. Nests, eggs, and nestlings of all native birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the California Fish and Game Code. Vegetation clearing and grading, if occurring during the nesting season, could have the potential to destroy nests, eggs and nestlings, in violation of these regulations. Therefore, impacts to nesting birds are potentially significant.

Potential project impacts associated with biological resources would be addressed through the following mitigation measures: Measure BIO-1 requires an approved biologist to prepare and implement a worker education and awareness program (WEAP) to educate and make workers aware of sensitive habitats and species that may be encountered in the project area, and to inform workers of required actions that must be implemented to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive species and habitats. Measure BIO-2 requires the construction limits to be fenced with highly visible fencing to avoid inadvertent impacts to adjacent areas of ESHA vegetation communities, native vegetation, special-status species and common wildlife species.

Measures BIO-3 and BIO-4 require pre-construction surveys and relocation efforts for California Legless Lizards and San Diego Woodrats located in the project area, prior to initiation of construction.

Measure BIO-5 requires the development and implementation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, prepared by a qualified biologist, to mitigate for impacts to ESHA vegetation communities. The Plan may include in-kind on-site restoration of impacted areas, and enhancement/restoration of degraded or disturbed areas adjacent to the impacted areas. A total of 4.32 acres of impacts to ESHA vegetation communities will be required to be mitigated at replacement ratios ranging from 2:1 to 4:1, depending upon the habitat types impacted. To the extent feasible, restoration will occur onsite, and any additional mitigation required shall be carried out on areas within adjacent land controlled by the County or City. Measure BIO-6 requires a qualified biologist to develop and implement a weed management plan during construction and during implementation of the habitat mitigation and monitoring plan required under Measure BIO-5, to control and prevent the spread of invasive weeds in the project area. Measure BIO-7 requires a pre-construction nesting bird survey to be completed within 30 days prior to any vegetation clearing, ground disturbance or use of noise-generating equipment that would occur during the nesting/breeding season of native birds potentially nesting in the project area. If active nests are found, then work would be postponed or halted in the affected area until the nest is vacated and juveniles have fledged. With the incorporation of these identified mitigation measures as project conditions of approval, all impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

iii. Cultural Resources: Previously recorded cultural resource sites are known to be present in and near the project area. There is the potential for subsurface intact or previously displaced cultural resources to be present and impacted during construction, which could result in a potentially significant effect to cultural resources.

Avoidance and minimization of cultural resource impacts would be addressed through the following measures: Measure CR-1 requires development of protocols for practical adherence to Measures CR-2 and CR-3 (below), prior to and after ground disturbing construction activities, through the preparation and implementation of a Cultural Resource Treatment and Inadvertent Discovery Plan (CRTP) by a qualified archaeologist. Measure CR-2 requires all personnel participating in tasks that may incur ground disturbance to be briefed by a qualified archaeologist about the archaeological sensitivity of the site, the types of cultural resources that could be encountered, and the procedures to follow in the event cultural resources or human remains are encountered.

Measure CR-3 requires a qualified archaeologist to be present to monitor initial grading and clearing activities until such time that it is determined that no additional cultural resources are located in the area, and to also 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 cultural resources are present in the improvement area. Measure CR-4 requires that construction activities be suspended and redirected to another area in the event cultural resources are encountered to allow the monitoring archaeologist to assess the nature, extent and significance of any discoveries and develop appropriate management recommendations for treatment of the discovered cultural resource(s). With the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures as project conditions of approval, all impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
iv. Geology and Soils: The project area is located in a geologically active area vulnerable to earthquakes and secondary impacts such as landslides and liquefaction.

The project includes features, such as the manufactured slopes and bridge crossing over the UPRR corridor, which could be damaged by seismic ground shaking. The project entails earthwork and grading activities to lay back and stabilize slopes in the project area in an effort to reduce potential erosion effects; nevertheless, erosion impacts could be worsened unless proper slope construction techniques are employed.

Potential project impacts associated with geology and soils would be addressed through the following measures: Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 require the design of the bridge and bridge foundation to adhere to the recommendations contained in the Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

project-specific geotechnical report. Measure GEO-3 requires the design and construction of manufactured slopes to also adhere to the recommendations contained within the project-specific geotechnical report. With the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures as project conditions of approval and aspects of the project design, all impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. v. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: There is the potential for soils along the project alignment adjacent to the U.S. Highway 101 corridor to contain aerially deposited lead (ADL). Soils containing ADL could be used for fill soils for the project, potentially exposing the public to the contaminated soils. Construction activities and equipment use hydrocarbon fuels and lubricants which are considered hazardous materials. Concrete, paint and other surface coatings are also considered hazardous materials, and are anticipated to be used during construction. Spills or leaks of such materials into the storm drain system could pose potentially significant water quality hazards.

With the incorporation of the following identified mitigation measures as project conditions of approval, all impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level:

Measure HAZ-1 requires surface soils within the project alignment north of the UPRR corridor to be tested for potential ADL presence to determine if such soils meet applicable safety standards and can be used for fill or if standards are exceeded, the soils must be disposed of in a properly licensed landfill. Measure WAT-2 requires the contractor to prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan that includes best management practices to be implemented and monitored prior to and during construction to minimize potential construction-related water quality impacts.
vi. Hydrology and Water Quality: Temporary construction activities may result in inadvertent water quality impacts related to soil, dust, paint and/or concrete entering the stormwater drainage system. There is increased potential for stormwater runoff and erosion during construction and until new/replacement vegetation is established.

During the operational phase of the project, soil, trash, dog waste, and other impurities have the potential to enter the project’s storm drainage systems and could result in potentially significant water quality impacts. Failure to properly maintain new/replaced storm drain infrastructure associated with the project could result in significant erosion of the bluff face.

Avoidance and minimization of hydrology and water quality impacts would be addressed and mitigated to less than significant levels through the following measures which have been incorporated into the project conditions of approval.

Measure WAT-1 requires the project to obtain and maintain coverage under a Construction General Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board.

Measure WAT-2 requires the contractor to prepare and implement a Stormwater Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

Pollution Prevention Plan that includes best management practices to be implemented and monitored prior to and during construction to minimize potential construction-related water quality impacts. Measure WAT-3 requires implementation of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan utilizing best management practices throughout grading and construction activities.

Measure WAT-4 requires replanting of native vegetation and hydroseeding of slope areas with appropriate native seed mixes as soon as practicable following completion of trail construction, in order to provide long-term stabilization of soils disturbed during construction. Measure WAT-5 requires ongoing periodic inspection and maintenance/repairs of all new and replaced storm water components on an annual basis prior to the start of the rainy season, to ensure all components are in good repair and not blocked by debris or sediment. Measure WAT-6 requires all project area storm drain inlets to be outfitted with storm drain filters/inserts to minimize pollutants from impacting the ocean. Filters shall be cleaned at least twice a year, once immediately prior to November 1 (start of the rainy season) and once in January.
vii. Land Use and Planning: The City of Carpinteria’s and County of Santa Barbara’s respective Local Coastal Programs contain a number of policies and regulations concerning resource protection within the Coastal Zone. Project impacts to these resources could result in potentially significant land use and planning impacts unless properly mitigated. Incorporation of all of the mitigation measures identified in the EIR would reduce environmental impacts to less than significant levels, such that the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. viii. Noise: Short-term, temporary noise impacts would occur during construction.

Residences closest to the project site (i.e., residences located in the Rincon Point neighborhood) are the only sensitive receptors in the project area and could periodically be exposed to potentially significant noise impacts if not properly mitigated. Construction-related traffic, such as haul trucks, which may pass by the sensitive receptors causing intermittent noise impacts.

Avoidance and minimization of noise impacts would be addressed through the following measures which have been incorporated into the project conditions of approval. Measure NOI-1 would limit construction hours for the project to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No construction is permitted to occur on weekends or state holidays. Construction maintenance shall be limited to the same hours. Non-noise generating construction activities would be exempt from these restrictions. Measure NOI-2 requires all construction equipment with engines to have original manufacturer’s approved muffling devices, and all stationary equipment be physically buffered from nearby sensitive receptors.

Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

ix. Tribal Cultural Resources: No known tribal cultural resources listed in the California Register of Historical Resources or in a local register of historical resources are known to be present within the project site. Nevertheless, given the known presence of sensitive archaeological resources in the general vicinity, there is potential for unknown subsurface tribal cultural resources to be present and to be impacted during construction, resulting in potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.

Measure TCR-1 requires initial ground disturbing activities to be monitored by a Native American observer. 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. Measure TCR-1 in coordination with Measures CR-1 through CR-4, previously described above, would reduce potentially significant impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level, and have been incorporated into the project conditions of approval.
x. Utilities and Service Systems: The project would moderately alter existing drainage patterns in the project area through re-grading of project slopes, short-term removal of vegetation, and introduction of the new impervious trail surface (approximately one acre of new impervious surface), resulting in potentially significant impacts to water quality. New storm drainage infrastructure associated with the project could pose potentially significant erosion impacts if not properly maintained to avoid failure of said infrastructure. Previously identified Measures WAT-1 through WAT-5 would address and reduce potentially significant temporary constructionrelated water quality impacts and storm drainage infrastructure impacts to less than significant levels, and have been incorporated into the project conditions of approval.

1.3 Conditional Use Permit Findings
Pursuant to Carpinteria Municipal Code §14.62.040(8), the Planning Commission shall determine that all of the following criteria have been met prior to approving or approving with conditions a Conditional Use Permit:
a. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use.

The portion of the Rincon Trail project located in the jurisdiction of the City of Carpinteria would fit entirely within the existing Caltrans right-of-way for U.S. Highway 101 and City of Carpinteria right-of-way near the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue. A portion of the Caltrans right-of-way located just east of the City-County boundary would be dedicated and transferred to the City of Carpinteria as part of the project in order to facilitate the City’s ongoing ownership and responsibility for this portion of the trail. A temporary construction Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

easement may need to be acquired from the property owner of the easternmost parcel on Carpinteria Avenue (APN 001-210-016) to facilitate access to, and construction of the new trail alignment. The western trailhead would be located in an existing unimproved shoulder of Carpinteria Avenue, adjacent to the Rincon Road/State Highway 150 intersection.

Informal trailhead parking would be available via on-street parallel parking near the cul-desac at the end of Carpinteria Avenue and in the remaining portion of the unimproved shoulder.

Use of off-site areas for mitigation of projected permanent biological resources impacts is anticipated to be necessary to meet specified regulatory replacement ratios for loss of sensitive vegetation communities along the trail alignment. The adjacent Rincon Bluffs Preserve and natural areas of the Rincon Beach County Park have been preliminarily identified as the preferred receiver site for offsite compensatory mitigation for native vegetation impacts that cannot be accommodated onsite due to site area constraints. Final site selections for any proposed offsite compensatory mitigation efforts will be included in the required Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the project. b. The site for the proposed use is served by streets and highways that are properly designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the subject use.

This project is designed to improve bicycle and pedestrian travel by providing a dedicated class-I direct coastal route between the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue in the City of Carpinteria and public recreational facilities located southeast of the City in unincorporated Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties (i.e., Rincon Beach County Park; Rincon Point State Beach; and Pacific Coast Bikeway). The project would provide a safer and legal alternative to the current use of the U.S. Highway 101 shoulder and/or informal trails that trespass through the UPRR corridor to connect the City of Carpinteria to points southward for cyclists and pedestrians. The trail project would fill in this existing gap in the California Coastal Trail (“CCT”), consistent with the circulation and bikeway systems outlined in the County of Santa Barbara’s Comprehensive Plan, the City of Carpinteria’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, the statewide CCT Map, and the Plan for Improved Agency Partnering (Caltrans and California Coastal Commission, 2016). The project would enhance and improve coastal access and alternative transportation opportunities for bicycles and pedestrians, consistent with local coastal policies and plans.

The project would have no long-term substantive impact on the capacity of roadways in the project area. Completion of the bike path is anticipated to result in an incremental reduction of vehicle trips to access nearby popular coastal destinations. Existing roadways and public parking areas at the trail ends have sufficient capacity to serve any trail-related vehicle traffic.

Temporary construction-related traffic has been estimated in the project EIR and found to be less than significant. Haul trucks used to export cut from the project site on the City’s Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

portion of the trail would utilize US Highway 101 and the State Highway 150 interchange to access the site. The EIR estimates up to three haul truck trips per hour over an eight-hour work day during the earthwork phase of construction. Given the low frequency of haul truck trips and immediate proximity of highway access, haul truck trips are not anticipated to result in any significant disruptions to traffic circulation or capacity. c. The granting of the permit will not materially adversely affect such necessary community services as sewage disposal, fire protection, water supply, and police protection.

A copy of the project application and plans were routed to all applicable agencies and special districts for review and comments. All of these agencies have indicated the project would not have adverse effects upon their ability to continue to serve the population of Carpinteria. The project would enhance public coastal access and opportunities for alternative transportation in the Carpinteria area, providing a benefit to the community. The project would not generate wastewater needing treatment, and would not generate a noticeable increase in demand for fire or police protection services. A negligible amount of water would be required during construction and to establish/maintain the new landscape plantings.

The City’s portion of the trail project will tie into and be served by existing storm drain infrastructure that serves U.S. Highway 101, which has sufficient capacity to take on the added storm water flows generated by the new impervious surfaces affiliated with the trail project north of the UPRR crossing (estimated at approximately 0.5 acres). Mitigation Measures WAT-1 through WAT-4 address erosion and sedimentation control during construction to avoid water quality impacts and to not damage or overwhelm existing storm drain infrastructure. Mitigation Measure WAT-5 requires ongoing monitoring and upkeep of project-related storm drain infrastructure to avoid failure or damages.

An existing 4-inch sewer force main is located in the project area, near the proposed trail alignment for the section of trail north of the UPRR crossing. The sewer force main would be protected in place during construction. An abandoned underground oil pipeline passes underneath the trail alignment near the western trailhead located in the City of Carpinteria.

The pipeline would be protected in place. Other utilities near the project area, but not within the project footprint include a water main line and underground communication lines, neither of which would be impacted by construction of the City’s portion of the trail. d. The granting of the permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the neighborhood.

The Rincon Trail project establishes a new dedicated public Class I bicycle and pedestrian trail between the City of Carpinteria and recreational amenities (i.e., public beaches, park and bicycle path) located south of the City in unincorporated Santa Barbara and Ventura Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

Counties. The project results in beneficial recreational, coastal access, and alternative transportation impacts for the region.

The EIR prepared for the project analyzed potentially significant environmental effects associated with the project and identified appropriate mitigation measures to ensure that all impacts were mitigated to a less than significant level. Mitigation measures were identified for the following issue areas: Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, Hydrology/Water Quality, Land Use/Planning, Noise, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities/Service Systems. In addition, compliance with Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) standards is required to ensure that impacts to Air Quality, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions are minimized and remain less than significant. The mitigation measures incorporated into the project via the EIR and the project restrictions imposed via conditions of approval ensure that granting the permit will not be detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhoods located nearby to project components.
e. The proposed use is consistent with the coastal plan, general plans, and applicable specific plan(s).

As discussed in the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policy analysis section of the Staff Report dated January 18, 2022 and herein incorporated by reference, the project would be consistent with the various applicable policies from the Land Use, Community Design, Circulation, Open Space/Conservation/Recreation, Safety, Noise, and Public Facilities/ Services Elements. The project would fill in an existing gap in the California Coastal Trail (CCT), thereby improving public coastal access and alternative transportation opportunities in the project area. The trail and its design elements have been reviewed by the City’s Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) for consistency with applicable design policies and found to conform. The project incorporates appropriate mitigation measures, consistent with the requirements of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan and Zoning Code to address all unavoidable impacts to ESHA and sensitive species, and other appropriate measures and standards are included to avoid potential impacts related to aesthetics, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, noise, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems, consistent with the policies of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan.
f. The proposed use will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.

The EIR prepared for the project identified potentially significant impacts on aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards/hazardous materials, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, noise, and utilities/service systems; the EIR also identified standard Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (“APCD”) measures that the project is required to implement to ensure impacts to air quality, and greenhouse gas Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

emissions are minimized and remain less than significant. The EIR contains mitigation measures to reduce all environmental impacts of the proposal to less than significant levels; pertinent mitigation measures from the EIR have been incorporated as conditions of approval.

The project has also been designed to minimize land form modification, and impacts to ESHA, cultural resources and water quality, avoid or reduce exposure to geologic hazards and hazardous materials, avoid disruptions to public utilities, and be aesthetically compatible with the project setting, as required by the resource protection policies of the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan.
g. The proposed development will not conflict with recorded easements acquired by the publicat-large for access through or use of the property within the proposed development or any easements granted to any public agency or required as a condition of approval.

The proposed project would not interfere with any recorded easements acquired by the public-at-large for access through, or use of, the project area. Rather, the proposed project involves the construction of a new public multi-use pathway within existing public right-ofway between the east end of the City of Carpinteria and the unincorporated areas near the Santa Barbara/Ventura County line to facilitate improved public coastal access, recreation and alternative transportation opportunities in the area. In this regard, the project enhances public access along the Carpinteria coastline and between areas located in the City of Carpinteria and those in the unincorporated Rincon Point area.

A portion of the Caltrans right-of-way located just east of the City-County boundary would be dedicated and transferred to the City of Carpinteria as part of the project in order to facilitate the City’s ongoing ownership and responsibility for this portion of the trail. A temporary construction easement may need to be acquired from the property owner of the easternmost parcel on Carpinteria Avenue (APN 001-210-016) to facilitate access to, and construction of the new trail alignment. The proposed project is not known to conflict with any easements granted to any public agency. Maintenance access for Caltrans and UPRR through the project area will be maintained/provided, as needed. h. Any other conditions which are reasonably necessary to protect the public peace, health, safety, and general welfare.

Through the environmental review process, a number of mitigation measures have been developed in order to avoid significant impacts to the environment. All mitigation measures identified in the EIR have been included in the conditions of approval and are fully enforceable. Additional project-specific conditions of approval have been included to address traffic management during construction, property owner/neighbor outreach, and ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the trail improvements.

Planning Commission Findings, PC Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

1.4 Coastal Development Permit Finding
Pursuant to the California Coastal Act, the Administrative Regulations of the California Coastal Commission and the City’s Local Coastal Program, it has been found that the permit requested may be issued based on the following finding:
a. The proposed development is in conformity with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

The Caltrans right-of-way is designated Transportation Corridor (TC) in the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan and is undesignated with respect to zoning. The portion of the project located on Carpinteria Avenue is designed Visitor-serving Commercial (VC) in the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan and is zoned Resort District (RES). The proposed use is consistent with the stipulations outlined for these land use designations as the project involves improvements to pedestrian and bicyclist facilities, which are permissible in all land use categories and zoning districts. A Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit are required for this major transportation facility. The project can meet all of the required findings for approval of the required CUP (discussed above) and CDP. The proposed project is consistent with all applicable policies in the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan as discussed in the Planning Commission staff report dated January 18, 2022. The project is also consistent with the Interpretive Guidelines of the California Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Act.

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
PROJECT 19-2015-CUP/CDP
JANUARY 18, 2022
ATTACHMENT C: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

RINCON TRAIL PROJECT
The Conditions set forth in this permit affect the title and possession of the real property that is the subject of this permit and shall run with the real property or any portion thereof. All the terms, covenants, conditions and restrictions herein imposed shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the owner (applicant, developer), his or her heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns. Upon any sale, division or lease of real property, all the conditions of this permit shall apply separately to each portion of the real property and the owner (applicant, developer) and/or possessor of any such portion shall succeed to and be bound by the obligations imposed on the owner (applicant, developer) by this permit.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. This Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit is based upon and limited to compliance with the project description, the hearing exhibits (Exhibit 1, Attachment B to the staff report dated January 18, 2022) and conditions of approval set forth below. Any deviations from the project description, exhibits or conditions must be reviewed and approved by the City for conformity with this approval.

Deviations may require approved changes to the permit and/or further environmental review. Deviations without the above described approval will constitute a violation of permit approval.

The project description is as follows:

The City of Carpinteria Parks and Recreation Department is seeking approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit to construct a 850-foot segment of Class I multi-use path in the City and Caltrans rights-of-way at the eastern end of the City of Carpinteria to allow for a dedicated bike and pedestrian path connection between the City of Carpinteria and Rincon Beach County Park in unincorporated Santa Barbara County. The remainder of the approximately 2,800- foot long trail is located in the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Barbara. The trail is intended to support alternative transportation in the area and fill in a missing link in the 1,200 mile California Coastal Trail.

The overall project limits would extend from near the Carpinteria Avenue/State Highway 150 intersection to the western terminus of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot in unincorporated Santa Barbara County. Beginning in the unimproved shoulder just east of the Carpinteria Avenue/State Highway 150 intersection, the trail would trend east/northeast, roughly paralleling the southbound US Highway 101 on-ramp. The trail would be situated on a new bench cut into the existing Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

manufactured slope above the on-ramp and would gently descend in elevation toward the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) corridor where the trail would cross the UPRR corridor using a new pre-fabricated 160-foot long, 14-foot wide clear span bridge. South of the UPRR corridor, the trail would turn due east and gradually descend the face of the ocean-side bluff, terminating at the western terminus of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot.

The portion of the trail under consideration by the City of Carpinteria Planning Commission extends from Carpinteria Avenue to the eastern City boundary, roughly coincident with the middle of the trail segment north of the UPRR corridor, and measures approximately 850 linear feet. The County of Santa Barbara has permit jurisdiction over the remainder of the trail (approximately 1,950 linear feet), continuing east from the city boundary (and including the new bridge crossing over the UPRR corridor) to the pathway’s terminus at the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot.

The proposed concrete multi-use path would feature a five-foot travel lane in each direction, and a paved shoulder width of three feet on each side, for a total path width of 16 feet. A six-foot wide shallow concrete v-ditch would run along the inside of the trail length for the purposes of capturing and conveying stormwater to onsite drainage facilities. Protective fencing would be provided along the trail alignment to keep trail users on the improved path.

Total grading and earthwork quantities for the entirety of the project necessary to cut an Americans with Disability Act (ADA)-compliant trail bench, stabilize slopes, and control stormwater runoff through the project area are estimated at 96,040 cubic yards of cut. Approximately 10,519 cubic yards of the cut material would be used for fill onsite; the remaining 85,521 cubic yards of cut material would be exported offsite. Approximately 45% of the estimated earthwork (equivalent to ~43,200 cubic yards of cut) is expected to occur on the inland side of the UPRR alignment; and the remaining 55% (~52,800 cubic yards) on the ocean side of the UPRR alignment. A storm drain collection system is proposed for the trail alignment, which would utilize a combination of repaired existing and new piped storm drains on the bluff face and drain outlets to the ocean. The portion of the trail located in the jurisdiction of the City of Carpinteria would tie into and be served by existing Caltrans storm drain infrastructure for US Highway 101. A habitat restoration plan is included to restore areas disturbed during construction and to mitigate for permanent removal of vegetation to accommodate the new trail.

As part of the project, the City will obtain an easement from UPRR for the bridge crossing over, and trail improvements within, the UPRR alignment. The City is also anticipating the acquisition of right-of-way from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to accommodate the trail alignment.

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

The grading, development, use, and maintenance of the property, the size, shape, arrangement, and location of structures, parking areas and landscape areas, and the protection and preservation of resources shall conform to the project description above and the hearing exhibits and conditions of approval below. The property and any portions thereof shall be sold, leased or financed in compliance with this project description and the approved hearing exhibits and conditions of approval hereto. All plans (such as Landscape Plans) must be submitted for review and approval and shall be implemented as approved by the City.

MITIGATION MEASURES FROM THE CERTIFIED PROJECT

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)

2. MM-AES-1 Board of Architectural Review.

The Owner/Applicant shall obtain City Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) and County South Board of Architectural Review (“SBAR”) approval for project design. All project elements (e.g., design, scale, character, colors, materials, and landscaping) shall be compatible with vicinity development and shall conform in all respects to ARB/SBAR approval.

Plan Requirements and Timing: The Owner/Applicant shall submit architectural drawings of the project including photo renditions from the beach of the storm drains proposed along the bluff face for review and shall obtain final City ARB and County SBAR approval prior to issuance of the zoning clearance. Grading plans, if required, shall be submitted to the City’s Planning Department concurrent with or prior to ARB/SBAR plan filing with the Carpinteria Community Development Department or County Planning and Development. Monitoring: The Owner/Applicant shall demonstrate to Community Development Department staff and Planning & Development Department compliance monitoring staff that the project has been built consistent with approved ARB/SBAR design and landscape plans prior to Final Building Inspection Clearance.

3. MM-BIO-1 Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP).

The Owner/Applicant shall fund an approved biologist to prepare and implement a worker education and awareness program (WEAP) specific to the project. The program shall be presented to all individuals involved in the construction of the project. The program shall include information focused on sensitive vegetation communities, sensitive wildlife and plant species, and common wildlife species and their habitats and shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
 Description of sensitive vegetation communities.
 Workers shall be provided with photographs of sensitive biological resources including sensitive wildlife and plant species.  Workers shall be informed verbally and in writing of the various project tasks that require biological surveys and monitoring for resource protection.  Workers shall be provided with a photograph or description of the markers for active bird nests, trees, or other mitigation areas, so that they shall know these are not to be disturbed without a biological monitor present.

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

 Workers shall be informed not to litter. All trash and litter shall be picked up and removed from the construction sites at the end of each day.  Workers shall be informed to obey a speed limit of 15 miles per hour while traveling on the project site to avoid collisions with wildlife.  Workers shall avoid driving over or otherwise disturbing areas outside the designated construction areas.

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

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

4. MM-BIO-2 Fencing.

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

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

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

5. MM-BIO-3 Pre-construction California Legless Lizard Survey and Relocation.

Prior to initiation of construction, capture and relocation efforts for California legless lizards shall be conducted. Trapping shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall include the following steps:
i. Prior to initiation of capture and relocation, a suitable receptor site shall be located. This site shall include areas with loose, moist soils occurring in scrub habitat with high coverage of deerweed (Lotus scoparius) or Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

California goldenbush, in arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) thickets or in other suitable scrub or woodland habitat.
ii. Capture and relocation shall take place no more than five days prior to the initiation of construction.
iii. These surveys shall be performed by lightly raking loose soil, sand and leaf litter with a wooden rake for a sufficient period to determine that no legless lizards are present, or all legless lizards have been captured. iv. Any lizards found shall be placed in a receptacle with sand and a wet towel and relocated to the previously designated receptor site.

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

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

6. MM-BIO-4 Pre-construction Woodrat Survey and Relocation.

Prior to initiation of construction, capture and relocation efforts for woodrat shall be conducted. Trapping shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and shall include the following steps:
i. Prior to initiation of capture and relocation, a suitable receptor site shall be located. This site shall be within similar habitat and an adequate distance away from any locations that might be subject to increased human disturbance, such as adjacent to a walking path.
ii. These pre-construction surveys shall be performed searching all coastal sage scrub or coastal bluff scrub within the disturbance area for middens or other sign of the species.
iii. Any middens and woodrats found shall be live-trapped and relocated to the pre-determined receptor site. The midden shall be dismantled and the materials placed at the relocation site.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to initiation of construction, capture and relocation efforts for woodrat shall be conducted where appropriate. Trapping shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County staff shall ensure the pre-construction survey and relocation efforts, if required, are completed prior to commencement of any earth-moving activities.

7. MM-BIO-5 Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.

Prior to issuance of zoning clearance approval, the Owner/Applicant shall contract with a qualified biologist to develop a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (Plan) to mitigate for impacts to County ESH/City ESHA vegetation communities. The Plan shall outline efforts to restore or enhance coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub communities, and, therefore, preserve or provide wildlife habitat, in areas impacted by construction of the trail but outside the trail-related impervious surfaces and within similar habitats adjacent to the impacted biological resources. The Plan may focus on the following:

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

 In-kind, on-site restoration of areas where coastal sage scrub or coastal bluff scrub has been removed;
 Enhancement of impacted areas on site currently occupied by ornamental, disturbed or developed areas;
 Restoration of areas occupied by non-native habitats or native habitats with large components of non-native vegetation, within similar habitats adjacent to the impacted biological resources.

A total of 4.32 acres of impacts are proposed to County ESH/City ESHA native vegetation communities. Under the Plan, impacts to S3/County ESH/City ESHA native vegetation communities (California brittle bush – ashy buckwheat scrub alliance, Encelia californica association and lemonade berry scrub alliance, Rhus integrifolia association) that total 0.59 acres shall be restored in-kind at 4:1. Impacts to S4 and S5/County ESH/City ESHA native vegetation communities (quailbush scrub alliance, Atriplex lentiformis association, California sagebrush – (purple sage) scrub alliance, Artemisia californica association, and coyote brush scrub alliance, Baccharis pilularis association) that total 3.73 acres shall be restored in-kind at 2:1.

To the extent feasible, restoration should occur on site and, any additional mitigation required shall be carried out on areas within adjacent land controlled by the County or City, such as the Rincon Bluffs Preserve or Rincon Beach County Park.

A qualified biologist/botanist shall develop the Plan, which shall provide specific measures to restore or enhance habitat to replace the loss of coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub communities. This Plan shall be focused on adaptive management principles, and shall identify detailed enhancement areas and strategies based on the parameters outlined below, with long term timing and monitoring requirements. The Plan shall:
i. Provide an up-to-date inventory of on-site native vegetation resources. ii. Define attainable and measurable goals and objectives to achieve through implementation of the Plan. Goals and objectives shall focus on replacement of coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub and rare plants removed during construction.
iii. Provide site selection and justification. Prior to identifying habitat restoration mitigation areas, both within the project area and adjacent lands, the habitat shall be surveyed for sensitive vegetation communities and special-status species, to ensure avoidance of impacts during habitat restoration implementation. Additionally, potential adjacent mitigation lands shall be assessed to ensure sites are suitable and appropriate for implementation of habitat restoration for the impacted native vegetation communities.
iv. Detail a restoration work plan including methodologies, restoration schedule, plant materials (seed and container plant) sourcing – locally genetic stock, and implementation strategies.
v. Provide a detailed maintenance plan to include removal of invasive nonnative species. vi. Define annual and final performance standards. Prior to grading, the projectrelated native coastal bluff scrub and coastal scrub vegetation communities shall be assessed by vegetation community type for percent cover (both Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

basal and vegetative), species diversity, density, and abundance. This project site native vegetation community data shall be used to define performance standards for native habitat restoration by vegetation layers (tree, shrub, grass, and forb) for each vegetation community type and for non-native plant species.
vii. Identify that the restoration areas shall be irrigation-free for at least 3 years and the performance standards have remained stable (no negative trend for richness/ diversity/ abundance/ cover of native species and no positive trend for invasive/non-native cover for each vegetation layer) for at least 3 years. viii. Provide a monitoring plan to include methods and analysis of results. Also, include goals, success or failure criteria, and an adaptive management plan, contingency actions, and suggestions for failed restoration efforts.

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

The City of Carpinteria and County staff shall ensure development of the Plan and adherence to Plan measures are completed prior to commencement of any earthmoving activities. Additionally, California Department of Fish and Wildlife shall approve the Plan prior to issuance of zoning clearance approval. City and County staff shall periodically conduct site inspections to ensure compliance on site.

Restored areas shall be monitored for five years following planting. Annual reports and the final report shall be submitted to the City and County.

8. MM-BIO-6 Weed Management Plan.

Prior to issuance of zoning clearance approval, the Owner/Applicant shall contract with a qualified biologist to develop a Weed Management Plan to be implemented during construction and implementation of the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. The Weed Management Plan shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
 Prior to ground disturbance, a City approved qualified biologist shall map invasive weeds within the limits of impacts plus a 100-foot buffer. Invasive weeds shall be defined as California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (Cal-IPC) moderate and high ratings. Invasive species subject to control measures shall be identified. Note that non-native grasses such as bromes and wild oats shall be mapped but are not subject to control measures. Prior to ground disturbance, areas with invasive weeds shall be treated according to control methods below and BMPs for invasive weeds.
 To prevent the spread of invasive weeds and inhibit germination, the following shall be implemented:
o Maintain vehicle wash and conduct inspections to monitor the types of materials brought on site to minimize the potential for invasive weed introduction
o Limit disturbance areas to the permitted disturbance area o Limit ingress and egress to defined routes
o Use certified weed-free products
Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

 Invasive weed control methods shall include legally permitted herbicide, manual, and mechanical methods approved for application. The application of herbicides shall be in compliance with state and federal laws and regulations under the prescription of a pest control advisor, with the City’s concurrence, and shall be implemented by a licensed qualified applicator.

All product labels shall be followed. Spot treatments shall be the method of application and broadcast applications shall be avoided. Herbicides shall not be applied during or within 72 hours of a forecasted measurable rain event or during high wind conditions. Invasive weed debris accumulated during manual and mechanical removal methods shall be disposed of at an appropriate location off-site. Maintenance shall be timed to remove invasive weeds prior to seed production. The maintenance crew shall coordinate with the City approved biologist to avoid and minimize impacts to plant species and wildlife species.
 A City approved qualified biologist shall perform annual monitoring within the limits of disturbance and a 100-foot buffer to map and document invasive weed species. At any time during implementation of the Weed Management Plan, monitoring frequency may increase as needed to provide guidance to maintenance crews.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of zoning clearance approval, the Owner/Applicant contract with a qualified biologist to develop the Plan. The Plan shall outline efforts to implement a weed management plan to control invasive weeds. Pre-construction survey results shall be reported and ongoing invasive weed control efforts and annual survey results shall be submitted annually and for the five year duration of the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Monitoring: The City of Carpinteria and County staff shall ensure development of the Plan and adherence to Plan measures are completed prior to commencement of any earth-moving activities. City and County staff shall periodically conduct site inspections to ensure compliance on site and to ensure the Plan is fully implemented.

9. MM-BIO-7 Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys.

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

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

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

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

10. MM-CR-1 Cultural Resource Treatment and Inadvertent Discovery Plan.

Potential impacts to cultural resources shall be minimized through development of protocols for practical adherence of mitigation measures CR-2 and CR-3 prior to and after ground disturbing construction activities associated with the proposed project.

These protocols shall be outlined in a Cultural Resource Treatment Plan (CRTP).

The CRTP shall be developed by a City-qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, prior to the implementation of ground disturbing activities and include wording of each mitigation measure CR-2-4, specific and detailed explanation for implementation of each mitigation measure and contact protocol. The CRTP shall be provided to all agency personnel, consulting tribes, contractors and archaeological personnel. The existence and necessity for adherence to the CRTP shall be noted on plans, handbooks, or the like associated with tasks that may incur ground disturbance either intentionally or inadvertently.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Owner/Applicant shall contract with a County-qualified/City-approved archaeologist to develop the required CRTP in accordance with the above criteria. Monitoring:

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

11. MM-CR-2 Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Training.

All personnel participating in tasks that may incur ground disturbance either intentionally or inadvertently shall be briefed regarding unanticipated discoveries prior to the start of said activities. A basic presentation shall be prepared by a Cityqualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

Qualification Standards to inform all personnel working on the project about the archaeological sensitivity of proposed project areas. The purpose of the WEAP training is to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during project activities and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of cultural resources. Each personnel shall also be instructed in the proper procedures to follow in the event that cultural resources or human remains are encountered. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the site supervisor, qualified archaeologist and if human remains are encountered, the County coroner.

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

12. MM-CR-3 Archaeological Monitor.

Initial ground disturbing activities shall be monitored by a County-qualified/Cityapproved archaeologist in accordance with the following specifications:

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

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

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

The monitor shall immediately inform equipment operators in the event archaeological resources are encountered, and shall be empowered to immediately halt construction activity in the area of the discovery until assessment can be completed, and materials recovered as appropriate (refer to CR-2 for additional detail). Monitoring reports shall be provided to the City of Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara on a monthly basis during construction, with a final monitoring report produced at the conclusion of construction activities and provided to both the City and County.

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Owner/Applicant shall contract with a County-qualified/City-approved archaeologist to monitor initial ground disturbance activities in accordance with the above criteria.

Monitoring: City of Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara staff shall ensure the contracted archaeologist 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.

13. MM-CR-4 Discovery of Cultural Resources.

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

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

Identified remedial action for the discovery shall be completed prior to allowing construction to recommence in the area, no less than 50 feet from the area of the discovery. The project sponsors shall be responsible for funding the assessment of archaeological resources encountered during construction, and for the proper archiving or preservation of such resources. A Phase 3 Archaeological Resources Assessment and Data Recovery Report shall be prepared to document any archaeological resources encountered during construction.

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

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

The contracted archaeologist shall assess the nature, extent and significance of any archaeological discoveries occurring during project construction and develop appropriate management recommendations for archaeological resource treatment.

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

14. MM-GEO-1 Seismicity.

The pedestrian bridge shall adhere to the recommendation identified in Appendix E to the Environmental Impact Report to withstand a peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the site of 0.8g generated by an earthquake of moment magnitude Mw=7.4.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City of Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara shall verify the engineering plans include this bridge design specification. Monitoring: City of Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara public works staff or construction inspector retained for the project shall inspect bridge construction to verify conformance with this specification.

15. MM-GEO-2 Differential Settlement of Pedestrian Bridge Foundations.

Bridge foundation construction shall adhere to the recommendation identified in Appendix E to the Environmental Impact Report, which specifies a deep foundation employing cast-in-drilled hole (CIDH) piles. Based on the anticipated loadings, Caltrans Standard Plan 24” CIDH Concrete Piles with 200 kips design capacity are recommended in the geotechnical report. Should hard cemented bedrock be encountered during the installation of the CIDH piles, coring may be necessary.

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City of Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara shall verify the engineering plans include this bridge foundation specification. Monitoring: City of Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara public works staff or construction inspector retained for the project shall inspect foundation construction to verify conformance with this specification.

16. MM-GEO-3 Soil Erosion/Slope Stability.

Slope construction shall adhere to the recommendations in the geotechnical report, summarized below:
i. All new fills placed along the trail alignment shall be placed as engineered geotextile-reinforced soils with subsurface/back drains. ii. Manufactured slope profiles shall be no steeper than as specified in the Bengal 2019 geotechnical report (Appendix E), or any updated version thereof which has been prepared to address final trail design. iii. Install adequate surface drainage facilities to collect and dispose of surface runoff properly, consistent with the drainage system designs included in 30% Project Plans for Rincon Multi- Use Trail (Appendix E), or as updated to address final trail design.
iv. Hydro-seed the exposed newly cut and fill surfaces. Periodic watering and re-application of hydroseed shall occur as necessary until vegetation on slope surfaces has been successfully established.

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

Plan Requirements and Timing: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the City of Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara shall verify the engineering plans include the above specifications. Monitoring: City of Carpinteria/County of Santa Barbara public works staff or construction inspector retained for the project shall inspect Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

slope and drainage system construction to verify conformance with these specifications.

17. MM-HAZ-1 Aerially Deposited Lead (ADL).

Surface soils within the trail alignment segment north of the UPRR corridor shall be tested for potential ADL presence to determine if such soils may be used as fill, or must be disposed in a properly licensed landfill. Using the risk based screening levels developed by California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), excavated soils with a lead concentration less than or equal to 80 mg/kg total lead (analyzed by USEPA Method 6010 or 6020) would be acceptable for reuse without restrictions, including as fill material within the Rincon Trail project.

Excavated soils that are considered a California hazardous waste (total lead concentration greater than or equal to 1,000 mg/kg or a soluble lead concentration greater than or equal to 5 milligrams per liter [mg/L] as determined by the California Waste Extraction Test [CAWet]) or are a RCRA hazardous waste and must be disposed of in a Class I hazardous waste landfill. Excavated soils with lead concentrations below 1,000 mg/kg but above 80 mg/kg total lead may be eligible for reuse with specific restrictions to reduce or eliminate exposure, with prior written approval from DTSC, or may be disposed of at an appropriately permitted landfill.

Plan Requirements: ADL testing requirements and soil re-use restrictions according to identified ADL concentration shall be shown on grading and building plans. Since excess soil material would be generated through proposed grading activities, soils containing greater than 80 mg/kg total lead shall not be used as fill material for the project but shall be exported off site. Soil containing total lead greater than 1,000 mg/kg shall be disposed in a Class I hazardous waste landfill. Timing: Condition shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction activities. Monitoring:

City of Carpinteria and County of Santa Barbara staff shall ensure measures are on plans. City and County Grading Inspectors shall spot check and ensure compliance on site.

18. MM-WAT-1 Obtain Coverage Under Construction General Permit.

The project shall obtain coverage under a Construction General Permit via the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) (Water Quality Order 99-08-DWQ).

Plan Requirements: The requirement to obtain coverage from the SWRCB under a Construction General Permit shall be indicated on grading plans. Timing: Evidence of coverage under a Construction General Permit shall be provided to the City of Carpinteria Public Works Department and County of Santa Barbara Public Works Division prior to the initiation of grading. Monitoring: City and County Public Works staff shall confirm evidence of the Construction General Permit issuance prior to issuance of grading permits.

19. MM-WAT-2 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

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

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

i. Disturbed areas shall be stabilized or re-vegetated prior to the start of the rainy season. The work area shall be flagged to identify its limits.

Vegetation shall not be removed or intentionally damaged beyond these limits.
ii. Construction materials shall be placed in designated areas where they could not enter water bodies or storm drains due to spillage or erosion. iii. Waste and debris generated during construction shall be stored in designated waste collection areas and containers away from watercourses and shall be disposed of regularly.
iv. During construction, washing of concrete trucks, paint, equipment, or similar activities shall occur only in areas where polluted water and materials can be contained for subsequent removal from the site. Wash water shall not be discharged to the storm drains, street, drainage ditches, creeks, or wetlands. The concrete washout area shall be isolated from water bodies, and wash water and waste shall be removed from the project site.

The location of the washout area shall be clearly noted at the construction site with signs.
v. All fueling of heavy equipment shall occur in a designated area removed from water bodies and other drainages, such that any spillage would not enter surface waters. The designated refueling area shall include a drain pan or drop cloth and absorbent materials to clean up spills. The location of the fueling area shall be clearly noted at the construction site with signs. vi. Vehicles and equipment shall be maintained properly to prevent leakage of hydrocarbons and coolant and shall be examined for leaks on a daily basis.

All maintenance shall occur in a designated off-site area. The designated area shall include a drain pan or drop cloth and absorbent materials to clean up spills.
vii. Any accidental spill of hydrocarbons or coolant that may occur on the construction site shall be cleaned up immediately. Absorbent materials shall be maintained on the construction site for this purpose. viii. Special considerations for work during the rainy season: stockpiled soils should be covered at the end of the work day, and concrete pouring shall be avoided within 15 days of a forecasted rain event to allow full curing, due to its toxic nature until it has fully cured.

Plan Requirements: A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be prepared and implemented prior to construction and shall include the above elements. The SWPPP shall be submitted to City and County Public Works for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project. Timing:

The stormwater features and BMPs shall be installed and operational prior to initiation of grading. Monitoring: City and County Public Works staff shall site inspect for installation and maintenance in accordance with the approved plan and periodically thereafter to ensure proper maintenance over the duration of construction activities.

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

20. MM-WAT-3 Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.

Best available erosion and sediment control measures shall be implemented and maintained during grading and construction. Best available erosion and sediment control measures may include, but are not limited to, use of sediment basins, gravel bags, silt fences, geo-bags or gravel and geotextile fabric berms, erosion control blankets, coir rolls, jute net and straw bales. Construction access points shall be stabilized using gravel beds, rumble plates or other measures to prevent sediment from being tracked onto adjacent roadways. Any sediment or other materials tracked off site shall be removed the same day as they are tracked using dry cleaning methods.

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

21. MM-WAT-4 Planting of Vegetation.

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

Plan Requirements and Timing: Landscaping plans including biological restoration areas and hydro-seeding of manufactured slope areas submitted to City Community Development Department and County Planning & Development (CDD/P&D) for review prior to issuance of zoning clearance. Monitoring: CDD/P&D shall site inspect vegetation plantings and hydro-seed application before issuing final clearance and acceptance of the trail project.

22. MM-WAT-5 Periodic Inspection and Maintenance of Storm Drain Components.

Staff from City and County Parks/Public Works departments shall perform an annual inspection of stormwater components annually, prior to the on-set of the rainy season (November 1) to ensure all components are in good repair and are not blocked by debris or sediment. Any materials found to be obstructing flow in the drainage system shall be removed prior to November 1 each year. The exposed vertical portion of each of the corrugated metal pipe drains shall be examined annually for signs of corrosion, damage or openings in the drain pipe wall. Corrosion visible on the exterior pipe wall shall be treated and sealed promptly, any holes through the pipe wall shall be patched, or the damaged/affected segment shall be replaced or modified.

Plan Requirements and Timing: The Applicant/Owner shall include these inspection and maintenance requirements in the final drainage system design plans.

The plans shall be submitted to Community Development Department/Planning & Development (CDD/P&D) and City and County Public Works for review prior to Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

approval of a grading permit and issuance of zoning clearance. Monitoring: A memo with the annual inspection notes and corrective maintenance performed shall be prepared and submitted to the City and County Public Works Departments.

23. MM-WAT-6 Storm Drain Filters.

To minimize pollutants impacting the ocean, storm drain filters/inserts shall be installed in the project area storm drain inlets. The filters/inserts shall be maintained in working order.

Plan Requirements: Prior to approval of Grading Permits and issuance of zoning clearance, the Owner/Applicant shall submit plans identifying the type and location of filters/inserts to Community Development Department/Planning & Development (CDD/P&D) and City and County Public Works for review and approval. The location of such filters/inserts shall be noted on grading and building plans. Timing:

Filters/inserts shall be installed prior to final clearance and shall be cleaned using approved methods at least twice a year, once immediately prior to November 1 (before the start of the rainy season) and once in January. Monitoring: CDD/P&D and City and County Public Works shall site inspect periodically throughout the construction phase to ensure proper installation. Records of maintenance shall be maintained by City/County and shall be submitted to CDD/P&D and City and County Public Works on an annual basis prior to the start of the rainy season and for five years thereafter. After the fifth year, the records shall be maintained by the City/County. CDD/P&D and Public Works shall review the maintenance records and site inspect as needed following completion of construction to ensure periodic cleanout.

24. MM-NOI-1 Construction Hours.

Construction activity for site preparation and for future development shall be limited to the hours between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. No construction shall occur on state holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day) or weekends. Construction equipment maintenance shall be limited to the same hours.

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

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

25. MM-NOI-2 Construction Equipment.

All construction equipment with engines must have original manufacturer’s approved muffling devices. All stationary equipment shall be physically buffered from nearby sensitive receptors.

Plan Requirements: Plans shall indicate the requirement of original equipment manufacturer (“OEM”) muffled equipment. Timing: This condition applies when any engine driven equipment is in use at the project site during construction.

Monitoring: City of Carpinteria and County of Santa Barbara Grading Inspectors shall spot check and respond to complaints.

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

26. MM-TCR-1 Native American Monitor/Observer.

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 Owner/Applicant 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.

PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

27. Mitigation Compliance, Monitoring and Reporting Requirement.

Owner/Applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department and County Planning & Development (CDD/P&D) a draft monitoring program for the mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR, approved Project Description and Conditions of Approval for review and comment. A City-approved biologist and mitigation monitors responsible for permit compliance monitoring shall be Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

retained and paid for by the applicant. The mitigation monitoring program shall include, but not be limited to the following elements for the entirety of the project:
 Mitigation Measures. A list of the project's mitigation measures.  Implementation of Mitigation. Timing and party responsible for implementation of each mitigation measure.
 Mitigation Monitoring. Timing and party responsible for monitoring of each mitigation measure and a list of mitigation monitors to be retained.  Mitigation Reporting. Procedures, timing and responsible party for reporting to the City on project mitigation compliance and monitoring.

28. Biologist. A City-approved qualified biologist shall be designated by the Owner/Applicant. The biologist shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The biologist shall have authority over all other environmental monitors provided by the Owner/Applicant. The Owner/Applicant shall submit the name, contact information and qualifications of the biologist and obtain approval from the Community Development Director prior to commencement of construction.

29. Final Architectural Review. The project shall return to the City of Carpinteria Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) for final review and approval of construction plans. Plan Requirements: Plans submitted for final review by the ARB shall include construction plans and specifications all project elements, including but not limited to, fencing and railing, bridge design, signage, landscaping, and any proposed lighting. Timing: Final review by the ARB shall occur prior to zoning clearance and issuance of grading permits. Monitoring: CDD staff shall be responsible for ensuring the project receives final approval from the ARB prior to zoning clearance or issuance of grading permits. CDD staff shall ensure that the final plans approved for construction reflect any required revisions by the ARB.

30. Traffic Management Plan. Provide a detailed Traffic Management Plan for review by Public Works, Community Development, Carpinteria-Summerland Fire Protection District and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office, and obtain approval from the Public Works Director in consultation with the Community Development Director. The plan shall identify:
 Construction Phases. Project construction stage exhibits including work descriptions.
 Staging and Parking Areas. Equipment staging, materials storage and construction worker parking areas.
 Truck Routes. Construction truck routes to minimize noise and traffic effects to residential neighborhoods.
 Ramp Closures and Detours. Any proposed closures of US 101 ramps and/or detours, by construction stage, if applicable.
 City Street Closures and Detours. Any proposed closures of City streets and/or detours, by construction stage.
 Signs and Traffic Control Measures. Signage and other planned temporary traffic control measures, by construction stage.

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

 Public Awareness. A program for public awareness and outreach to commuters, property owners, businesses, residents and agencies affected by project construction.
 Public Relations Committee. Applicant is required to form and support a Public Relations Committee consisting of Caltrans, SBCAG, a public relations consultant, business representatives, residents, transit and public safety agencies and City representatives. The Committee shall meet regularly prior to and during construction. Applicant shall review construction, construction phasing, mitigation measures, public relations efforts and permit conditions of approval with the committee. Applicant shall consider feedback and comments from the committee and the general public throughout project construction and make necessary adjustments in response to problems and/or concerns when possible.
 Maintenance of Access. Plans for providing access to businesses, coastal dependent uses and recreational uses during construction.  Motorist Information Measures. Elements such as radio announcements and appropriate signage.
 Incident Response Measures. Strategies such as construction zone enhanced enforcement program (“COZEEP”) and freeway service patrol.  Coordination and Reporting. A program for ongoing reporting and coordination with the City and other affected agencies throughout construction.

31. Trail Improvement Maintenance Agreement. The City and County shall enter into a Trail Improvement Maintenance Agreement to define the maintenance responsibilities of the trail improvements. The Trail Improvement Maintenance Agreement must be signed and entered into prior to issuance of any Engineering Permits.

32. Pre-Construction Conference. Prior to commencement of construction, a preconstruction conference shall be held by the Resident Engineer to include construction processes and environmental mitigation and monitoring. The conference shall include representatives from Public Works, Community Development, County of Santa Barbara staff, Project Engineer, Landscape Architect, Contractor and Subcontractor(s), Biologist, and Mitigation Monitors.

33. Temporary Construction Staging Areas. The applicant shall submit to the Public Works Director for approval any areas intended for temporary staging of construction equipment and materials in the City of Carpinteria.

34. Interpretive Signage. Consistent with development standard CMC §14.45.030(8)(b), an educational or interpretive display shall be installed which describes the nearby harbor seal rookery. Plans and details depicting the proposed location, design, construction and content of the display shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval prior to issuance of any Engineering Permits for the project.

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

35. Timing of Project Completion. Pursuant to the requirements of the Transportation Corridor Wetland Overlay District (CMC §14.45), the Santa Claus Lane Multi-Use Path project shall be completed and open to the public no later than the completion of the Linden Avenue and Casitas Pass Road Interchanges and Via Real Extension construction.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS

36. This Conditional Use Permit is not valid until an Engineering Permit for the development and/or use has been obtained. Failure to obtain said Engineering Permit shall render this Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit null and void. Prior to the approval of the Engineering Permit, all of the conditions listed in this Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit that are required to be satisfied prior to approval of an Engineering Permit must be satisfied. Upon issuance of the Engineering Permit, the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit shall be valid. The effective date of this Permit shall be the date of action by the Planning Commission, or if appealed, the date of action by the Coastal Commission.

37. If the Planning Commission or City Council determines at a noticed public hearing that the permittee is not in compliance with any permit condition(s), the Planning Commission or City Council is empowered, in addition to revoking the permit pursuant to said section, to amend, alter, delete or add conditions to this permit.

38. Any use authorized by this Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit shall immediately cease upon expiration or revocation of this Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit. Any Engineering Permit issued pursuant to this Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit shall expire upon expiration or revocation of the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit. Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit renewals must be applied for prior to expiration of the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit.

39. The owner/applicant's acceptance of this permit and/or commencement of construction and/or operations under this permit shall be deemed acceptance of all conditions of this permit by the permittee.

40. Within two years after the effective date of this permit, construction shall commence. Construction cannot commence until an Engineering Permit has been issued. Failure to commence the construction pursuant to a valid Engineering Permit shall render the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit null and void.

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

41. All time limits may be extended by the Planning Commission or City Council for good cause shown, provided a written request, including a statement of reasons for the time limit extension request is filed with Community Development prior to the expiration date.

42. If the owner/applicant requests a time extension for this permit, the permit may be revised to include updated language to standard conditions and/or mitigation measures and additional conditions and/or mitigation measures which reflect changed circumstances or additional identified project impacts. Mitigation fees shall be those in effect at the time of issuance of an Engineering Permit.

43. Before commencing any work pertaining to the erection, alteration, enlarging or rebuilding of any structure or improvement, the owner/applicant shall obtain an Engineering Permit. The permit is necessary to ensure implementation of the conditions required by the Planning Commission. Before any Permit will be issued by Community Development, the owner/applicant must obtain written clearance from all agencies having conditions; such clearance shall indicate that the applicant has satisfied all pre-construction conditions. A form for such clearance is available from Community Development.

44. If, at any time, the Planning Commission determines that there has been, or may be, a violation of the findings or conditions of this Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit, or of the Municipal Code regulations, a public hearing may be held before the Planning Commission to review this permit. At said hearing, the Planning Commission may add additional conditions, or recommend enforcement actions, or revoke the permit entirely, as necessary to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code, and to provide for the health, safety, and general welfare of the City.

45. City Manager and/or Community Development Director shall be informed of any minor changes to the project scope. Any minor changes may be approved by the City Manager and/or Community Development Director. Any major changes will require the filing of a revision application to be considered by the Planning Commission.

46. All requirements of the City of Carpinteria (including but not limited to public improvements as defined in the City of Carpinteria Municipal Code (CMC), Section 15.16.110) and any other applicable requirements of any law or agency of the State and/or any government entity or District shall be met.

47. The standards defined within the City's adopted model Building Codes (UBC; NEC; UMC; UFC; UPC; UHC) relative to the building and occupancy shall apply to this project.

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

48. Any and all damage or injury to public property resulting from this development, including without limitation, City streets and storm drain infrastructure, shall be corrected or result in being repaired and restored to its original or better condition.

49. No Engineering Permit shall be issued for this project prior to meeting all required terms and conditions listed herein. When not specified herein, all conditions shall be satisfied prior to issuance of an Engineering Permit or prior to commencement of construction when allowed by the Community Development Director.

50. To allow time for the utility companies to locate and mark their facilities for the contractor, the applicant shall telephone Underground Service Alert (USA) toll free at 1-800-227-2600 a minimum of 48 hours prior to the start of construction. For best response, provide as much notice as possible, up to 10 working days.

51. Compliance with the attached Departmental and District letters is required as follows. Where not specified otherwise, Conditions shall be met prior to the start of construction:
a. Carpinteria Sanitary District letter dated October 31, 2019 b. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District letter dated November 12, 2019

52. All applicable final conditions of approval shall be printed in their entirety on applicable pages of grading/construction plans submitted to Community Development. These shall be graphically illustrated where feasible. The approved set of plans shall be retained at the construction site for review by the Public Works Director during the course of construction.

53. Owner/Applicant shall ensure that the project complies with all approved plans and all project conditions including those which must be monitored after the project is built and occupied. To accomplish this, owner/applicant agrees to contact Community Development at least two weeks prior to commencement of construction activities to schedule an onsite pre-construction meeting with agency personnel and key construction personnel.

54. Prior to issuance of an Engineering Permit, the owner/applicant shall provide a signed copy of the Conditions of Approval on a form acceptable to Community Development. Such form may be obtained from the Community Development Department. Written authorization to proceed and consent to conditions of approval by the applicant shall be provided to the City prior to commencement of any demolition or construction activity.

55. Written authorization to proceed and consent to conditions of approval by the applicant shall be provided to the City prior to grading permit issuance.

Conditions of Approval, Resolution PC-22-001
Rincon Trail Project
January 18, 2022

Approved by the Planning Commission on January 18, 2022

I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD, AND I WILL COMPLY

WITH ALL ABOVE STATED CONDITIONS OF THIS PERMIT
_______________________________________________
Owner/Applicant Date

Attachment E
Adopted Minutes from January
18, 2022 Planning Commission
Meeting
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022

MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF CARPINTERIA

CARPINTERIA, CALIFORNIA
January 18, 2022
Special Meeting
5:30 P.M.

CALL TO ORDER and ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chair Benefield.

Commissioners Present:

Jane L. Benefield, Chair
John Callender
John Moyer
David Allen
Commissioners Absent:

Glenn La Fevers, Vice-Chair
Others Present:

Steve Goggia, Community Development Director
Nick Bobroff, Principal Planner
Mack Carlson, City Attorney, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck John Ilasin, Director of Public Works
Matt Roberts, Director of Parks and Recreation
David Emerson, Caltrans Project Manager
Jonathan Leech, Dudek
Jeff Lindgren, Director of County Parks Division
Fred Luna, SBCAG

CALL TO ORDER &

ROLL CALL
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Chair Benefield led the flag salute. PLEDGE INTRODUCTIONS, PRESENTATIONS, ANNOUNCEMENTS - None ANNOUNCEMENTS PUBLIC COMMENT - None PUBLIC COMMENT

CONSENT CALENDAR
1) Minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held December 6, 2021
MOTION
Upon a motion by Commissioner Allen, seconded by Commissioner Moyer, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held December 6, 2021, as presented (Moyer, La Fevers, Allen, Benefield and Callender voted yes).

CONSENT

CALENDAR

NEW PUBLIC HEARING
2) Project: Rincon Trail, Project #19-2015-CUP/CDP
Location: Connection of the east end of Carpinteria Avenue to Rincon Beach County Park

NEW PUBLIC

HEARING
MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 2022
Special Meeting

Applicant: Matt Roberts, Parks, Recreation and Public Facilities Director
Planner: Nick Bobroff
Hearing on the request of Matt Roberts, Parks, Recreation and Public Facilities Director for the City of Carpinteria to consider Project 19-2015-CUP/CDP (application filed October 17, 2019) for a Conditional Use Permit and a Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of the 850-linear foot segment of the proposed Rincon Trail project located in the City of Carpinteria (the remaining 1,900 proposed trail is located within the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Barbara); and to certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the entirety of the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The EIR and all documents referenced therein may be reviewed at the Community Development Department, 5775
Carpinteria Avenue, Carpinteria. The EIR is also available for review on the City website at: https://carpinteriaca.gov/publicworks/engineering-division/rincon-multi-use-trail/. The application involves City and Caltrans rights-of-way located at the eastern end of the City of Carpinteria, and parcels owned by Union Pacific Railroad and County of Santa Barbara, located outside of the City of Carpinteria in unincorporated Santa Barbara County (APNs 001- 220-032, 001-220-092, 001-220-100, and 001-220-101).

DISCLOSURE EX-PARTE COMMUNICATIONS
Commissioner Allen disclosed that during daylight savings he and his wife walk daily from Viola Fields to the Bluffs, and to the King property. Most of the time there are not hang gliders, often there are, and the landings are sometimes necessary on Union Pacific Railroad property.

Nick Bobroff presented the staff report and said staff was recommending approval of the project as presented in the report.

Upon request from Commissioner Callender, Mr. Bobroff provided information on the Environmental Review Committee’s deliberations and how they voted. Members were as follows: Steve Goggia, Community Development Director; John Ilasin, Public Works Director; Natasha Lohmus, member of the public; Vince Semonsen, contract City biologist; and Erin Maker, Public Works environmental coordinator. Mr. Ilasin recused himself from either vote, and Vince and Natasha were the most vocal proponents of Alternative 4, with a resulting 4-0 vote in its favor.

Commissioner Callender asked how the change to support Alternative 3 came about. Mr. Bobroff said it was found to be the environmentally MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 2022
Special Meeting

superior alternative and was identified as best meeting all project objectives, while Alternative 4 didn’t meet all of the project objectives.

Commissioner Callender asked if a hybrid of Alternatives 3 and 4 had been considered, and Mr. Bobroff explained there has been talk between County Parks and SBCAG about ideas for a protected bike path through the area.

A lengthy discussion about airflow took place. Commissioner Callender asked for details about the soaring community’s desires regarding airflow, the logic in determining impacts weren’t significant, and how Alternative 3 reduced them. Mr. Bobroff clarified that the benefit to Alternative 3 was that it didn’t only reduce impacts to the soaring community but slightly reduced environmental impacts across the board by further minimizing disruptive earthwork. He explained soaring impacts were found in the EIR to be Class 3, which doesn’t require mitigation, but that Alternative 3 would nevertheless further slightly reduce the severity of the impacts to airflow.

Environmental consultant, Jonathan Leech of Dudek, spoke about the methodology for evaluating airflow impacts and the threshold at which impacts to the soaring community would be considered significant.

City Attorney Mack Carlson explained the airflow analysis was performed under CEQA Guidelines, and CEQA’s focus is on significant physical changes to the environment and doesn’t apply to social, recreational, economic activities. It’s why the City did additional airflow study analysis.

Commissioner Callender expressed concern about the logic in the EIR and asked if it was the City’s position that airflow changes are not changes to the physical environment.

City Attorney Mack Carlson explained recreation activities are consideration for project approval, but they just aren’t the focus of a document under CEQA. He explained that you can determine based on substantial evidence a finding that some threshold exists for substantial change based on airflow, but the City doesn’t have an obligation to establish those thresholds as part of its compliance with CEQA.

Commissioner Allen asked when it does rise to a level of significance, such as wind destroying a pelican nesting site, if it would be significant under CEQA. City Attorney Mack Carlson agreed it would and noted cumulative effects rising to significant changes are part of the analysis.

Commissioner Allen pointed out they can deny the project due to the soaring, but it would be under the CUP and not the EIR.

MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 2022
Special Meeting

Commissioner Callender indicated he would not be supportive of the City’s recommendation. He said his reading is that the City demonstrated a change to the physical environment that has an impact on the soaring community.

He provided details on how his logic would be guided.

John Ilasin, Carpinteria Public Works Director, introduced the development team consisting of members from the City of Carpinteria, Caltrans, the County of SB, and SBCAG.

Matt Roberts, City of Carpinteria Parks and Recreation Director, spoke about the vision for the trail connection and its challenges. The railroad likes the project for public safety purposes and one of the purposes was to get people off the informal trails in the rail corridor. He explained the proposed trail is not intended to be used just as a pass-through, the trail itself is the destination. He noted the various grants that were obtained for the project. The design team has made a lot of compromises to make it less costly and less impactful. They want people off the tracks and off the side of the freeway. Regarding usage, it’s not unlikely they’ll see 250,000 visitors per year. Among other things, he spoke about Alternative 4, describing it as a freeway trail that wouldn’t do what it’s supposed do, which is getting people out on the trail to hike and ride their bikes. They want the trail to be irresistible, he said.

David Emerson, Caltrans Project Manager, said they are in favor of encouraging people to use different modes of transportation and the project is similar to the Santa Claus Line Bike Path project. Among other things, he explained the trail will ultimately be owned and maintained by the City of Carpinteria, which allows them some flexibility in design.

Jeff Lindgren, County of Santa Barbara Parks Division, said they are pleased to see the project moving forward and are very much in support.

They hope the Planning Commission will support it. He said one of the unique aspects is how it connects to the community of Carpinteria.

Fred Luna, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), spoke about how they’ve been involved in funding the project and have been working closely with Caltrans. He said they are very much in support of the project, have worked diligently as a team with the City for years.

BREAK – Chair Benefield called for a 3-minute break.

Jonathan Leech of Dudek, in response to more questions about how wind velocity affects physical impacts, said he had worked on a project with a skyscraper that was affecting wind currents in a body of water next to it. He explained they had consulted with a professor of thermodynamics who MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 2022
Special Meeting

researched wind tunnel models and airflows, and changes in wind weren’t a part of the Rincon Trail project. The professor concluded his models were appropriate for the larger conditions. Mr. Leech said an upper bench was responsible for a lot of turbulence, but Alternative 3 removed the upper bench which gives us the profile we have today. He explained that migratory birds and nesting patterns wouldn’t be affected, which is something that would have been a physical effect under CEQA. He said under the CEQA guidelines, effects to the environment don’t include immediate effects to recreation.

Commissioner Allen added to his disclosure of ex-parte communications that Seal Watch recorded over 30,000 visitors into the overlook over the years prior to the pandemic.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED – Chair Benefield opened the public hearing. The following are highlights:

1.Aaron La Plante (did not appear)

2. Karl Cameron, pilot who has flown at Rincon for 30 years, expressed support for Alternative 4. His comments included that design options are still being explored at this point, there is still an uncapped oil well which is an environmental concern, and there are 2,800 people who signed a petition against Option 3 and support Option 4.

3. Gary Mussell, Director of Friends of Bates Beach, expressed support for Plan 4 and asked that they reject Plan 3. Highlights included statements that the parking lot is not ADA compliant and it’s hard for cars to back out of parking spaces (visibility issues); he questioned why the EIR says the parking lot is not significant enough to be part of the report; and he likes the idea of a split trail (a hybrid of Alternatives 3 and 4).

4. Robert Pyle, suggested placing removal of the bric-a-brac into the project scope. He said people are climbing it to access the parking lot at the west end of the beach.

5. George Jimenez said he is also in the area daily and asked Commissioner Allen if seal watchers had permits to cross the tracks and have permission from the railroad company. He complained about the use of a cement trail.

He noted that trail users are dumped into the Rincon parking lot which is already unsafe. He spoke about how we are using funds to attract tourists instead of using them for transportation purposes.

6. John Greynald announced he was there to respond to questions about the air study. He questioned why it was included in the EIR if CEQA guidelines don’t address it. Among other things, he said the project is being ramrodded through, and it should be clear why the study is incomplete.

7. Otis Gillespie displayed photos of the flying site and the bluff called Little Diamond Head, specifically pointing out how the environment was going to be impacted by drainage pipe outflows and stanchions.

MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 2022
Special Meeting

8. Erin Finnegan, representing Santa Barbara Middle School, expressed appreciation for the fact we’re even considering the bike path. She said they have done bike trips with kids for 30 years and spoke about how important these paths are for community connectedness, health and safety.

9. Randall Davy, avid bike rider and pilot, supports the idea of coastal access. He spoke about the test of empathy and how when a take is considered, it’s important that the project is not force fed in a way that creates second guessing and hard feelings for years to come. He said Alternative 4 hasn’t been truly fleshed out yet.

10. Helen O’Neil of Bike Ventura and Bike Oxnard spoke about bike safety issues in the parking lot and expressed support for Alternative 4. She said less bikes would have to go through the parking lot.

11. Noah Wu, long-time Carpinteria resident, said he is against the pathway, noting the overflow from Rincon that has been taking place. He expressed concern when everyone finds out about the bike path that they’re going to park along Carpinteria Avenue. He’s nervous about the congestion and how bikes and pedestrians will be flowing through Rincon parking lot.

12. Chris Tierly?, beginner pilot visiting from New Zealand, said there are very few places he can learn to fly, and Bates has been very special for him.

He hopes we can have both recreational groups enjoy the area together.

13. Jamie Bishop complained that the proposed final EIR is flawed and should not be certified without further amendment. She said the project is not consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251. She expressed support for Alternative 4.

14. Susan Allen, standing in for Ted Rhodes of Citizens for Carpinteria Bluffs, read a letter in support of the project and the Planning Commission certifying the EIR.

15. Aja Rajumani said he is a pilot and member of the soaring community.

Regarding the change of airflow movements having no effect on the environment, he said he studied ecology and they do have an effect on birds, butterflies, etc. He recalls biking through here years ago and the Carpinteria part stood out in his mind. He doesn’t think bikers would notice if they went behind the hill on one section of the trail.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED – Chair Benefield closed the public hearing.

Planner Nick Bobroff responded to concerns raised during public comment.

Regarding drainage outflows discussed, he said they would be replaced with new piping running down a bluff face, which would be a significant improvement. He clarified the bridge is free span and there will be no stanchions. Regarding air flow changes in the EIR, he explained there will be no impacts to birds and wildlife in any significant manner. About safety concerns in the parking lot, he said the City’s consulting traffic engineer studied it and, because it’s a slow speed environment, the addition of cyclists and pedestrians should not be an issue provided they use common MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 2022
Special Meeting

sense. With respect to consistency with Section 30251, he said the section doesn’t preclude earthwork from occurring, and the work must be done to accommodate any trail. He added that the slope is going to be stabilized through revegetation and will look more natural than it currently does.

Concerning masses of people parking on Carpinteria Avenue, he explained part of a future project is to build a parking lot and trail improvements on the Rincon Bluffs Preserve, although it is not guaranteed.

Commissioner Allen said he is all for soaring and wishes there was a way to ensure and improve it in our county. He walks up there a lot and has often trespassed over the tracks to get to the County park. He said the project is part of a larger statewide effort and he feels a responsibility to ensure the best trail for the most people. In balancing the interest of soaring over the long-term interest of the population of CA and other visitors, he wants a trail that benefits the majority in the best way possible. He would hate to make a decision for the soaring community that might not be able to continue, noting there is no guarantee they will be able to continue to use the King property. They don’t know what project will be proposed there unless the community can acquire that hilltop. He agreed many trespass on UPRR property, and we don’t know what the railroad will do for safety reasons. They have legal right to fence it all, which is why approving a project that is less than ideal for users in the future would be a mistake.

About the EIR, Allen said it is undisputable in that it’s much nicer to walk through the County Park, and the Coastal Act prioritizes aesthetics. As for Seal Watch, he clarified it has nothing to do with coastal trails and stays on the beach. About certification of the EIR, he felt it was a mistake to include the soaring study but said the EIR is totally supportable. There is no threshold because recreational activity is not part of its purview and including it would be expanding its scope. All other impacts are well analyzed, so he can accept and certify it. He expressed support for certifying the EIR, for Alternative 3 and approval of the CUP/CDP, stating that it benefits the most people and accomplishes the goal of the California Coastal Trail.

Commissioner Moyer said Alternative 4 is depressing and he questioned its constructability considering its slope, angle and what has to be done to create a path. The path won’t be ADA compliant, and it’s just basically a place to get from point “a” to point “b”. The project that is designed will correct a lot of problems, including drainage. He suggested the gliding community would be better served to start a non-profit and go to King and enter into a discussion about a contract to secure a glider port there; however, he warned there could be issues with the FAA. He said it would be wonderful if there was a legal glider port there. He can support the EIR, MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 2022
Special Meeting

and he can understand the reason it doesn’t consider recreation – it’s more concerned with the environment.

Commissioner Callender said he is going to vote not to accept the EIR as adequate. The key issue is the notion that alteration of the wind characteristics is not a feature of the natural environment. He is a process engineer and likes processes that work well, and he is bothered by the one we followed. When the MND was brought before him, he felt recreational aspects weren’t being addressed. He said leadership and vision is a key part of how things get done, and this project was spearheaded by Parks Director Matt Roberts who has a vision. It’s clear where his sympathies lie, which he doesn’t begrudge, but at the same time we need to draw a line with this EIR analysis process. The purpose of this EIR is to clearly spell out the impacts, and he feels a leaning on the scales for salesmanship to minimize the impacts to the soaring community. It has caused us to get a document that is not as good as it should be. He’d like soaring impacts acknowledged as a physical impact on the environment with a significant effect. He feels this process has found us ways to get to a decision the applicant wants, and we are failing the test of empathy, which disappoints him.

BREAK – Chair Benefield called for a 2-minute break.

Chair Benefield spoke about how they try to balance what is best but mostly they are on the side of the bigger community. She doesn’t hear anyone say they cannot soar due to Alternative 3; they simply cannot do it the way they did before. She expressed support for the EIR, CUP and CDP.

She said they bent over backwards to get a study but they (soaring community) didn’t like it. The most people who will benefit is the general public, not the soaring community, and that’s the balancing they do. She loves soaring and it fascinates her, but it’s not the main public benefit. The major public benefit is for bikers and walkers. She lives 8 feet from a trail by the marsh, and during Covid it has been packed. She said we need substantial structure to move on. She recommended approval of all three items and entertained a motion
MOTION
Commissioner Allen moved that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution PC-22-001 thereby acting on behalf of City of Carpinteria as the lead agency as defined by CEQA, accepting and certifying the Environment Impact Report (EIR) for the Rincon Trail Project as having satisfied the procedural and statutory requirements of CEQA, selecting the steeper slope/reduced earthwork Alternative 3 as the preferred project, and approving the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the portion of the proposed Rincon Trail located in the City of Carpinteria. Commissioner Moyer seconded. Motion passed 3-1 MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION January 18, 2022
Special Meeting

by the following roll call vote: Commissioner Allen voted yes, Commissioner Moyer voted yes, Commissioner Callender voted no, and Chair Benefield voted yes.

Chair Benefield announced there are 10 days in which to appeal to the City Council.

OTHER BUSINESS - None OTHER BUSINESS
MATTERS PRESENTED BY COMMISSIONERS - None MATTERS

PRESENTED
DIRECTOR’S REPORT - None DIRECTOR'S
REPORT

ATTENDANCE OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS FOR THE
NEXT MEETING OF February 7, 2022

ATTENDANCE FOR

NEXT MEETING
ADJOURNMENT - Chair Benefield adjourned the meeting at 8:33 p.m. ___________________________
Secretary, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
___________________________
Chair, Planning Commission

ADJOURNMENT

MINUTES, PLANNING COMMISSION

CITY OF CARPINTERIA

CARPINTERIA, CALIFORNIA
January 18, 2022
Special Meeting
5:30 P.M.

Attachment F
Public Comment Letters
Submitted to Planning
Commission
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Derek Arculli <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 11:48 AM
To: Nick Bobroff
Subject: Bates paragliding site
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Dear Sirs,
Coastal soaring at Bates is unique and special for my family and i as we visit from out of town especially to enjoy the beach and the paragliding. We typically visit for a few days and stay in local hotel accommodations and also enjoy dining out at all the local restaurants. If it was not for the paragliding at Bates we would not visit.

Pls preserve this unique soaring site.

Yours sincerely,
Derek Arculli
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Joe Seitz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 23, 2021 10:30 AM
To: Nick Bobroff
Subject: Bates paragliding site
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe.  Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Hi Nick,
I live and fly Paraglider’s in SLO county and frequent the Santa Barbara area to fly often. Our membership in SLO is growing and many of us come down to SB to fly the various sites and get a bite to eat afterwards. We love our visits to Santa Barbara.  Bates is a lovey site for us as it gives us options when conditions at other locations are not favorable.  I haven’t followed closely the changes coming to bates but I understand that it may limit or prohibit our access to a beautiful ridge on the California coastline. It is my hope that the city of Carpinteria will allowed continued access and support for our sport.  Sites to fly are difficult to access and our options are constantly becoming more limited. I’ve flown all over the world and many places support and encourage paragliding. It is very visually appealing and residents frequently perceive it as a peaceful and amazing use of public land.  You can ask the Chamber of Commerce of Morro Bay as they have used photos of paragliding as a means to promote tourism and demonstrate the beauty of the California coast in SLO county.  I hope you can support our flying activities at Bates. I am happy to answer questions about paragliding and can direct you to local members who could help as well   Thank you for your attention Joe Seitz
President
San Luis Obispo Soaring Association
413‐535‐8696
Sent from my iPhone

A 501 (C) (3) Corporation
PO Box 1330
Colorado Springs, CO 80901-1330
Tel: 800-616-6888 / 719-632-8300
Fax: 719-632-6417
www.ushpa.org
8/26/2021
Re: “Little Diamondhead”/Carpinteria Multi-Use Trail
Dear Mr. Bobroff,
The United States Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (USHPA) would like to express our support, along with the Santa Barbara Soaring Association, for the City of Carpinteria Environmental Review Committee’s recommendation from April 13, 2021 that the Multi-Use Trail be placed on the freeway side of the bluff rather than the coastal side, thereby preserving the free-flight site of “Little Diamondhead,” also known as Bates Bluff.

The bluff in question represents a critical aspect of the hang gliding and paragliding communities in and around Carpinteria. Our sports are environmentally friendly activities that rely on natural cliff formations and air currents for pilots to remain aloft. They also have the lowest barrier to entry of any form of aviation, making birdlike flight available to the general public. Reliable, safe, and beginner-friendly flying sites like Little Diamondhead are exceedingly hard to come by, and the preservation of those sites is essential to maintain public access to free flight.

If construction of the Multi-Use Trail were to begin along the coastal side of the bluff, it would effectively remove not only the primary flying site for Carpinteriabased pilots, but also a famous ridge flying area whose smooth winds and steady updrafts make it ideal for both beginner and advanced pilots. Natural terrain, access issues, and wind direction mean that sites like Little Diamondhead could not be replaced easily, if at all, and its loss would deal a blow to the free-flight community across the country.

Any efforts to preserve this area for future pilots would be greatly appreciated by both the local and national free flight communities!
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Martin Palmaz
USHPA Executive Director
719-632-8300
[email protected]
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Matt Roberts
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2021 4:34 PM
To: Steve Goggia; Nick Bobroff
Cc: Fred Luna ([email protected])
Subject: comment on the rincon trail
The following was submitted from https://carpinteriaca.gov/contact‐us/ Comment Type
This is NOT a public comment.

Email the City of Carpinteria
Name
Tyson Blades
Email
[email protected]
Phone
(805) 963-7775
Subject
Proposed Rincon connector bike path
Message

My name is Tyson Blades and I am the manager of Velo Pro Cyclery in Santa Barbara. I and my entire staff would like to voice support for the proposed bike path connecting Carpinteria to the Ventura coastal bike path.

We are so fortunate to live on the South Coast. We can recreate all year round and enjoy the beauty and awesome weather. We here at Velo Pro ride the popular route from Santa Barbara to Ventura often. We love the fact that we can get between the two cities with relative ease.

The only problem is the section of the 101 that we must traverse in order to get to the coastal bike path. Riding along the 101, especially on a section where motorists often have trouble (or an unwillingness to) control their speed. The shoulder is also littered with objects which can puncture tires and endanger the lives of cyclists.

To rebut the soaring community's argument that the proposed path will change the wind patterns. There are already paths below the launch area which are frequented by hikers. To assume that the proposed path will change the wind patterns is mere speculation. The wind that the paragliders is not in any way perfect: it varies in speed and strength.

As for the argument that riding on the 101 is not that scary, I invite the soaring community to try and launch from the shoulder for a change. They will soon discover that doing any hobby less than 10 feet away from speeding two-ton boxes of metal is not enjoyable.

Let's all be good neighbors and allow ourselves to do our hobbies safely so we can all enjoy our coast.

Thank you.

The linked image cannot
be displayed. The file may
have been mov ed,
renamed, or deleted.

Verify that the link points
to the correct file and
location.
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Christian Koepenick <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2022 8:21 PM
To: Nick Bobroff
Subject: Rincon Multi Use Trail
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Hello Mr. Bobroff
I’m wriiting in regards to the Rincon multi use trail. I strongly feel that the proposed project is to expensive, unsafe, and a poorly planned. The proposed trail would cost over $12,000,000, remove some 312 million lbs of coastal soil and dump cyclist straight into parking lot traffic. It would also ruin one of the only coastal soaring sites for paragliding and hang gliding in the county. I am 100% for connecting Carpinteria to Rincon with a trail described as the "Highway Adjacent Design."
I grew up in Carpenteria and graduated from Carpinteria Middle School, Carpinteria High School, and Brooks Institute of Photography.

My brother Nick Koepenick is one of the Captains of Carpenteria - Summerland Fire Dept and very active in the community. As kids we spent most of my time surfing, diving, hiking and fishing the coast here.

In August 2021 I started taking courses at Fly Above All Paragliding in Santa Barbara and acquired my P2 novice pilot certification in October 2021. I’ve since been able to Paraglide the Bates site now on several occasions. The flying has been incredible and the community is the strongest and most supportive I’ve ever experienced, especially in the Santa Barbara area.

I hope that the committee will reconsider there design and come up with one that is cost effective, timely, safe, practical, and enjoyable for everyone without ruining one of the hubs of our free flight community.

Removing 30% of the flying potential is the equivalent of dredging 30% off of the top of Rincon point to surfers.

People come from all over the world to surf, hike, and bike here. 2 They come to fly here as well.

Thank you for your time.

Christian "bummy" Koepenick
Kelp LLC
323 W Quinto St. #1
Santa Barbara Ca 93105
213-436-9647

1 Nick Bobroff
From: Matt Roberts
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 1:14 PM
To: Nick Bobroff; Steve Goggia
Subject: FW: Possible SPAM: Contact form submission from Website - Entry ID#1341 A comment for the rincon trail hearing  (see below)
From: Maria Olivas <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 12:42 PM
To: Matt Roberts <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Possible SPAM: Contact form submission from Website ‐ Entry ID#1341 From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 10, 2022 12:33 PM
To: Maria Olivas <[email protected]>
Subject: Possible SPAM: Contact form submission from Website ‐ Entry ID#1341 **EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

The following was submitted from https://carpinteriaca.gov/contact‐us/ Comment Type
This is NOT a public comment.

Email the City of Carpinteria
Name
Bruce Davis
Email
[email protected]
Phone
(805) 689-8610
Subject
Carp Rincon Trail
Message

Hi everyone,
I'm writing to express my support of the Rincon Trail Project. This addition to our community will be a much-needed improvement, and will be enjoyed and used by many. The connection between the end of Carp Ave and Rincon will make access much easier for thousands of families, walkers, cyclists, runners, surfers, etc. I really appreciate all the work everyone has put into this project to make the route safer for all. I understand there is some push back from the hang glider crowd about 2 the air flow being interrupted if the connector is built. The drawings that I saw showed the bridge quite a way past their launching point, so I'm not too sure that they're argument about the air flow interruption is valid. It appears that their launch area will not be impacted by the trail. I know you've done your surveys, but I don't see how a small handful of fliers can object to a trail that will be used by thousands of people, by using the "we were here first" argument. The few of them will still be able to fly, while many, many others will be able to enjoy the area.

Thanks for taking the time to read this. Please feel free to contact me if needed.

Thanks again, Bruce Davis
The linked image cannot
be displayed. The file may
have been mov ed,
renamed, or deleted.

Verify that the link points
to the correct file and
location.
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 2:56 PM
To: Lorena Esparza
Cc: Nick Bobroff
Subject: Public Comment 1 - FW: Rincon Trail Project
________________________________________
From: Timothy Barker [[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 10:08 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Rincon Trail Project
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe.  Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing this letter in an attempt to dissuade the development of the proposed bike path along the Rincon bluffs.  I am not coming at you from a procedural and/or environmental impact point of view.  I am certain that you are hearing about that from many others.  Instead, I am asking you to reflect on the legacy and impact we want to leave behind.  I am asking you to reflect on whether or not this is a project of pride and grandeur or that of practicality.

As you know, there are two groups that have issues with the proposed development: the Freeflight community and the Biking community.  The Freeflight community is certain that this development will ruin their ability to soar the cliffs, which is both inspiring and beautiful to behold.  The Biking community is worried about the safety of having a path merge into a parking lot (a very legitimate concern).  Do those concerns not outweigh the community of people that are ardently in favor of this path?  Although I’m not a religious man, I do believe that Pride can blind and lead us astray.  Is this project a matter of pride or is it the will of the people?  To me, it sounds like a plan that has become important to the planners and not something the community at large supports.

Also, as an environmentalist and somebody concerned about Climate Change, I believe we need to start asking ourselves a critical question: is this project a matter of necessity?  If it is, then we should expend the resources to pursue it.  If it is a project of luxury, then perhaps the way forward should be reconsidered so that we are using the least amount of resources possible.  From an environmental standpoint, keeping the bike path on the road would require a lot less resources.  Making the project more environmentally responsible.  We need to change the way we make decisions and this is an opportunity to lead our community onto a more environmentally friendly path.

Again, I wonder and I hope you consider: is this a project of pride that is blinding the principal architects to the desires of the community stakeholders and  citizens?  Is it a project that could be accomplished with less negative impacts to our climate and physical geography?  Do we want to start making decisions in our policies and projects that help to mitigate Climate Change?  Do we want to create a legacy of environmental stewardship?  I hope you consider your role in shaping our future.  What legacy do you want to leave behind? 2 Thank you,
‐‐
Tim Barker
5th grade Hope School
“You cannot teach a man [woman] anything; you can only help him find it within himself.” Galileo Galilei (1564‐1642)
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:34 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Save Bates Ridge
From: Terry Contreras [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 7:15 AM
To: Shad; Public Comment; SBCAG Information Requests; [email protected] Subject: RE: Save Bates Ridge
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Thank you for your comment letter I will forward it on to the SBCAG Board of Directors.

Terry L. Contreras
Executive Secretary/Board Clerk
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
260 N. San Antonio Rd.

Santa Barbara, CA 93110
1-805-961-8911 or ext 18911
[email protected]

From: Shad <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 6:55 PM
To: [email protected]; SBCAG Information Requests <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Save Bates Ridge

To whom it may concern,

My name is Shad Preston (USHPA # 81927) and I was born and raised in Ventura.  As a child growing up my parents would often take me to Bates Beach to enjoy the beach, as well as watch the hang gliders who would gracefully and effortlessly soar the small cliffs above the beach.  We were so memorized by it and often dreamed about flight ourselves.  Many years later, my Dad learned to paraglide and would often enjoy flying for hours at a time at Bates.  A year later back in December of 2003, my dad bestowed the gift of free flight upon me and I started paragliding as well.  From then on, I also was able to enjoy the beautiful air that would blow into those bluffs above that beach at just the right direction with just the right amount of velocity.  Knowing what is needed for free flight to take place at a ridge soaring site, makes Bates Ridge an exceptionally special place for our peaceful and quiet sport. The ocean breeze sets up perfectly on certain days and allows many, many pilots to enjoy this special gem along the Southern California coast and is a very rare spot as there are not many locations that are as ideal as Bates Ridge. 2 It would be a terrible loss if Bates Ridge were to be carved down changing the coast line forever and doing away with a long standing and historic free flight site, simply to put a short bike/walking path.  There is an obvious alternative by constructing the path behind Bates Ridge closer to the freeway.  This would allow for a safe location of the path and would allow free flight to continue without changing the geography of the coastline forever.  Any other decision is simply reckless and unnecessary.  DO NOT construct the bike path on the train tracks side and ruin the ability for free flight to continue in Ventura County and at Bates Ridge.

Thank you,

Shad Preston
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:33 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Rincon Trail comment
From: Dietrich Schuhl [[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 16, 2022 9:06 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Rincon Trail comment
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

To whom it may concern,
I am writing to ask that the City only support Alternative 4 of the EIR which places the bike path on the north side of the bluffs. This is clearly safer, less expensive, and will preserve the current use of the site as a recreational flying location.

Any other option is a threat to the environment which will not only draw the ire of anyone who values the beauty of our precious coastline, but will also likely delay the project further and make it even more expensive.

Please only consider alternative 4.

Sincerely,
Dietrich Schuhl
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Jamie Bishop <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 9:41 AM
To: Nick Bobroff
Cc: Jeff Longcor
Subject: Comment on Rincon Trail, Project # 19-2015-CUP/CDP **EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Dear Nick, and the City of Carpinteria Planning Commission, I’m writing on the January 18, 2022, Planning Commission meeting agenda item 2, Rincon Trail, Project # 19-2015-CUP/CDP.

The proposed final Environmental Impact Report, December 2021, for the Rincon Trail does not accurately account for its impact on recreation, increase in hazard at the eastern terminus, and negative impact on the view-shed. The EIR should not be certified without further amendment.

I appreciate that a wind study was conducted and I differ on the conclusion stated in the EIR:
carving out a level trail will result in a substantial decrease in soaring opportunities along that length of the bluff.

I would also counter that the Project is not consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251 as long as it involves extensive earthwork on a south-facing bluff that is already subject to erosion.

The EIR asserts that the Project is consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251 because the trail itself will be a “subordinate feature.” Schematics and drawings do not show the fencing that would be put up for safety, and the fencing will forever mar the view. The trail will definitely not be a “subordinate feature” once fencing goes up.

A City consulting traffic engineer “determined that there would not be a significant hazard associated with introducing additional cyclists traversing the Rincon County Beach parking lot.” This determination defies common sense. The City’s response mentions signage to mitigate {the additional risk} and to get cyclists’ attention to slow down. The reality is that most cyclists enjoy picking up speed going downhill, and now this is to happen in a parking lot. Along with the fencing, the signage will be more still blight that mars the natural beauty of the beach.

While the Planning Commission may certify a flawed EIR on January 18, 2022, the EIR is not worth the paper it’s printed on until it accurately accounts for the impacts to recreation, the hazards associated with introducing cyclists to a parking lot, and the ugly prominence it would have on this short stretch of the coast.
2 The Planning Commission has a responsibility to steward public resources, including the current and future use of the bluffs at Rincon. I’m not in favor of the Planning Commission’s approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the proposed Rincon Trail.

Alternative 4 on the north side of the bluff would preserve the ridge for flying, be safer for trail users and lower impact on the coast.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Jamie Bishop
Santa Barbara Soaring Association Member and Santa Barbara resident 1 Nick Bobroff
From: Ottis Gillespie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 10:32 PM
To: Public Comment; Steve Goggia; Matt Roberts; Nick Bobroff; Dave Durflinger; McShirley, Kadie
Subject: Rincon Trail Project 19-2015-CUP/CDP Multi Use Trail, Bluffs Two Trail **EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Ottis Gillespie                                                                January 14, 2022 1945 Spyglass Trail West
Oxnard, CA 93036
City of Carpinteria Planning Commission
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
RE:  Rincon Trail Project 19‐2015‐CUP/CDP
AKA:   Multi‐Use Trail (M.U.T.), Bluffs Two Trail
Dear Commission members,
The request for a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for this portion of the Multi Use Trail, Rincon Trail Project should be denied.   The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should not be approved.

The petitioners have not indicated a readily available source of funding for this portion of the Multi Use Trail or the entirety of the project.  There has not been a public cost estimate submitted for this portion of the M.U.T.  The foundational easement, north of Carpinteria Avenue and south of the southbound US 101 onramp at Highway 150, has recently been built (within the last 10 months), without a Conditional Use Permit or Coastal Development Permit (see attached photos 1,2,3).

The City’s Architectural Review Board in their recent meeting on October 28, 2021, approved the concrete design of “…800 feet…, twelve feet wide… with no safety railing…” of the M.U.T. in the City’s “purview.”   It was not discussed, as to what the depth of this portion of the M.U.T. would be.  The Board continued to talk about design elements of the whole M.U.T., without allowing public comment or questions.  The existing bike path width in this area is approximately fourteen feet. 2 The proposed (2005) M.U.T. is a project that is 17 years overdue.  It encompasses several jurisdictions and agencies and should not be constructed in a fragmented way.  Construction, once approved and budgeted, should commence at the same time, for the entirety of the project.  This will ensure that a cohesively engineered, designed, and developed project may be reliably and consistently and safely completed.

The City’s current proposed plans show that the Union Pacific Railroad bridge, be angled at ninety degrees, to the tracks.   This creates a “Dogleg, “on the M.U.T.  which juts out toward the Pacific Ocean and may require stanchions (described in earlier presentations but not illustrated or listed with cost estimates). This alignment is not sustainable or direct, and according to the City’s Environmental Review Committee (April 13, 2021) not the “Environmentally Superior Alternative.”  The Environmental Review Committee would like to see the bridge over the UPRR in line with the southbound US 101.  There has been no public cost estimate for straightening out the “Dogleg,” of the M.U.T.

The Environmental Impact Report does not accurately reflect the drastic impact to orographic lift for the primary recreational users of “Little Diamondhead,” the paragliders and hang gliders of the Santa Barbara Soaring Association, and the United States Hang glider and Paraglider Association. The Bluffs Two easement is a part of the entire project and should not be approved or continue to be built. The city requested on December 16, 2021, at the SBCAG meeting, an additional $300,000 to complete the EIR.  The funding was not approved at that time.  The December 2021 ETR cannot be accepted as it was not completed at that time.  The “No Confidence,” option should be used.

Respectfully,
Ottis Gillespie
3 4
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:34 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Agenda item #2 / Rincon Multi use trail proposal From: Terry Contreras [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 8:48 AM
To: Ian Higgins; Public Comment; SBCAG Information Requests; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: Agenda item #2 / Rincon Multi use trail proposal **EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Thank you for your comment letter. I will forward it on to the SBCAG Board of Directors.

Thanks

Terry L. Contreras
Executive Secretary/Board Clerk
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
260 N. San Antonio Rd.

Santa Barbara, CA 93110
1-805-961-8911 or ext 18911
[email protected]

From: Ian Higgins <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 8:17 AM
To: [email protected]; SBCAG Information Requests <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Agenda item #2 / Rincon Multi use trail proposal

I strongly oppose the spending of $16 million on the construction of a bridge to carry cyclists and pedestrians into the upper Rincon parking lot. That amount of tax payers dollars can be spent in soo many better ways. I have read the alternate proposals and they are significantly cheaper and all around better.

Linking the bike path from SB to Ventura is a great idea, but $16 million dollars for a pedestrian bridge?

That route will be dangerous. Why not use the north side of the hill and feed cyclists into the existing bike path entrance that parallels the 101 south? Please consider what will happen on a busy summer day when that upper parking lot is 2 packed full of beach goers, entering and exiting that parking lot. It's already congested, now add pedestrians, cyclists, scooter riders, e‐bikes funneling into the parking lot!

Thank you for your time,

Ian Higgins

1 Nick Bobroff
From: Derek Musashe <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 3:39 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Nick Bobroff
Subject: Public comment regarding the proposed Rincon Trail **EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Dear officials and representatives of the City of Carpinteria, My name is Derek Musashe, and I am the Vice President of Paragliding for the Santa Barbara Soaring Association (SBSA) and a longtime Santa Barbara area resident.

I am writing this public comment in reference to the Rincon Multi-Use Trail Project and it's EIR and coastal permitting that I believe will be discussed as agenda item 2 in your January 18 meeting.

For the last several years, the vibrant and growing free flying community in the Santa Barbara and Carpinteria area has been fighting to protect an irreplaceable coastal soaring site at the Rincon bluffs (also known as "Bates") from being destroyed forever by an ill-conceived routing plan for a new bike path.

From the very beginning we have been in full support of a bike path, but we would like one that will actually be cost effective, have a minimal environmental impact, and won't completely destroy our cherished flying site at the Rincon bluffs which bring in countless local and visiting pilots each year to fly there.

The current routing option being put forth by Matt Roberts (from Carpinteria City Parks and Rec) and others will:
 Remove 312 million pounds of soil from the slope, never to be seen again.  Cost at least $12-16 million for just a quarter of a mile of pathway (that's over $11,000 per foot of bike path).
 Funnel cyclists into a busy and steep parking lot, which will cause many future accidents and injuries to both cyclists, pedestrians, and drivers alike.
 Forever alter the Rincon bluffs and their ability to redirect wind for soaring purposes of free flight pilots and coastal soaring birds alike.
 Be much less durable over time than other alternatives that aren't on the oceanside of the Bates bluff (aka Little Diamondhead)
The current design is already over budget by 200% and is 20 months behind schedule. The reasons for this are myriad, and Matt Roberts and company will blame external parties, like the free flying community. Still, the fact of the matter is that this is simply an ill-designed routing plan for the bike and pedestrian path, putting it on an unstable slope that will need to be heavily reinforced at huge taxpayer expense. This is why the current plan is faltering.
2 Myself and over 2,800 other individuals have signed a petition to preserve the south side of the Rincon bluffs. I am not alone in this. The outcry from our community is palpable, based on our very real fear of losing a treasured flying site that we have been lawfully flying at for over 40 years.

My ask of you is quite simple: support building a better bike path with a different routing. Do not fund the current iteration of the plan. Demand a better path for both taxpayers and the path users alike! A preferable routing on the north side of the bluffs was already identified and presented as "Alternative 4" in the Environmental Impact Report. This design will be easier to build and will cost a fraction of the current proposal, all while preserving the bluffs that the free flying community so cherishes and giving cyclists and pedestrians an even safer bike path than what is currently planned (it will no longer need to be routed through the busy parking lot).

This project has run into so many issues and so many cost and time overruns not because it's a bad idea in principle, but because the current routing and design are simply not very well thought-out.

You have a chance to help us fix this, and make a better bike path in the process. I hope you support us in this, and in turn, we will fully support you.

As it stands, our flying activities at the Rincon bluffs is a protected recreational activity under the California Environmental Protection Act (CEQA), yet the Environmental Impact Report did not properly address the current plan's impacts on this recreation. As such, we plan to exhaust all of our legal and political options in addressing and rectifying this egregious oversight. On the other hand, simply changing the routing of the path will resolve all of these issues.

Again, I hope you can support a better bike/pedestrian path than what is currently proposed. If you can, then we will all be allies in making this multi-use path a reality. If not, then you risk needlessly wasting taxpayer money, endangering cyclists and pedestrians for the life of the path, and engendering anger and ire from your constituents for decades to come.

Thank you in advance for reading this and for your support.

Sincerely,
Derek Musashe
Friends of Bates Beach
A Non-Profit California Corporation
1072 Casitas Pass Road Suite 427 Carpinteria CA 93013
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.friendsofbatesbeach.org
January 17, 2022
Mr. Nick Bobroff, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Re: Rincon Trail
Dear Mr. Bobroff:

Thank you for this opportunity to address the Carpinteria Planning Commission as they consider the revised EIR for the proposed Rincon Trail link between Carpinteria Avenue and the Ventura County line. I attended previous meetings and testified about my concerns of the Alternative #3 terminus at Rincon County Park, and I read the revised EIR Report and its accompanying exhibits. I wish here to express my continued concerns about the Trail terminus not mentioned or given, in my opinion, short shrift in the updated documents in front of the Commission.

1. We are disappointed that the removal of the concrete debris(what the EIR calls “brik brak”) that has fallen from the old railroad bench to the beach below will not be removed as part of this project. This concrete is not only unsightly, it also provides an unsafe path (although not an easy one) to the old bench above that runs parallel to the railroad track as an alternative for hikers to reach the parking lot at highway 150 to the west. We see people using this path every weekend. One of the selling points of the new Trail was to eliminate the safety hazard of hikers walking along the railroad track. In the original proposal, the bench in this area was to be filled in and the debris removed that would permanently remove its accessibility. I don’t know how much more this will add to the cost of the project, but we ask that this be task be added back into it. We do not think the cost will be that great since all the earth moving equipment will be close by and available anyway.

2. We are also disappointed that the EIR fails to suggest mitigation remedies to the dangerous termination of the Trail into the Rincon County Park parking lot. This 150-car lot is not ADA compliant as it has a very steep angle of descent from the parking area down to Bates Road and the start of the Ventura County bike trail below.

As you can see in the attached Google photo of the Rincon parking area on the next page, the lot has poorly designed sight lines for cars trying to pull back into traffic when leaving their parking spots and we constantly see close calls with other cars using the lot. We also have observed many bicyclists using the existing bench trail (along the railroad track) and travelling at speeds through the parking lot that make it almost impossible for them to be seen by cars pulling out of their spots. The width of the lot is only about a car’s length behind any car exiting a parking spot and a car had to pull out about halfway for a driver to safely see and cross traffic to the left or right. During the summer there are many close calls as the lot is too narrow for a large amount of car and bike traffic both dueling for the same space.

Adding an estimated 70,000 bikers each year to this path, as estimated by the EIR, is surely a tragedy waiting to happen.

At the ARB meeting several months ago, there was a discussion about creating a designated bike path through the parking lot. The answer I received last April stated the following:

City’s consulting traffic engineer determined there would not be a significant hazard associated with introducing additional cyclists traversing the Rincon County Beach Park parking lot.

Vehicle maneuvers in the parking lot involve low speeds, and signage in the parking area would alert drivers to cyclists passing through the area. Signage at the terminus of the trail leading into the parking area would also alert cyclists to reduce speed and employ appropriate caution when riding through the parking lot.

I respectfully submit that this this consultant is wrong. I don’t know what data he used to reach his conclusion but anyone who has seen the lot knows this is not a viable option. Bike riders are notorious for not slowing down nor stopping unless they have to. Inevitably, there will be collisions.

A designated path on the north side runs into the sewage treatment building about 30 cars later. The hill behind would have to be cut down to accommodate a safe designated path, and that is not in any of the EIR alternatives. Or…
It was suggested at the Architectural meeting that perhaps there could be a designated bike path parallel to the parked cars on the beach side. Unfortunately, this will be an unsafe lane to cross for beachgoers and families and dog walkers traversing the path from their cars toward the beach. Also, this path only works for about two-thirds of the parking lot. The last third of the lot runs downhill at an angle that is not ADA-compliant. There are bound to be collisions at the bottom of the hill despite there being a stop sign there as riders try to cross Bates Road toward the completed Ventura bike path across the street.

Those with disabilities travelling the Trail will have trouble controlling their speed going down this hill. It is the parking lot itself which is the problem and there is no way that I can see to integrate it into the planned coastal path. Or…
Part of the berm on the north side of the parking lot is cut so that a path allows the bikes to transfer to the freeway side of the parking lot parallel to the Bates Road offramp. This will be at a much safer angle of descent than the parking lot as bikers continue toward the Ventura pathway.

But then, if we do that, then we might as well accept the Alternative #4 for the entire bike path since it stays on the freeway side for its entire length and exits at the bottom of the Bates offramp. The argument that it is not ADA compliant is rendered moot if you take Alternate #3 instead since it accepts the nonADA compliant and unsafe hill in the parking lot as the terminus of the proposed Trail.

Last April, the Planning Commission rejected this same Alternative #3 path because of safety concern at the parking lot. The reply I received to my January letter to the Commission casually said the parking not was not part of the project and therefore not important to the EIR. The Architecture Committee members agreed that any Trail proposal has to consider what is going on at the start and at the end of the proposed Trail.

I respectfully request the Planning Commission reject the staff report (as it did last April) and instead approve the inland route (Alternative #4) for the Rincon Trail. I think our organization as well as the community at large agrees a Trail is a necessary and welcomed addition to our community. Don’t make the mistake of choosing the wrong path. Do the right thing.

Sincerely,
Gary Mussell,
Director, Friends of Bates Beach
TO: City of Carpinteria Planning Commission January 17 2022 RE: Agenda item #2 Rincon Trail Project
I am writing to offer information and opinions regarding the proposed Rincon Project and the intended alteration of the landscape to extend a bike path into the area in question. My interest and qualifications for commenting here are two-fold: I have been a hang glider pilot for 48 years and a paraglider pilot for 32 years. Also, utilizing my degree in engineering and physics, I studied micrometeorology intensively and wrote the book Understanding the Sky, which is used in many forms of aviation and is quoted in your EIR proposal. In addition, I wrote the book Art of Paragliding, which is also referenced in your document.

To begin, I have examined the various graphs and equations and find them to be reasonable and accurate, except for a few caveats, which I shall list and address below.

1. The most important misconception in this EIR analysis is that it is limited to two dimensions. In other words, it only looks at the vertical and incoming flow of the air. However, we all know that the flow of air is so fluid that it moves in all directions—forward and back, left and right and up and down. Because this site is limited in its width with respect to the incoming wind (perpendicular to the slope face), there will be some flow moving slightly sideways to escape into the opening or gap near the railroad tracks as a result of the extensive excavation needed to connect the bridge to the path. We can visualize this phenomena by thinking about a rock in the middle of a fast flowing stream. In this case we will see a bit of pile-up of water in front of the rock, while most of the water splits to flow around either side of the rock. The air flow around a protruding hill is nearly identical to this observed water flow. Figure 1 illustrates this effect.

If we further visualize a broader rock or perhaps a short wall perpendicular to the water flow, we will see that there will be more pile-up of water in front of the obstruction (wall), while there is still plenty of water that escapes around the sides of the wall. In the free air flow the wall is analogous to a ridge as opposed to a single hill limited in width. It should be clear that the wider the obstruction, the more it presents lift in front of it, and the smaller the percentage of flow that escapes around the sides compared to the total volume of flow meeting the obstruction face.

This natural behavior of water and air means that any alteration in the width of the small ridge at this particular soaring site will render it less soarable and undesirable as a flying site. In fact, it may become non-soarable except in a perfect wind direction (an infrequent occurrence at this site) or higher winds, which increases the inherent dangers. Not only is the lifting area reduced, but the increased flow into the proposed larger gap near the RR tracks will make it harder and more dangerous to cross the gap to reach the higher, more soarable area of the ridge. It should be noted that all craft operating in a fluid (boats and aircraft) must point a bit into the flow in order to move in a direction crossing the flow. With a higher wind flow in this gap, the crossing will be slower and may not be possible at all if the glider’s energy and altitude is expended in countering this increased air flow. Figure 2. Illustrates this matter.

Another factor that the three-dimensional flow introduces is that lift is reduced due to some sideways flowing of the air. So while the diagrams presented in the EIR purport to show a 10 to 20% reduction in lift, it will be a greater reduction if any amount of the ridge width is reduced. In other words, the graph presented are not representing the true effect of the proposed alteration of this site. When air flows faster in a constricted tube or through a narrow gap, it is known as a venturi effect. Pilots learn to avoid venturis because of the inability to penetrate against them and the possibility of stronger and even dangerous turbulence. This result is similar to an airplane flying into a jet stream with its extremely strong flow and often strong turbulence.

It is curious to note that while the EIR refers to many illustrations from my books, it does not reference any top view (plan view) illustrations, which provide the most meaningful understanding of the wind flow. For example, figures 13-7, 13-9, 13-10, et. al. in The Art of Paragliding clearly present the wind’s behavior in gaps and along ridges. It’s as if the analysis of a building’s structure was presented only as side view elevation, without any top (plan) view or front elevation view. The limited information may be accurate, but is inconsequential in light of the need to fully understand the structure.

2. An additional error in the EIR is not taking into consideration the effect of wind gradient. The wind gradient is shown in the left vertical graph in figure 1 of the EIR. It shows the normal situation whereby the wind flow is slowed near the ground and increases as elevation increases (this slowing is due to friction and drag of the ground itself and ground objects, such as rough terrain, bushes, rocks, etc.). In brief, the wind gradient actually reduces the amount of lift created at the top of a slope—the greater the gradient, the less lift. What isn’t mentioned in the EIR is that the flatter the slope, the thicker the layer of reduced flow is, so more lift is lost. As a side note, much of the lift at this site gets a boost from the heating of the beach area below.

This heated air joins the general flow up the slope and makes it more buoyant. But with a flatter slope the rise of the buoyant air is not added to the general uplift as much because it tends to sidle along the surface rather than lift off due to the inertia of its mass (air weighs a surprising

0.08 lbs. per cubic foot). Thus, we can conclude that reducing the steepness of the slope will reduce lift more than the projected 10 or 20%.

3. The next point of concern is the added wind speed and turbulence caused by the alterations proposed. First, it should be pointed out that hang glider and paraglider plots would have to fly in the area where turbulence can form and pass through as a result of the bench cut into the bluff for the path. Thus they will experience ground turbulence. An increase in this turbulence will increase the dangers. The statement in the EIR that increase in turbulence shouldn’t be a problem was probably influenced by the opinions of sailplane pilots who can handle stronger winds and turbulence due to their aerodynamic controls. In fact, in my experience throughout the world, I know of only two places that sailplanes take off close to the ground at the top of a ridge. Because hang glider and paraglider pilots must take off right at ground level, it should be clear that any added turbulence at this site can be life-threatening.

The EIR illustrates what appears to be a large eddy (swirl or rotor) at the bench area in figure 1 on the right side. This eddy is assumed to remain there out of play of the pilots launching or flying near the slope. However, experience has shown that such an eddy only remains stable in lighter wind conditions when the wind is fairly perpendicular to the bluff face. In other conditions, the eddy can break away from its position at the bench, travel up the slope and become a serious hazard before it drifts downwind and gradually diminishes. In other words, the current profile of the slope presents a small eddy from the old RR bench that must be considered and countered by pilots flying at this site. But if a wide bench is created higher up the slope, or if the slope is reduced, the frequency of eddies impinging on the site will be increased, first by the deeper and higher bench resulting in more eddies, but more importantly by the fact that a lesser slope makes it easier for the eddy to break away and travel downstream, since it doesn’t have to climb as steeply and do work against gravity.

4. Finally, it should be noted that the EIR references studies done in wind tunnels mainly as well as studies conducted by pilots from the sailplane community. Much of this data doesn’t apply in the real world where matters can be and are often different than the closely controlled laboratory (as actually noted in the EIR). In fact, the best empirical data comes from the tens of thousands of flights conducted at this very site and more importantly from the hundreds of thousands of flights experienced by pilots of all sorts at many sites around the world that are very similar to the Rincon bluffs. Most pertinent to the point is that pilots of these small aircraft can fly very close to the terrain and gain much experience relating to the air flow and turbulence effects in real situations that cannot be duplicated in the laboratory and cannot be acquired any other way. So it is hard to understand why the local hang gliding/paragliding community wasn’t consulted when this analysis was created. It would behoove all involved to proceed with this liaison in order to get a clear picture of the effect of the alterations and to understand how much the reduction of lift will diminish the possibility of this form of recreation.

Respectfully Submitted,
Dennis Pagen

1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:34 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: PROPOSED BATES BIKEPATH
From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 2:16 PM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Pitcher Davey
Subject: PROPOSED BATES BIKEPATH
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Dear Planning commission and Honorable County commissioners, this letter is in regard to the proposed new bike path located south of Carpinteria at the Bates exit.

As a part-time resident and full time tax payer of the dynamic and peaceful town of Carpinteria, and being a avid outdoor enthusiast who road bikes the coast particularly the stretch between Carpinteria and Ventura along with other sections up and down the coast. I also am a paraglider pilot and who lives and works on National Forest Lands making me intimately familiar with the NEPA process in which many stakeholders and there diverse perspectives are brought together in which if done correctly almost always results in a better project .

I thank the planning commission for embarking on this arduous and and sometimes thankless task , and in providing the following comments I have tried to be objective and if not entirely so at least use the test of empathy in my comments.

1. Whenever a proposed project involves a “TAKE” that compromises the other users, environment , or wildlife particular attention should be spent in the planning process as once put into action a controversial and misplanned project can negatively affect a community for years or decades to come.

Regarding the Proposed Bates - Rincon connector trail. The biggest concern is that of moving too fast towards a plan that clearly would be considered a “TAKE” in this case one that would alter the Iconic ridge soaring site that has become part of the community both for paraglider pilots and for the larger recreational users of the coast that have become accostumed to seeing this beautiful and inspirational form of flight. As a avid bicycle rider I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO TAKE THIS AWAY just in order to put a bike path that clearly can be located in a manner as to NOT EFFECT the community of flyers that inhabit the sky above Bates.

2.As a bicyclist that loves riding down the coast having a bike path that could be located on the NORTH side of the ridge would be a great way to connect with the existing path that continues south to Ventura, and in this day of needing to at least begin thinking about the environmental consequences regarding the climate , moving 312,000,000 lbs of soil which would entail 5000.00 trips along with the enormous amount of associated dirt work in a controversial and misguided design does not represent the best plan that could be engineered and constructed. If PUSHED THRU this project will make a travesty of the PUBLIC PROCESS.

3. In this day of excessive overblown government spending some serious thought as to the effective use of taxpayers dollars should enter into the planning process, it is not good enough to say we have the money and to just FORCE FEED A PROJECT, it should be the job of the planners to say how can this be done for less, allowing room for other much need projects to take place. PLEASE BE AWARE OF YOUR FIDUCIARY 2 OBLIGATIONS TO YOUR CONSTITUENCY, and given the controversial nature of this project look for more economical and practical options (alternative 4).

Again I thank you for reaching out and I believe that if you use the test of empathy and remain openminded and thoughtful a better plan will arise. One in which all STAKEHOLDERS CAN BE PROUD OF.

Sincerely ,
Davey Pitcher
Randall Davey Pitcher
CEO Wolf Creek Ski Area
P.O. Box 2800
Pagosa Springs, CO 81147
Office: 970-264-5826
[email protected]
cell # 970 903-9068
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:34 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Rincon Trail Carpenteria
From: Terry Contreras [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 4:54 AM
To: betty winholtz; Public Comment; SBCAG Information Requests; [email protected] Subject: RE: Rincon Trail Carpenteria
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Thank you for your comment letter. I have forwarded it on to the SBCAG Board of Directors.

Terry L. Contreras
Executive Secretary/Board Clerk
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
260 N. San Antonio Rd.

Santa Barbara, CA 93110
1-805-961-8911 or ext 18911
[email protected]

From: betty winholtz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 10:38 AM
To: [email protected]; SBCAG Information Requests <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Rincon Trail Carpenteria

Dear Government Officials:

This project is 20 months behind schedule and has ballooned to a cost of $16M for 0.2mi of path. It will remove 312M lbs of soil in 5,000 truckloads, leveling the iconic ridge at Bates. The anticipated 100,000 trail users will be dumped into the already overcrowded Rincon Parking Lot with no plans for traffic management.

I want a bike path, but one that is built on the North side of the bluffs because it is safer and more direct for cyclists, and it is less environmentally damaging.

Sincerely,
2 Betty Winholtz
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:40 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Rincon Trail commentary
From: Becca Bredehoft [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:32 AM
To: Public Comment; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Rincon Trail commentary
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

To whom it may concern:

I have been flying paragliders at Bates Ridge since 2013. I have had countless magical days at Bates, whether flying in the air, walking my dog on the bluff and on the beach, or just hanging out with friends waiting for the wind to be just right. This place holds a special place in my heart, and is such a unique location for flying and other recreational activities on the coast. I am also a biker and value bike paths and recreational trails of all sorts, but it is important to me that all users are taken into consideration. In addition:
-I want a bike path, but one that is built on the North side of the bluffs because it is safer and more direct for cyclists. The current design dumps bikers into a crowded and steep parking lot. - I want a bike path that is better for the environment. The current design excavates and hauls away 312 million lbs of soil, which is upward of 5,000 truckloads. Forever altering the coastline. - I want a bike path that is less expensive. The current project is estimated to cost $16 million for 0.2 miles of path, that’s $16,000 per foot! It will drain capital resources for the future. -I signed a petition with 2,800 signatures because I want to see the south side of the ridge preserved for the historic flying that happens there, which has existed for over 40 years. - Flying at Bates is protected recreation under the California Environmental Quality Act and has not been properly addressed in the EIR, there will likely be more project delays because of this. -The project planners haven’t been listening to community groups and have tried to skip steps. The flying community for example has 1,000 local members who want to see a better design. - The Environmental Impact Report presents Alternative 4, which will build on the North side of the bluffs. This design will be easier to design, cost less, be safer for bikers, and better for pilots. -The planners have used up their time and money, causing the project to risk losing its grant. We should not be forced to rush now because of their unfeasible design and slow progress. If the project needs to reapply for an ATP grant, it is the fault of the planners, not community groups.

I urge you to reconsider the forward progress of the Rincon Trail project and to consider all recreational user groups as plans move forward.

Thank you for your time,
Rebecca Bredehoft
2 --
www.beccabredehoft.com
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:30 PM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Bates Bluff Soaring /
From: Terry Contreras [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:15 PM
To: Spencer Buck; SBCAG Information Requests; Public Comment; [email protected] Subject: RE: Bates Bluff Soaring /
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Thank you for your comment letter. I have forwarded it on to the SBCAG Board of Directors.

Terry L. Contreras
Executive Secretary/Board Clerk
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
260 N. San Antonio Rd.

Santa Barbara, CA 93110
1-805-961-8911 or ext 18911
[email protected]

From: Spencer Buck <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:12 PM
To: SBCAG Information Requests <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Bates Bluff Soaring /

PLEASE Reconsider on the proposed trail system. I'm an avid paraglider who frequently travels to Southern California for the purpose of flying at sites like and including Bates Bluff. The proposed rincon trail system sounds terrible, unnecessary, unnatural, environmentally devastating, and it ultimately will ruin this historic paragliding location. We've been flying here for 40 years ‐ why can't we preserve that while providing updates and access for more people instead of ruining the historic use?

I truly believe updates and new trails could be put in that not only improve this area for hikers, walkers, and bikers, but include the paragliding and hang gliding communities that have treasured this location for decades. This site is special and there are very few like it in the world left! People travel to this site every year due to its ease of use ‐ it's a great place for beginners as well since it's a very safe and easy place to paraglide. Maybe a future plan could capitalize on the uniqueness of this site and make it an even better place to fly AND do other activities? If we work together, we can make this site accessible and better for everyone. Free flight is a huge draw and is booming lately. Look at cities that have embraced the free flight community like Boulder and Golden in Colorado and the Salt Lake / Draper area ‐ they have had tremendous growth...
2 PLEASE
My wife and I enjoying the Bluff after a soaring session^ ‐‐
‐Spencer Buck
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:30 PM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Eir Rincon trail
From: Karl Cameron [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:01 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Eir Rincon trail
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

To who it may concern
I'm writing in protest to the EIR report
As the data is wrong bin the wind study as to the impact of the hill being cut away. The lift will be greatly eliminate.

You can see from Dennis Pagens data from his letter what the real impact will be.

Please consider option 4 for a no impact option
Karl Cameron
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:41 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Rincon Trail project
From: Dmitry Chichkov [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:36 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Rincon Trail project
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Please save Bates Ridge. It is a unique and inspiring site in which you can hike and see the colorful paragliders flying with the ocean as a background. And surely a natural trail shouldn't require so many truckloads of ground to be moved.

Respectfully,
Dmitry
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:35 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Ref Agenda item 2
From: Richard Graham [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 6:35 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Ref Agenda item 2
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Greetings,
I want a bike path, but one that is built on the North side of the bluffs because it is safer and more direct for cyclists.

The current design dumps bikers into a dangerously congested and crowded steep parking lot.

I want a bike path that is better for the environment. The current design excavates and hauls away 312 million lbs of soil, which is upward of 5,000 truckloads. Forever altering the coastline aerodynamics. Think, also, of the needless C02 produced by those giant vehicle's proposed activities.

I want a bike path that is less expensive. The current project is estimated to cost $12 million for 0.2 miles of path, that’s $12,000 per foot! It will drain capital resources which may have more utility in the future.

I want a bike path that has a chance of being built. This design is already 200% over budget and 20 months behind schedule with 65% of the remaining tasks rated at HIGH RISK of not finishing.

Pouring more money into this project isn’t the way to get it done. A better design is needed. Extensive crony capitalism at play here needs to stop.

I signed a petition with 2,400 signatures because I want to see the south side of the ridge preserved for the historic flying that happens there, which has existed for over 40 years.

Flying at Bates is protected recreation under the California Environmental Quality Act and has not been properly addressed in the EIR, there will likely be more project delays because of this omission.

The project planners haven’t been listening to community groups and have tried to skip steps. The flying community, for example, has 1,000 local members who want to see a better design which does not degrade the flying experience.

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) presents Alternative 4, which proposes a construction on the North side of the bluffs. This design will be easier to build, cost less, be much safer for bikers, and better for pilots.

The planners have used up everyone's time and money, causing the project to risk losing its grant. We should not be forced to rush now because of a hasty and forced unfeasible design and slow progress. If the project needs to reapply 2 for an ATP grant, it is the fault of the planners, not community groups which should have been a part of the planning from the onset.

Thanks!
Rich Graham
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:30 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Rincon trail project.

From: [email protected] [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Rincon trail project.
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

RE: item number 2 Rincon trail project. 1-18-2022
Dear Carpenteria Planning Commissions
When you vote on this project this evening please apply the same level of due diligence that you have utilized in the past for other projects and please do not just rubber the in-house planners recommendations.

I seriously doubt that you would approve a project from a private developer that involves so much excavation without fully understanding all of the consequences of your decision.

The history of your prior decisions indicates that you don't normally approve projects with so many un-met conditions of approval.

When a private developer promises to complete required conditions, do you normally just trust that the developer will complete the required conditions after the permit is issued.

Where is all the excavated soil to be placed?
Where is the native plant restoration location.

Bengal engineering says that they need a construction easement for in order to build the trail. Has this been acquired? Are you going to trust staff's recommendation that the EIR is complete when it does not include the latest data regarding coastal erosion? Erosion that would require the need for the path to be moved inland in a just few decades! Do you think the EIR is accurate when it fails to understand and describe how the project will affect the historic local soaring bluff? Please take the time to read the response to the EIR’s air flow study from Dennis Pagen within the responses for this meeting, and do not vote to approve unless you really understand how this is going to affect the soaring community.

Thank you, John Greynald 805-886-6160
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:38 PM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Please save Bates soaring site ! Abondon this super expensive and damaging "project" ! From: andy h. [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:35 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please save Bates soaring site ! Abondon this super expensive and damaging "project" ! **EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Please consider these taking points:
-Tell a story about why Bates ridge matters to you, whether it's the view, the flying, or the history of the place, and how it has supported all types of recreational users for decades until now.
-I want a bike path, but one that is built on the North side of the bluffs because it is safer and more direct for cyclists. The current design dumps bikers into a crowded and steep parking lot.
- I want a bike path that is better for the environment. The current design excavates and hauls away 312 million lbs of soil, which is upward of 5,000 truckloads. Forever altering the coastline. - I want a bike path that is less expensive. The current project is estimated to cost $16 million for 0.2 miles of path, that’s $16,000 per foot! It will drain capital resources for the future.
-I signed a petition with 2,800 signatures because I want to see the south side of the ridge preserved for the historic flying that happens there, which has existed for over 40 years.
- Flying at Bates is protected recreation under the California Environmental Quality Act and has not been properly addressed in the EIR, there will likely be more project delays because of this. -The project planners haven’t been listening to community groups and have tried to skip steps. The flying community for example has 1,000 local members who want to see a better design.
- The Environmental Impact Report presents Alternative 4, which will build on the North side of the bluffs. This design will be easier to design, cost less, be safer for bikers, and better for pilots. -The planners have used up their time and money, causing the project to risk losing its grant. We should not be forced to rush now because of their unfeasible design and slow progress. If the project needs to reapply for an ATP grant, it is the fault of the planners, not community groups.

Andre Hajduczek md
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:29 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Against Rincon Trail Project
From: Christopher Heckman [[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Against Rincon Trail Project
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Good morning all,
I am a 5 day a week cyclist and sitting board member of the Santa Barbara Soaring Association. I would love to see a bike path built at Rincon, but I would like that bike path to be built on the north side, connected to the highway. The current design seems to prioritize a glamor project at the cost of cyclist safety, and multi-decade long paragliding and hanggliding location, and I honestly feel it is going to be an ugly urban path in a currently naturally looking habitat.

Almost once a week I do the trip from Santa Barbara to Ventura on my bike, and would love to see this bike path built--just not in its current design. The current design is dangerous and does not consider cyclist safety.

Honestly, if this path is built, most cyclists will still take the highway because it will be more convenient and it's perfectly safe. Why would I take this path and risk my life in a parking lot when the highway is a direct path with a 10 foot wide shoulder? Even without a bike path directing cyclists into the parking lot, cyclists have been injured here many times before. Imagine what will happen if the supposed 100,000 annual users of this bike path are routed through the parking lot. It truly doesn't seem like the planners of this project have heard the opinions of the supposed people who will use it most.

Another reason I am against this project is I hold the free flight community near and dear to my heart. I was an avid paraglider for 5 years, and as I mentioned I still sit on the local board of directors. Even though I rarely fly anymore, I see it is a shame that this project has had little consideration for the impacts to the free flight community who have utilized this site for many decades. The community has shown support by having a petition with 2800 signatures against this project, which, considering how small our community is, is a seriously significant number of pilots.

The pilot's main concern is the steepness of the bluffs. As someone who is currently doing their Phd in computer modeling, no model will be able to reasonably predict the changes in airflow due to the number of complexities involved. Therefore, planners must rely on those that know it best--the pilots. As someone who has flown bluffs many times, pilots are always aware of many environmental factors, the most important being the slope angle of the bluff, because any little difference in these can significantly change the amount of lift, and whether or not a site is flyable. The current plans are ambiguous in how much the slope will change, but one 2 thing is for certain--the amount of grading required for this project will forever change and very likely ruin free flight at this spot forever.

Another point is that: an often upfront justification of this project is the instability of this slope. My question is what part of the coastal cliffs are stable? The entire coastline is unstable, and the stability of the slope is therefore a mute point whose sole intention is to tip the scales in favor of this project.

Finally, I think the project is ugly. Even though the bluff isnt "natural" anymore, to the common beach goer this bluff looks just as natural as its surrounding environment. Putting a path in and grading/armoring the entire slope is going to be an ugly eye-soar in what is a beautiful natural coastline. I truly cannot see one reason to make this path other than it will look good on a brochure for the City of Carpinteria. For these reasons, and my reasons above, I am adamantly against the building of the th Rincont Trail Project on the south side of the Rincon Bluff. However, being a cyclist who uses this path often, I would love to see a path built elsewhere.

Sincerely,
Christopher
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:29 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Rincon Trail Project
From: Todd Jared [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:08 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Rincon Trail Project
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

We're writing in support of the Rincon Trail Project.

Having lived in Carpinteria for nearly 4 decades and having raised a family here, we have come to appreciate the value of public access to nature, especially the undeveloped coastline. That’s why we supported the Bluffs acquisition in the 80’s and rejected the more recent Paradon project.

This access to nature will be enhanced immensely by the construction of the Rincon Trail and the connection it will provide between the Rincon Bike Trail and the outskirts of the City of Carpinteria, while linking two coastal counties. Eventually this trail will connect through Carpinteria and on past the Salt Marsh to Padaro. What foresight and vision its creation will show to generations to come!
Unfortunately, like all attempts to rightfully claim public access to public resources, this project is threatened by a small, vocal group arguing against it in order to preserve their exclusive use of it. It’s a tactic seen many times from residents of exclusive Malibu beach estates and millionaires who would keep the public off of a “private beach” in order to preserve their “private access.”
Amazingly this public access project is threatened not by private property owners, but by an even more exclusive group:
paraglider hobbyists, who demand that you re-route a proposed hiking trail away from coastal views and ocean breezes in favor of freeway fumes and traffic noise! And they want you to do that even though no one has asked them to stop flying there, despite the fact that their actions are likely in violation of the FAA’s own regulations regarding low level flying over a freeway, a railroad, and a county park! How is this better for the thousands of Californians who simply want to walk their own coastline?
We urge you to disregard this small, exclusive, vocal minority and stand up for all Californians’ time-tested right to access their own coastline.

Please support the coastal route of the Rincon Trail and approve the revised EIR.

Todd and Lauren Jared

1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 9:33 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Rincon Trail Project - Agenda Item 2
From: Aaron LaPlante [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:47 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Rincon Trail Project - Agenda Item 2
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Carpinteria City,
Free flyers are the most frequent users of the bluff in question for the last 40+ years. The current proposed bike path will end that popular recreational use of the bluff. Our group is well organized and we have secured nationwide support with a deep well of resources. With over 2800 people signing the petition, we will not quit fighting for this natural resource. Since our fight began, it has gone from a $6 million project to an $18 million dollar project. Is this all for 200 feet of ocean view? The bridge is a silly waste of money that the ocean will reclaim soon. Why not have a long ocean view by starting the bike path near ProCore, run along the Bluffs 3 project which already has a natural slope down to the railroad tracks, have a pedestrian crossing on the tracks and continue the trail on the old railroad cut? Cost would probably be less than $500,000 and you would have a long path along the ocean front with no bridge needed and without destroying the bluff. Thousands of people a day cross the Linden Tracks and Campground tracks without issue.

The point is, we need a different plan that is good for both bikes and free flying. Paragliding is a very expensive hobby and many wealthy out of towners come to Carpinteria to fly and spend lots of money in Carpinteria. Do not kill this natural resource and economic booster.

Thanks
Aaron LaPlante
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:29 PM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Rincon Trail
From: Jeffrey A. Longcor [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:58 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Rincon Trail
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Thousands of us are desperate to see the ridge preserved, it means everything to us, and yet hundreds of our public comments have been ignored, and the authors of the EIR have taken everything they thought they knew about pilots and flying, and tried to discredit our access and right to recreation. This incredibly oppositional approach is hard for us to understand. As citizens and users of Bates and Rincon for over four decades, we are dedicated to being heard and have given feedback at every opportunity, and still no alternatives are being supported that protect the ridge over the last 12 years of this project planning. Please change your course and collaborate with your fellow citizens.

Thank you,
Jeff
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Helen ONeill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:59 AM
To: Nick Bobroff
Subject: Re: Rincon Trail Environmental Impact Report-Public Comment **EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe.  Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

January 18, 2022
Mr. Nick Bobroff, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Re: Rincon Trail Environmental Impact Report
Dear Mr. Bobroff:

I want to say thank you for all your efforts into improving cycling paths. The La Conchita parkway is stellar. And I look forward to the planned improvements for in‐city Carpinteria. I commend your vision of the Rincon Trail, which includes an ocean view.

Unfortunately these three issues have me gravely concerned. ‐Bike Safety.
‐Losing the sport of Paragliders, which is a city revenue generator. (the only other one is in San Diego) ‐Environmental Impact of all the dirt removal.

Fortunately there is another option.

The bike path extending along the southbound 101 freeway. As shown in option B. https://friendsofbatesbeach.org/information/rincon‐trail.

And wouldn’t Option B be Cheaper?
Thank you for your time,
With all my Biking Heart,
Helen O’Neill
Bike Ventura!
Bike HUB Ventura
Bike HUB Oxnard
VCCool
Steering Committee Member, Friends of Bates Beach.

1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 8:34 AM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Changes need to Rincon Trail Bike Path - Save Free Flight From: Olivia Puckrin [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, January 17, 2022 9:54 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: Changes need to Rincon Trail Bike Path - Save Free Flight **EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

To whom it may concern,
I'm respectfully writing to you to present my concerns about the Rincon Trail Bike Path. I've broken my points down into bullets below. The project planners have consistently avoided listening to community groups and have forced an untenable design that has now run out of time and money. The path forward should not involve pouring more money into this design, we need to build a better bike path on the North side of the bluffs in accordance with Alternative 4 of the EIR. If this means reapplying for the ATP grant, then the project planners need to accept responsibility and begin positioning the project to be worthy of this allocation going forward.

I am eager for the construction of a bike path, but one that is built on the North side of the bluffs because it is safer and more direct for cyclists. The current design dumps bikers into a crowded and steep parking lot. I bike this corridor frequently and have no desire to detour through a parking lot, especially when the city has no plans for managing traffic in this area and some of my friends have already been hurt by cars backing out on the hill at Rincon Park.

I want a bike path that is better for the environment. The current design excavates and hauls away 312 million pounds of soil, which is upward of 5,000 truckloads, forever altering the coastline. I doubt the California Coastal Commission will rubber stamp an earthmoving project of this magnitude and it's unlikely to be completed in the allotted 24 month timeline given the environmental controls, high traffic, difficult access, and permitting required. A new design is needed to get finished in time.

I want a bike path that is less expensive. The current project is estimated to cost $12 million for 0.2 miles of path, that’s $12,000 per foot! It will drain capital resources for the future. When we look for money to support other transportation needs or to help handicapped users or to find ways to mitigate the 101 impacts, do we want to look back and realized we overspent on 1,000 ft of path, forcing it to be built in a precarious and difficult location because the planners are focused on a 'blue ocean view'? A more useful path for cyclists can be created without spending this ridiculous amount of money.

I want a bike path that has a chance of being built. This design is already 200% over budget and 20 months behind schedule with 65% of the remaining tasks rated at HIGH RISK of not finishing. The engineering and 2 necessary approvals are proving nearly impossible with the current design. Pouring more money into this project isn’t the way to get it done. A better design is needed.

I signed a petition with 2,800 signatures because I want to see the south side of the ridge preserved for the historic flying that happens there, which has existed for over 40 years. Flying at Bates is protected recreation under the California Environmental Quality Act and has not been properly addressed in the EIR. Law requires mitigations for existing recreation and the planners continue to insist there are not significant impacts from the project when expert testimony has argued otherwise. Even the data presented in the 'wind study' is theoretical in nature and the authors will gladly discuss how it is being incorrectly applied. There will be more delays to the project because of this oversight and it will remain open to legal challenges. Removing soil from this area will not just lessen the quality of flying at Bates, it will end it forever. The site will become completely unflyable.

The project planners have not been listening to community groups and have tried to skip steps. The flying community for example, has 1,000 local members who feel they aren't being heard. A coalition is building between bikers, pilots, and other groups in support of EIR Alternative 4, which will build on the North side of the bluffs. This design will be easier to build, cost less, be safer for bikers, and better for pilots.

I urge you to please listen to your community members who want a different design, a bike path to use at the end of it all, and paragliders to watch as they bike past.

Thank you,
Olivia Puckrin
1 Good evening, Chair Benefield, members of the Planning Commission, City Staff, and all Carpinterians tuned into tonight to this meeting. My name is Ted Rhodes, speaking tonight as President of Citizens for the Carpinteria Bluffs.  We support the request of the City of Carpinteria for the Planning Commission here tonight to consider and approve a Conditional Use Permit & Coastal Development Permit to allow the construction of the 850-linear foot segment of the proposed Rincon Trail project located in the City of Carpinteria.  Regarding the entire project, we also support the Planning Commission in certifying hopefully tonight, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the entirety of the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
 As you well know, Citizens for the Carpinteria Bluffs, in partnership with the Land Trust for Santa Barbara County, has played a key role in the public acquisition efforts of the Carpinteria Bluffs Nature Preserve, theViola Fields, and the Rincon Bluffs Preserve. We are excited about the the City of Carpinteria’s Rincon MultiUse Trail project and look forward to it becoming a reality in the near future. As we stated at the earlier scoping hearing, this trail will provide a much needed link from the Carpinteria Nature Preserve and the Rincon Bluffs to the coastal walking & biking path that now runs from Rincon south to Ventura.  And, on a more personal note, as an enthusiastic bicyclist myself who suffered a serious injury a few years ago when I was hit by a car while bicycling on one of our local streets, I can’t wait until this project comes to fruition enabling me to ride safely from the Carpinteria Bluffs to Rincon and onwards to other points south along the Ventura coast.

Thank you.

Ted Rhodes
January 18, 2022
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Att.: Nick Bobroff, Planner
Re: Rincon Trail Project 19-2015-CUP/CDP
Dear Mr. Bobroff:

Thank you for contacting the Tribal Elders’ Council for the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians.

At this time, the Elders’ Council requests no further consultation on this project; however, we understand that as part of NHPA Section 106, we must be notified of the project.

Thank you for remembering that at one time our ancestors walked this sacred land.

Sincerely Yours,
Kelsie Shroll
Administrative Assistant | Elders’ Council and Culture Department Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians | Tribal Hall
(805) 688-7997 ext. 7516
[email protected]
Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
Tribal Elders’ Council
P.O. Box 517◆ Santa Ynez ◆ CA ◆ 93460
Phone: (805)688-7997 ◆ Fax: (805)688-9578 ◆ Email: [email protected] 1 Nick Bobroff
From: Sharkey, Lucas@Waterboards <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:26 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Nick Bobroff
Subject: RE: January 18, 2022- City of Carpinteria Planning Commission Hearing Notice- Rincon Trail Project
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Dear Mr. Bobroff,
The Central Coast Water Board previously submitted comments on the mitigated negative declaration for this project in 2020. Those comments do not appear to be included in the record and have not been addressed in this document. #1 – Resolution No. R3‐2013‐0032 ‐ Central Coast Post‐Construction requirements (PCRs) does not appear to be included in the design for this project to protect water quality for the increased impervious surfaces generated by this project.

The portion of the project within the City limits must comply with those requirements. The project is not an exempt project because water is collected in lined channels and discharged to the beach. #2 – The area of project that falls outside of the City limits must comply with the Statewide Construction General Permit (CGP) post‐construction requirements. The project documents discuss how the site will meet the active BMP controls for limiting erosion and sedimentation, but it does not show the project meets the post‐construction requirements of the CGP, namely the pre‐post match of the 85th percentile 24‐hr storm. Runoff is directly discharged to the beach. #3 – The parking lot proposed in Carpinteria included on the Proposed‐Rincon‐Trail‐Alignment.pdf (carpinteriaca.gov) is not discussed in this project. That project must also meet all post‐construction requirements. If the work planned for the existing trailhead/road in Carpinteria includes more than chip‐seal (e.g. curb and gutter, extension of pavement edge), that portion will also be subject to the PCRs.

There are many options available for infiltrating and treating stormwater runoff to reduce pathogens, pesticides, sediment, and trash likely to be included in runoff from this project.  Please work to include these elements.

Sincerely,
Lucas
Lucas Sharkey, PE :: Stormwater Unit :: Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Mail: 895 Aerovista Place, San Luis Obispo, CA ::  Tel: (805)594‐6144 For complaints or discharges :: https://calepacomplaints.secure.force.com/complaints/ From: Nick Bobroff <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 6:30 PM
To: Nick Bobroff <[email protected]>
Subject: January 18, 2022‐ City of Carpinteria Planning Commission Hearing Notice‐ Rincon Trail Project EXTERNAL:
2 Good evening,
I have attached the hearing notice for the “Rincon Trail project” item, which will be considered by the Carpinteria Planning Commission on January 18, 2022.

Comment letters may be submitted to the City via (1) email to: [email protected] or  (2) the eComment link on the City's agenda website (https://carpinteria.ca.us/city‐hall/agendas‐meetings), once the agenda has been posted. Please reference the agenda item to which your comment pertains. Note that written comments will not be read into the record during the meeting. Comment letters must be submitted prior to 12:00 p.m. on the day of the hearing in order to be distributed to the Planning Commission.

The agenda and staff report will be posted to the City website on or prior to, Thursday, January 13, 2022, here, under the “Upcoming Events” heading:
https://carpinteriaca.gov/city‐hall/agendas‐meetings/
The Proposed Final EIR prepared for the Rincon Trail project is currently available on the City website here:
https://carpinteriaca.gov/public‐works/engineering‐division/rincon‐multi‐use‐trail/ If you have questions about the proposed project, please feel free to contact me by phone or email.

Nick Bobroff, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
(805) 755‐ 4407 / [email protected]
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Public Comment
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:30 PM
To: Brian Barrett
Subject: FW: Rincon Trail project concerns
From: Terry Contreras [[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 12:11 PM
To: Jason Wallace; Public Comment; SBCAG Information Requests; [email protected] Subject: RE: Rincon Trail project concerns
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.

Thank you for your comment letter. I have forwarded it to the SBCAG Board of Directors.

Terry L. Contreras
Executive Secretary/Board Clerk
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments
260 N. San Antonio Rd.

Santa Barbara, CA 93110
1-805-961-8911 or ext 18911
[email protected]

From: Jason Wallace <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2022 11:52 AM
To: [email protected]; SBCAG Information Requests <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Rincon Trail project concerns

In response to Rincon Trail project at Bates Ridge:

1. Bates ridge is a unique and rare flying site for the area of Caprinteria. It is critical that places like this be preserved as they are in danger throughout the country.

2. Bike paths are great, but let's build on the North side of the bluffs because it is safer and more direct for cyclists.

The current design dumps bikers into a crowded and steep parking lot.

3. One importance of biking is to support the environment, and I want this development to be better for the environment as well. The current design excavates and hauls away 312 million lbs of soil, which is upward of 5,000 truckloads. Forever altering the coastline.

4. I want a bike path that is less expensive. The current project is estimated to cost $16 million for 0.2 miles of path, that’s $16,000 per foot! It will drain capital resources for the future.

5. Flying at Bates is protected recreation under the California Environmental Quality Act and has not been properly addressed in the EIR, there will likely be more project delays because of this. 2 6. The project planners haven’t been listening to community groups and have tried to skip steps. The flying community for example has 1,000 local members who want to see a better design.

7. The Environmental Impact Report presents Alternative 4, which will build on the North side of the bluffs. This design will be easier to design, cost less, be safer for bikers, and better for pilots.

8. The planners have used up their time and money, causing the project to risk losing its grant. We should not be forced to rush now because of their unfeasible design and slow progress. If the project needs to reapply for an ATP grant, it is the fault of the planners, not community groups.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Jason Wallace
Concerned paraglider pilot

Images Presented at the Planning Commission Hearing During Public Comment by Mr. Ottis Gillespie

Attachment G
Filed Appeals of Planning
Commission Decision
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022
Attachment G
Exhibit 1: Karl Cameron Appeal
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Brian Barrett
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 10:37 AM
To: Dave Durflinger; Acos, Jena S.; Steve Goggia; Nick Bobroff Cc: Matt Roberts; John Ilasin
Subject: FW: Carpinteria trail Appeal
All, please see appeal to the EIR for the Rincon Trail Project, below.  Thanks.

Brian C. Barrett
Acting City Clerk
City of Carpinteria
(805) 755-4446
[email protected]
From: Karl Cameron (via Google Docs) <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 10:10 AM
To: Brian Barrett <[email protected]>
Cc: Roy Lee <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Carpinteria trail Appeal
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.
[email protected] attached a document
[email protected] has attached the following document:

I am send this letter as an appeal of theEIR and the Conditional Use Permit and a Coastal Development Permit for the proposed Multi Use Trail (M.U.T.), Rincon Trail Project 19-2015-CUP/CDP.

Thanks Karl Cameron
805-895-0946
2 Carpinteria trail Appeal
Snapshot of the item below:

Karl Cameron
January 28, 2022
City of Carpinteria, City Council
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, Rincon Trail Project To the Carpinteria City Council Members,

1. The selected Alternative #3 is focused on providing a “blue ocean view” rather than a safe, useful, esthetically pleasing, less costly less environmentally intrusive, more sustainable alternative. There is no plan for maintaining this bike path after it's constructed on a 100-year-old eroding seawall, where a railroad and highway easement have failed and been abandoned. There is also no plan for managing traffic in the already congested and incredibly steep Rincon Beach parking lot where the bike path terminates. This design needs to be reassessed from the perspective of the very groups it's trying to help.

1. The conceptual plans presented to decision-making authorities and to the public have differed between the Planning Commission meeting on January 18, 2022, and the SBCAG meeting on January 20, 2022. While the Planning Commission reviewed EIR Alternative #3 with a straight cut into the ridge, the SBCAG presentation focused on a path with an ‘elbow’ bend toward the ocean. The significant differences between these conceptual plans are misleading and confusing. This lack of clarity is exacerbated by the omission of engineer estimates and analysis for the EIR Alternatives, and the lack of line items describing details of the trail construction and materials. An appeal is needed to determine what aspects of the conceptual design are being proposed to the public illuminate the key details such as trail alignment and provide what real alternatives can provide.

2. Since the EIR gives no real engineering info or Documentation on Alternative (#4) which places the Bike path on the north side of the Bluffs. There is no way to provide a real comparison of the different alternatives

1. The EIR report now is showing another extension to the bike bath leading thru the parking lot of the county park leading all the way to Bates Rd.

1. This 14ft wide path with 2 ft side lanes requires more concrete walls and a lot more dirt work all the way to Bates road, Making the pike path some 1000s of feet longer thru the Park.

2. There is an abandoned well in the middle of the trail that has not been properly abandoned and caped as documented in the EIR.

1. The California Department of Conservation has written (A} that there is no oil/gas zone plug (B) There is no freshwater plug. © There is no casing shoe plug. (D) there is no surface Plug. This is shown in the 3 EIR The construction of alternative 3 will cover the well and involve a lot of liability and cost.

2. Coast Act 30240 requires Envirmrntal sensitive Habitat areas to be protected to the maximum extent possible. The EIR has documented 3 protected plants specifically that will be significantly impacted that are in the footprint of the trail on option (3). As stated in the EIR there is no way to mitigate the impacts of these plants as they have a low survivability after being moved.

3. Option (3) also requires removing a Large Monterey Pine tree in the middle of the trail before the parking lot along with other trees.

All of these impacts from selecting 3 as the least impactful are not true as stated in the EIR. The city is wanting to build on option 3 so have tried to make it look like it's better.

A statement that option 2 could not be used as it's in an earthquake zone is true as the whole area is in this zone. Not just option 3. The earthquake zone runs from south of the Venture County line up into Carpinteria as stated in the documents.

Option 4 does not have plant impacts, or as much earth work when including the extra work needed to build option 3 bike path thru the county Park.

Option 4 does not need as much large slope work done as it follows the grade of the bates offramp. Similar to the Summerland Bike Path next to the Highway.

The EIR is not complete as it does not fully document all of the impacts of all of the options that a truly informed decision can be made.

I am requesting an Appeal of this EIR and Conditional Use Permit and a Coastal Development Permit for the proposed Multi Use Trail (M.U.T.), Rincon Trail Project 19- 2015-CUP/CDP.

I await your response
Thanks, Karl Cameron
805-895-0946
1455 Sterling Ave
Carpinteria CA
Google LLC, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA You have received this email because [email protected] shared a document with you from Google Docs.

Attachment G
Exhibit 2: Santa Barbara Soaring
Association Appeal
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022
January 28, 2022

VIA E-MAIL ONLY AND HAND DELIVERY
Brian Barrett
Acting City Clerk, City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
[email protected]
Wade Nomura
Mayor, City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
[email protected]
Nick Bobroff
Principal Planner, City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
[email protected]
Steve Goggia
Community Development Director, City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
[email protected]
Re: Project # 19-2015-CUP/CUP, State Clearing House No. 2020100582 - Appeal of Certification of Carpinteria Rincon Trail Project EIR and Project Approval Attorneys at Law
www.ohhlegal.com
Suite 575
1901 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310 788-9200 ∙ PHONE
310 788-9210 ∙ FAX
Suite 225
6200 Stoneridge Mall Road
Pleasanton, CA 94588
510 999-7908 ∙ PHONE
510 999-7918 ∙ FAX
Suite 200
2877 Historic Decatur Road
San Diego, CA 92106
Suite 170
13181 Crossroads Parkway N.

City of Industry, CA 91745
January 28, 2022

Gentleman and esteemed City Councilmembers:

On behalf of the Santa Barbara Soaring Association (“Association”), we hereby tender the Association’s appeal of the City of Carpinteria Planning Commission’s (“Planning Commission”) certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and approval of the Rincon Trail Project (“Project”) under Agenda Item 2 at its January 18, 2022 meeting, pursuant to Carpinteria Municipal Code section 14.78.040.

The grounds for appeal are as follows:
(1) The Planning Commission wrongly determined that the Project’s impact on the wind intensity and patterns at the Project site and its surroundings is not an impact on the environment;
(2) No threshold of significance was established for the Project’s impact on wind that the Freeflight community relies upon to participate in the recreation of freeflight; (3) The EIR failed to identify the substantial alteration of the Project site to be as significant view impact;
(4) The Planning Commission improperly considered the lack of the Association’s property rights at the Project to justify destroying the freeflight recreation at the Project site; and
(5) The Planning Commission failed to recognize that Alternative 4 is the least environmental damaging alternative, other than the No Project Alternative.

THE PROJECT.

The Project would reduce a scenic vista coastal bluff to molehill by removing a whopping 107,386 cubic yards of the bluff. (Draft EIR, § 2.7.1, p. 2-10.) The Project would create a “16-foot trail” made of concrete to accommodate emergency and maintenance vehicles. (Id. p. 2-15.) MerriamWebster defines “trail” to be “(1): a track made by passage especially through a wilderness [¶] (2):
a marked or established path or route especially through a forest or mountainous region.” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/trail.) Make no mistake about it, this concrete monstrosity is not a trail, but a road. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/road “2 a: an open way for vehicles, persons, and animals.”)
January 28, 2022

THE ASSOCIATION.

The Association is a group of persons engaged in the recreation of “freeflight,” which is flight that does not utilize a motor, but instead capitalizes on the wind in order to stay aloft. The Association has been flying paragliders and hang-gliders at the Project site’s ocean bluff for 40 years. The Project site provides one of the only few ocean ridge lift sites available in California for freeflight recreation. With the constant prevailing wind off the ocean and steepness of the ocean bluff, Association members are able to fly or “soar” for hours at a time, providing a recreational respite for the Association’s members. The Association welcomes all who wish to engage in freeflight.

We have been vocal concerning this Project over the years. Our member, Otis Gillespie, filed the first appeal to City Council when he demonstrated that a mitigated negative declaration was not an adequate environmental review document. We have raised our concerns at the public meetings, city meetings, and have commented on the Final EIR. (Ottis Gillespie submitted Letter Nos. I-8, I-11, I-21, and I-32; Jeffrey Longcor submitted Letter No. I-27; and Rob Sporrer submitted Letter No. I-31; Final EIR p. 2-2.) Unfortunately, none of their letters were included in the Final EIR.

Instead of directly addressing our Association members’ comments, the Final EIR simply includes Global Response GR1: Impacts Upon Soaring Opportunities/Airflow Study. (Final EIR, pp. 2-4 through 2.6.) Unfortunately, this response fails to recognize the Project’s impact on winds affecting freeflight as an environmental impact.

1. THE PROJECT’S IMPACT ON WIND AT THE PROJECT SITE IS AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.

A. Wind Is Part of the Environment.

On page 3.11-8, the Draft EIR states, “Although the air space above the proposed trail is not a public recreational facility for the purposes of the CEQA Guidelines….” Not only is this untrue, but it the unique character of the ocean bluff, with the Project Site that creates the public recreational facility of freeflight. It is common sense that wind is part of the environment, even if you cannot see it. “Environment” is defined by the CEQA Guidelines as, “[T]he physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air…. The ‘environment’ includes both natural and man-made conditions.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15360, emph. added.) We cannot see air quality impacts, but they definitely exist and are extensively studied under CEQA. It is beyond understandable how the Planning Commission can make such an outlandish determination that wind is not part of the environment, and paragliding and hang-gliding are not recreational activities reliant on a facility.

On page 3.11-9, the Draft EIR contends that decreasing the recreational activity of freeflight is nothing more than a social or economic change. This is an absurd conclusion. Recreational activities are clearly part of the protected environment under CEQA. One need only look no January 28, 2022

further than the Initial Study Checklist at Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines that identifies “Recreation” as an environmental factor potentially affected by a project.

A commenter challenged the statement that there would be no significant impact on soaring activities and the Project’s wind impact would destroy the recreational freeflight at the Project site. (Final EIR, Comment Letter I11-4, pdf p. 113.) Another commenter made the same challenge. (Id. Comment Letter comments I27-4 and I27-5, pdf p. 157.) Yet another comment made similar challenges. (Id. Comment Letter I31.) In response, the Final EIR points the reader back to Global Response GR1.

Unfortunately, Global Response GR1 improperly continues to contend that the Project’s impacts on the wind supporting the recreational activity of freeflight is not an environmental impact. (Final EIR, p. 2-6.) The Planning Commission cannot make an informed decision on the Project until it understands that the Project’s impact on wind supporting freeflight is an environmental impact.

B. Dudek Is No Expert on Wind.

Nowhere in the record has Dudek demonstrated that it has sufficient expertise to analyze or opine on the Project’s impact on the wind relied on by the freeflight community. Moreover, the “Airflow analysis of the proposed [sic] regarding of the Rincon Bluffs” in Appendix I (the “Rincon Airflow Analysis”) does not demonstrate that Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz is an expert in wind dynamics or soaring flight. His inexperience is demonstrated by the incomplete study, which fails to use generally accepted scientific and soaring principles to calculate and analyze the impacts of wind reduction on freeflight. In a January 16, 2022 letter submitted to the Planning Commission, renowned micrometeorology and freeflight expert Dennis Pagen, whose work is cited in the Rincon Airflow Analysis itself, explains that the Rincon Airflow analysis report is inaccurate because it ignores important factors like the depth and length of the ridge, the wind gradient, the creation of turbulent rotor zones and venturis, and changes in thermal patterns. He concludes that the data used in the Rincon Airflow Analysis fails to accurately represent the bigger picture and real-world conditions, and that it is predominantly based on sailplanes, which are rigid gliders with wingspans up to 100 feet that operate entirely differently from paragliders and hang gliders.

One of the more glaring oversights with respect to the soaring analysis in the EIR is the use of offhanded citations of operating wind speeds from the Torrey Pines Gliderport and USHPA website freeflight newcomer FAQ pages, to mistakenly arrive at a 50% wind speed operating margin, and thus conclude that the 30% reduction in vertical velocity calculated in the Rincon Airflow Study does not constitute a “significant impact” to soaring activities under CEQA.

Any soaring pilot will quickly recognize that the wind speeds cited on these basic, informational FAQ pages are not intended as a universal or scientific statement of the effect of wind speed on freeflight. A meaningful analysis of the significance of a given wind speed reduction on soaring January 28, 2022

activities would consider information about aircraft type, flight regime, weather, actual wind speed and direction, and other factors. For example, a 30% reduction in wind speed from 15 mph to 10.5 mph from a perpendicular direction on a sunny day may not result in a significant impact for a launching paraglider. On the other hand, a reduction in wind speed from 10 mph to 7 mph from a cross-slope direction on a cloudy day will certainly impact a hang glider trying to sustain soaring flight. These facts and other soaring-related science was presented to the panel by Association pilots in public meetings, emails, and other fora, but the EIR failed to factor this record testimony into its analysis of the threshold of significance for soaring activities at Bates. Friends of Bates Beach raised concerns with the Draft EIR’s analysis feeling that the 30% reduction in wind was improperly downplayed. (Final EIR, Comment O1-10, p. 62.) The response to this comment was simply to direct the reader to Global Response GR1, which continues to ignore the significant impact that a 30% reduction in wind would have on freeflight.

CEQA requires government agencies to use reasonable efforts, to consider the specific environmental context of a project, and to establish thresholds of significance. (Protect the Historic Amador Waterway v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1105-12.) What might be insignificant to re-grading a random hillside becomes significant when a project jeopardizes 40 years of soaring history and the only coastal ridge soaring site for nearly 100 miles.

The Commission failed to satisfy its burden to make a reasonable effort to translate a purported 30% reduction estimate into a corresponding impact on soaring activities, and to then assess whether that impact is "significant" under CEQA. In so doing, the Planning Commission has run afoul of CEQA.

2. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FAILED TO SET A THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE PROJECT’S IMPACT ON WIND.

As discussed above, with the EIR’s shocking claim that the Project’s impact on wind supporting freeflight is not an environmental impact, the Planning Commission neglected to establish a threshold of significance to be able to discern whether the Project’s impact on wind, and therefore, the recreation of freeflight. The EIR is incomplete and inadequate without a threshold of significance on the wind impact and analysis of whether that wind impact is significant.

3. THE PLANNING COMMISSION WRONGLY DETERMINED THAT THE
PROJECT’S SUBSTANTIAL ALTERATION OF THE PROJECT SITE WOULD NOT CREATE A SIGNIFICANT VIEW IMPACT.

The Draft EIR admits that the ocean bluffs are scenic vistas and resources. (Id. § 3.1.1.3, p.

3.1-2.) Two of the significance thresholds are “a) Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista” and “b) Substantially damage scenic resources….” (Id. §3.1.3, p. 3.1-6.) The Draft EIR finds that the Project’s impact to a scenic vista would be potentially significant, but with mitigation Measure AES-1, the impacts would be less than significant. (Id. § 3.1.4(a), p. 3.1- January 28, 2022

6.) Mitigation Measure AES-1 only requires a review and approval by the City’s Architectural Review Board and County Board of Architectural Review. This is not mitigation by any shape or means and cannot mitigate the significant alteration of the ocean bluff to the tune of over 100,000 cubic yards of removal of a scenic vista. The Planning Commission cannot rely on this fake mitigation measure, and it should have found the Project’s impact to the ocean bluff scenic vista as significant and unavoidable. The determine that the significant scenic vista impact would be less than significant by bare approvals of two review boards is simply in error and must be reversed.

The Association’s Ottis Gillespie commented that the removal of 92,526 cubic yards from the ocean bluff would eliminate a regional coastal resource. (Final EIR, Comment Letter comment I32-3, pdf p. 180.) In response, the Final EIR points the reader to response I32-8, which mere responds that the comment does not raise any issue concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR.

No further response is required or provided. This is an improper response calling into question the conclusion that the elimination of a regional coastal resource would be less than significant.

The County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Department commented that the EIR needs to discuss how the Project is consistent with the Coastal Act Policies. (Final EIR, Comment Letter L3-4, pdf pp. 75-77.) Two of those Policies- 30251 and CLUP Policy 4-3 concern protecting views along the ocean and that projects shall be designed to follow the natural contours of the landscape. The response is simply, “These policies have been added to Section 3.9.2 of the EIR (See Chapter 3, Errata). Looking at the Errata, there is no specific analysis explaining how the Project is compliant with the view policies. As a result, the EIR analysis is incomplete, and the Planning Commission should not have certified the EIR or approved the Project.

4. THE PLANNING COMMISSION IMPROPERLY CONSIDERED THE LACK OF THE ASSOCIATION’S PROPERTY RIGHT AT THE PROJECT TO JUSTIFY DESTROYING FREEFLIGHT RECREATION AT THE PROJECT SITE.

On page 3.11-3, the Draft EIR reports that glider take-off or landings are prohibited in Rincon County Beach Park and that the paragliders and hang-gliders have no “sanctioned use [of] public property.” The Draft EIR cites no legal authority for this bare and demonstrably false assertion.

In fact, freeflight pilots fly legally in the Bates Bluff airspace as recognized by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and United States Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association (USHPA).

Pilots have federal permission and legal authority to use this airspace.

Moreover, claims that the Association has no property rights, and thus, are essentially trespassing have no place in a CEQA analysis. Numerous cases have held that it does not matter if an existing activity is legal or illegal, the mere fact that it occurs makes is a part of the environment.

January 28, 2022

(Riverwatch v. County of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1452–1453, (baseline for a proposed quarry development was the actual condition of the land, even though some existing environmental degradation had resulted from prior illegal mining and clearing activities); Fat v.

County of Sacramento (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1278–80 (baseline for airport expansion was existing airport operations, even though the airport had been operating and had expanded without a required permit for several years); Eureka Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357, 370–71(baseline for proposed school playground use was the existing playground facility, even though prior construction of the facility may have violated the city's code).) Thus, an environmental review must analyze a project’s impact on illegal or even “unsanctioned” existing activities, and if found to be significant, must be mitigated, if feasible.

During the ERC Meeting, a commenter asserted that the soaring activities are “fully legal and sanctioned”. (Final EIR, pdf p. 215.)
Tainting the proceedings before the Planning Commission with irrelevant characterizations of an existing use as “unsanctioned” is a false and highly prejudicial attempt to degrade the history and importance of freeflight at the Project site. This should never have been included in the Draft EIR, as it is only intended to inflame the passions of the Planning Commission and distract them from an objective environmental analysis. Unfortunately, staff do not comprehend, and the Planning Commission has not been duly advised of, the correct state of law concerning the legality of existing freeflight uses, nor of the relevance of such legality to CEQA analysis.

5. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THAT ALTERNATIVE 4 IS THE LEAST ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGING ALTERNATIVE, OTHER THAN THE NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE.

Recreational activities have no hierarchy in CEQA. All are equally important and must not be significantly impacted if possible. The argument that there would be more trail users than freeflight users is not sanctioned under CEQA. All recreation activities are protected under CEQA.

Alternative 4 would not destroy the existing freeflight recreation that has existed for 40 years at the ocean bluffs and the trail could be completed, thereby accommodating all recreational uses of the ocean bluffs. Every other Project alternative, except for the No Project Alternative, would destroy the freeflight recreational use of ocean bluffs. Thus, every alternative, except Alternative 4, would create a significant impact by eliminating or severely reducing the freeflight recreational use of the Project site. Accordingly, only Alternative 4 is the least environmentally damaging alternative. Moreover, Alternative 4 meets all of the Project objectives. The Planning Commission should have approved Alternative 4 to comply with CEQA.

Comment letter I6 raised the concern with the destruction of freeflight and Alternative 4 would preserve it. (Final EIR, pdf p. 96.) The response was that the comment did not raise any concern January 28, 2022

with the adequacy of the Draft EIR. (Id. pdf p. 96.) Comment Letter I9 made a similar comment with a similar response in the Final EIR. (Id. pdf pp. 108-9.) Comment I15-3 made a similar comment with a similar response in the Final EIR (Id. pdf. pp. 128-29.) The same is true for Comment I20-2. (Id. pdf pp. 138-39.) Comment I24-2 expressly noted that Alternative Four would have the least environmental impact. (Id. pdf p. 147.) The response was this comment did not raise any issue concerning the adequacy of the Draft EIR. (Id. pdf p. 149.) These responses fail to recognize that Alternative 4 is actually the least environmentally damaging alternative.

6. CONCLUSION.

Due to the limited time in which to prepare this appeal, additional arguments of the Association are presented in Attachment 1. For the foregoing reasons, the Planning Commission violated CEQA in certifying the Project’s Final EIR and approving the Project. Accordingly, the Association respectfully requests the City Council to approve this appeal and vacate the Planning Commission’s certification of the Project’s Final EIR and approval of the Project. Failure to do so will result in an appeal to the Coastal Commission.

Very truly yours,

ORBACH HUFF & HENDERSON LLP
Stan M. Barankiewicz II
Santa Barbara Soaring Association
P.O. Box 30485
Santa Barbara, CA 93130
January 28, 2022
City of Carpinteria, City Council
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
RE: Formal Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, Rincon Trail Project To the Carpinteria City Council Members,
The Santa Barbara Soaring Association (SBSA) and other interested parties, are appealing the City of Carpinteria’s Planning Commission’s decision on January 18, 2022 to certify the Focused Environmental Impact Report (EIR) of December 2021 by Dudek, and the granting of a Conditional Use Permit and a Coastal Development Permit for the proposed Multi Use Trail (M.U.T.), Rincon Trail Project 19-2015-CUP/CDP. Listed below are the reasons for the appeal to you, the Carpinteria City Council. Please advise on hearing dates to discuss further.

1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, requires an evaluation of how the project will impact existing recreation. The law regards all forms of established recreation to be worthy of impact analysis and subsequent mitigation. There is no qualification within CEQA concerning the type of recreation, method of access, or future condition.

The EIR fails to comply with CEQA by discrediting and dismissing a group of recreational users who have been operating at this site for 40 years. Rather than conducting reasonable review of project impacts and measures for mitigation, the EIR is designed to overlook and exclude. This issue was highlighted by the Environmental Review Committee (ERC) in their April 13, 2021 review of the EIR, where they stated that impacts to flying were not adequately addressed and that other alternatives should be explored. The SBSA also submitted a letter with line by line analysis of inaccurate information about free flight prevalent in the Subsequent MND. This letter was sent to you, Carpinteria City Council, on August 2, 2020 and to Nick Bobroff, Project Manager, on November 30, 2020 during the EIR scoping. Regardless, this language continues to plague the EIR. An Appendix has been provided with a list of these actionable mistruths.

2. The Responses to Comments section in the EIR states that the airflow analysis report (Airflow Analysis for the Proposed Regrading of the Rincon Bluffs, Paolo Luzzatto-Feliz, PhD, January 22, 2021) is evidence of no significant impact to recreational soaring.

However, the premise upon which this conclusion is based is patently false. To confront the issues inherent in this study, we realized an expert in the eyes of the City would need to provide testimony. We had already witnessed the Planning Commission summarily dismiss the expert testimony of dozens of pilots with hundreds of soaring hours at this particular site (Subsequent MND hearing). We decided to contact Dennis Pagen, who is quoted in the airflow analysis report itself and whose research is used by the authors.

This is not a case of competing experts, but rather the same expert, trusted by the City to provide “evidence”, that is being asked to further evaluate and clarify the airflow models and their application. What Dennis points out is that the airflow analysis report is not an accurate or sufficient model because it ignores the depth and length of the ridge, the wind gradient, creation of turbulent rotor zones and venturis, and changes in thermal patterns. He concludes that the data used in the airflow analysis fails to represent the bigger picture and real-world conditions, and that it is predominantly based on sailplanes, which are rigid gliders with a wingspan up to 100ft that operate entirely differently from paragliders and hang gliders. If the EIR is declaring no significant impact to soaring recreation, a more accurate model is required to make this case. Please see Dennis Pagen’s full letter in Appendix B.

3. CEQA requires all forms of recreation to be valued equally. The proposed M.U.T. runs counter to this criteria. The M.U.T. expands access primarily to bicyclists at the exclusion of paragliders and hang gliders. While bicyclists have access to many miles of recreational paths, the construction of this 0.2 mile section of the M.U.T. will effectively end most soaring opportunities in Carpinteria, significantly impacting the recreational use of countless pilots. This site is the one place in Carpinteria where coastal soaring pilots can pursue their passion and practice their craft, sharing the joy of free flight with residents and tourists alike. The EIR is not compliant with CEQA if it replaces established recreation of pilots with other users such as bikers. Likewise, the Planning Commission’s certification of the EIR simply to serve a greater number of estimated future users is not supported by CEQA. It prioritizes one group of users over another.

4. The scope of the EIR failed to evaluate alternatives, to avoid massive earthwork at this site. The Certified Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan asserts that "...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, paragliding and hang gliding activities in Carpinteria should have priority over the current M.U.T. proposal to displace 96,040 CY and remove 85,521 CY of material because our recreational activities do not require alteration to the existing environment. The proposed project design is significantly damaging to the coastline (four proposed outflow drains to the beach), infringing on the Coastal Act, while excluding current recreational users. Alternatives that avoid cutting

into Little Diamondhead ridge, realignment of the “Dogleg,” of the bridge (inline with the southbound US 101) should be considered, and formally analyzed.

5. The selected Alternative #3 is focused on providing a “blue ocean view” rather than a safe, useful, esthetically pleasing, less costly and less environmentally intrusive, more sustainable alternative. There is no plan for maintaining this bike path after it's constructed on a 100 year old eroding seawall, where a railroad and highway easement have failed and been abandoned. There is also no plan for managing traffic in the already congested and incredibly steep Rincon Beach parking lot where the bike path terminates. This design needs to be reassessed from the perspective of the very groups it's trying to help. It was cited in the bicyclist survey conducted by Ottis Gillespie (MUT Bicyclist survey pg 186 Dec 2021 EIR), that bicyclists preferred to have the proposed M.U.T. on the Southbound US 101 freeway side of Little Diamondhead. The City has not provided any detailed input from bicyclists, who are the most likely end users.

6. The California Department of Conservation has determined that there is an oil well within the proposed M.U.T. alignment that was not abandoned or capped properly for gas or water intrusion (p.140-144, EIR). The property owner becomes the responsible party for this oil well. It must be abandoned properly and remain accessible. Under the current design in Alternative #3, the M.U.T. will be constructed over the oil well. The California Department of Conservation may return at a later date to excavate down to the well to access it. This has a significant impact in cost, liability, noise, and construction. There is no such issue with the oil well when building the M.U.T. in accordance with Alternative #4, making it a better environmental option. Concerned citizens mentioned the presence of the oil well to the Planning Commission. Its potential short and long term impacts were not adequately addressed in the time available. An additional hearing and corrected EIR is needed.

7. The conceptual plans presented to decision-making authorities and to the public have differed between the Planning Commission meeting on January18, 2022 and the SBCAG meeting on January 20, 2022. While the Planning Commission reviewed EIR Alternative #3 with a straight cut into the ridge, the SBCAG presentation focused on a path with an ‘elbow’ bend toward the ocean. The significant differences between these conceptual plans is misleading and confusing. This lack of clarity is exacerbated by the ommission of engineer estimates and analysis for the EIR Alternatives, and the lack of line items describing details of the trail construction and materials. An appeal is needed to determine what aspects of the conceptual design are being proposed to the public and illuminate the key details such as trail alignment, and provide estimates for more accurate comparison of Alternatives.

Appendix A:

Corrections to the Final EIR of December 2021
Inaccuracy #1: free flight at Bates is an unsanctioned activity 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 and legal authority 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 horizontal (laminar) airflow to be deflected upward at the bluff face of Little Diamondhead ridge. This is similar to the ocean swells that come into Rincon Point for surfing.
c. Little Diamondhead is special in allowing (in certain conditions) 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, also making extended flights, slightly above the bluff face possible. d. Exhibit 2 lists official rules governing free flight while also claiming it’s an unrecognized and unsanctioned 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 location like Bates.
e. Exhibit 2 states there are safety hazards regarding the freeway and UPRR, yet no evidence is provided. Meanwhile, the EIR 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 (some cited by Council and Commission Members and public comments) that regularly occur between bicyclists vs. vehicles, vehicles vs. bicyclists, vehicles vs. pedestrians, bicyclists vs. pedestrians.
f. Exhibit 2 states that flying at Bates is questionable because foot traffic across the UPRR is restricted. However, pilots are flying over this alignment, not crossing the railroad by foot. There are no airspace restrictions relevant to our activities and our recreation in this area has been supported by expert testimony of FAA members during the Subsequent MND hearing. It should be noted that significant numbers of bicyclists and hikers are crossing the UPRR near the seal Rookery, where they are funneled by existing dirt trails of the Carpinteria Trail Head Bluffs (map shown on the City’s website). Where is the project to mitigate these infractions?
g. FAA officials and career airline pilots provided expert testimony during the MND and EIR hearings to confirm that no aviation rules are being violated at this site.

2. Inaccuracy #2: the preferred launch site disqualifies free flight from CEQA a. The Rincon Trail Project has no bearing on the current launch locations, it is outside the scope of the project and irrelevant.
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 EIR. c. Pilots have the capacity to launch from public and private locations to begin flying activities at Little Diamondhead, at times launching from National Forest property.

However, flight can only be maintained at Little Diamondhead if the existing geological features remain intact.
d. 5On 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. 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 in Carpinteria should be given priority over this M.U.T. because our recreation requires no alteration to the environment.

3. Inaccuracy #3: the Project will not have a negative impact on uplift and airflow a. During the Public Workshop, MND hearings, and EIR hearings, SBSA provided expert testimony and evidence from engineers and FAA officials to substantiate the M.U.T. 's negative impact on uplift and airflow.
b. SBSA created a video “Preserve Free Flight at Bates Bluff,” by Aaron Laplante, local certified pilot, describing in detail how the M.U.T. will drastically affect airflow. This video was provided to the Planning Commission and City Council and proponents of the plan, and was 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 inaccurate conclusion is made without acknowledgement of what SBSA already provided and without explanation of what more is needed.
d. The City has not demonstrated or reasonably proved that this M.U.T. will not significantly change vertical airflow or address the concerns of all current users.

There is no proof that this project will not ruin a treasured flying site that has been lovingly used for decades.
e. Exhibit 2 claims that the M.U.T. 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.

See Dennis Pagen’s letter in Appendix B which further refutes the airflow analysis report.
f. Exhibit 2 states that the M.U.T. will improve uplift, yet no reasonable 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 a bench (in terms of width) like the one (twenty- two feet wide which includes a grated concrete “V,” ditch) proposed. 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 Little Diamondhead ridge, which has a steep, unobstructed face that generates adequate lift in a wide range of wind conditions. The Torrey Pines Gliderport (TPG) study cited in the December 2021 EIR (11032 2.5) was inaccurately portrayed and compared to the two distinct Bluffs in Carpinteria. The approximately 300 foot tall, sheer cliff face at TPG, correctly concludes that “launching,” is easier to perform in lighter horizontal, deflected upward, wind conditions. This is applicable to wing inflation and “soaring opportunities,” at the one, long continuous terrain feature of TPG.

Wing inflation for “launching,” is similar in Carpinteria. However, with two distinct separate Bluffs, the “launching,” activities occur at one Bluff, and the “soaring opportunities,” occur at the Little Diamondhead Bluff due to the prevailing southwest wind (as cited in Aaron Laplante’s video). Author of many books on paragliding, Dennis Pagen has also addressed this in his letter (with a submission pointing out inaccuracies of application of his studies) to the Planning Commission.
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 EIR of December 2021 has not 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 substantial evidence and/or sufficient analysis of exploring any alternatives on either the north side of northbound US 101 or the north side of Little Diamondhead, which is aligned with the US 101 southbound side of the highway. These alternatives are preferred by most potential end users (see 2020 bicyclists survey administered and compiled by Ottis Gillespie on the King property) and will definitely save costs. If not for the blue view desire, the currently existing trail on the freeway could add a line of barriers (similar to the continuance of the trail, east of Bates Road) along the US101 South (which is 12 - 16 feet wide in some areas) and the same type barriers on the US 101 North (10-22 feet wide in some areas). Considering the one way nature of traffic flow this would accommodate a five foot wide path in each direction) to protect bicyclists between exits.

The “Environmentally Superior Alternative,” (Alternative #4 April 13 2021 meeting) with additional comments added to correct the improper alignment of

the bridge and the extension of the path further east towards Bates Road has not been adequately addressed or compared or considered by the proponents. j. The majority of questions and comments contained in the December 2021 EIR address specific inadequacies of the Draft EIR presentations and conclusions.

The attempted responses to a majority of questions and comments of the December 2021 EIR, Focused EIR and the MND did not provided a reasonable response: by omission of facts, misstatement of facts, concealment and/or denial of potential, substantial environmental impacts, for the proposed M.U.T.,whether submitted by State agencies or groups or individuals. k. Mitigation Measures AES-1 requires County Board of Architectural Review pages 226-228, 3.3.1 Existing Conditions: “The Carpinteria Bluffs are among the last remaining coastal open space areas within the County and are a prime example of undisturbed California Coastline.” This will be ruined by a proposed environmentally intrusive, costly, unsightly reconfigured, reconstituted, land mass (which will obliterate the Little Diamondhead Bluff), with unsightly concrete slabs, vehicle traffic sized footprint, unsightly bridge (UPRR will require a fully encapsulated bridge), which will dump untreated stormwater runoff onto the beach, which will result in environmental damage to the beach. l. Gary Mussel in his April 26,2021 letter (Letter 01 of the December 2021 EIR) “Draining onto the Beach.” “Five (now four) new drainage pipes will…,” “...may be creating gullies across the sand…” “The “...long term “gullification…” He writes about the environmental impact to the beach. “Removal of Concrete Brik-Brak,” “...the concrete “brik-brak…slated to be removed as a safety hazard.” The City’s response, “... the concrete debris mentioned in the comment is associated with a former state highway and is not the responsibility of the project (hence, the M.U.T. proponents and lead agency, the City of Carpinteria) to remove these remnants.” The city has stated that they are absolved from addressing any and all safety hazards, involving the former state highway, which encompasses the Little Diamondhead Bluff and proximal locations. Not wanting to respond to existing safety hazards is indicative of actionable neglect. m. Planning Commissioner John Callendar’s comments at the January 18, 2022 Planning Commission meeting at approximately 106 minutes of video recording of the meeting reference; impact to paragliding and hang gliding activities, at approximately 111 minutes of video recording of the meeting (VRM) reference to CEQA application of proper and accurate wind study for “soaring activities,” and “significant impact,” to flying activities, at approximately 119 minutes of VRM, reference to opposition of the wind study included in Draft EIR. n. Measure “A,” funds mis-allocated for a tourist attraction for potential neighboring hotels, instead of for a sustainable, direct, alternative transportation route. o. Global Response 2 (two) clearly states that the goal is to, “...recontour manufactured slopes…, ” with a remanufactured “ recontoured slope.” A “slope,” is inclusive of the top, middle and bottom. With only approximately 160 feet in height, a fairly steep slope, a competent engineer could not make a calculation and or assessment that the significant earthwork intrusion on the middle, and

lower portion, would not compromise the top. With the scheduled removal of remnants of state highway (refer to response of Gary Mussell’s April 26, 2021 letter), the city’s likelihood for the Little Diamondhead Bluff to be obliterated is extremely high.
p. The early start (2018) of, and the completion of the foundation of the NW bridge "buttress," aka "foundation," violates all provisions for pre approval, environmental impact and required permits. The most likely reason, proponents desire the bridge to be aligned in one particular direction for Alternative #4 or #3 On page 115 of the December 2021 EIR
q. Inadequate response to Erin Maker at April 13 2021 ERC meeting. Her questions about the proposed project costs, vs. other project alternatives did not receive a detailed response or include any actual or projected costs. On page 212 of December 2021 EIR and page 2 of 8 Carpinteria Rincon Trail ERC meeting.
r. City's response to comment letter I-33 by Tim Barker. This response is not addressed to Mr. Barker and is an indication that the City has not taken comments about the inadequacy of the EIR seriously. Dismissive and "canned," responses are repeated throughout the "Responses to comment letter(s) " On page 190 of December 2021 EIR