Carpinteria City Council
March 28, 2022

Appendix B:

Letter from Dennis Pagen
January 17, 2022
To: City of Carpinteria Planning Commission
Re: Agenda Items #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

Attachment G
Exhibit 3: Helen O’Neill Appeal
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Helen ONeill <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 4:46 PM
To: Nick Bobroff
Cc: helen
Subject: Fw: Appeal to City Planning Decsion, Jan 18 2022-RE:Bike safety Bates/Rincon Point Rd. **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 28, 2022

Mr. Nick Bobroff, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Dear Mr. Bobroff:

The focus has been on bike safety in the parking lot. I would like to addresss the area of Rincon Point Rd. (i.e. the end of Bates rd).

Plan 3, the plan adopted, will promote Bikers diangolnally crossing into the Rincon parking lot.

Even with a car one has to (or should ) approuch the lot gingerly becausde of bad sight-lines. This will also make bikers more assesable to colliding with cars from the Rincon Point parking lot.

Also one must be aware of the increase of use of Electic bikes. Electic bikes are great because they have expanded the ridership range for biking. But it must be noted that Electirc bike riders tend to not be seasoned bike riders. This along with the fact the bikes go fast has made it a saftey situation. We have one person in our community that broke her back, during a crash becasue she couldn't control her bike. This also still encourages more bikers into the parking lot. There has been more than one collision. One even resulting in a broken leg.

If the bike trail continued on, the south bound 101, shoulder it could be easily marked with a straight path. There would be less confusion on where the bikes travel. I prefer a protected lane over ocean view. Especailly for such a short distance.

Also to utilize the south bound shoulder would not require the huge dirt removal, which environmentally damaging. And hopefully making the freeway route cheaper too? Also would it be possible to have a tunnel for the Train Track crossing instead of a Bridge? Thank you for your time,
With all my Biking Heart,

Helen O’Neill
805-701-7661
Bike Ventura!
Bike HUB Ventura
2 Bike HUB Oxnard
Sierra Club
Steering Committee Member, Friends of Bates Beach.

Attachment H
Comprehensive Response to
Appeals
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.
23938349.5
Response to Appeal Letter A1
Karl Cameron
January 28, 2022
A1-1 The Planning Commission selected Alternative #3 on the basis that the Final EIR determined this Alternative to be the environmentally superior alternative that satisfied a majority of the Project Objectives. (Planning Commission Staff Report, Exhibit 1, Attachment A (“Findings for Approval”), § 1.2.c.) Below summarizes staff’s additional response to items raised in Appeal Statement A1-1:

One key concept of the proposed design is “safety”. The trail is being designed by registered professionals in accordance with the current engineering standards and practices. Consistent with Project Objectives, the trail has also been designed to be usable by the broadest segment of the population as possible, including pedestrians and cyclists. The majority of the trail has also been designed to meet Americans with Disability Act (“ADA”) standards; the short section of the trail that would exceed ADA slope standards was done to reduce landform modification of the bluff face and attempt to balance the many interests concerning this Project.

In terms of aesthetics, staff believes that traveling a path which is detached from a very heavily traveled and noisy freeway corridor and instead using a trail which also provides a “blue ocean view” is universally accepted as more “aesthetically pleasing”, compared to Alternative 4, for example. Further, the trail has been designed to be as minimally visually intrusive as possible. The trail traverses manufactured slopes that are already interrupted with one or more benches, which the new trail bench would mimic. Likewise, the overall character of the bluff faces would not be drastically changed, including the overall height of the bluff features. Lastly, the Project is required to be reviewed by, and receive approval, from both the City’s Architectural Review Board (“City ARB”) and the County’s Board of Architectural Review (“County BAR”), prior to obtaining final permits and beginning construction, to ensure that the Project’s design details meet the City and County standards. As part of the architectural review processes, design details such as bridge colors, railing design, and fencing materials can be refined to best fit the character of the setting.

Project cost is not part of the consideration of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), nor does it factor into the planning department’s policy consistency analysis. (See Cal. Code Regs., tit 14 (“CEQA Guidelines”), § 15382.) Nevertheless, the other Project alternatives also have components which would be very costly to build. In the case of Alternative 2, complicated retaining walls, built over unstable landforms, are significantly more costly to construct; 23938349.5
Alternative 4 would require much more retaining wall as well as considerable earthwork. It is important to understand that these features, which would be built adjacent to busy freeway traffic would also require much more traffic control which would add to overall Project costs. As a case-in-point, note the current construction activities on U.S. Highway 101 which give a contemporary example of the traffic control which would be required for a freeway-adjacent project. This traffic control brings added complexity and risk, thereby adding cost to Alternative

4. Engineers have performed a variety of studies to select the preferred alignment and bluff slope profile. “Sustainability” is a key concept of the design in terms of ensuring the trail would be geologically stable, including being sufficiently set back from the bluff face to account for projected coastal bluff retreat over the anticipated lifetime of the Project. Please refer to response to comment no. A2- 33, below, for more information on projected coastal bluff retreat. However other stakeholder interests, including those who desire to minimize earthwork, specifically the “Soaring Community” have also shaped the design.

Ongoing maintenance of the Project would be the co-responsibilities of the City and County. A formal trail maintenance agreement must be executed by both entities prior to initiation of construction and will detail the ongoing maintenance obligations of both jurisdictions for all trail elements, including but not limited to the new bridge crossing, concrete paving, and fencing/railings. Ongoing maintenance concerns are one reason Alternative 2 is less attractive than the proposed Project.

As discussed elsewhere in the response to the appeals in greater detail, the City’s consulting traffic engineer reviewed the proposed plans in relation to the existing conditions in the Rincon Beach County Park (or “County Park”) parking lot, and concluded that the introduction of additional cyclists and pedestrians into an existing slow speed, mixed-vehicle travel area would not pose a significant safety hazard (see response to comment no. A2-11, below). Nevertheless, the City and Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (“SBCAG”) are working with the County to develop a possible plan for routing cyclist thru-traffic through the parking lot. However, because of the scope, and timing of the large Rincon Trail Project, the County’s conceptual plan for future updates to the Rincon Beach County parking lot project would be considered as a subsequent, separate project. Please see response to comment no. A1-10, below, for additional information on alternatives.

A1-2 The SBCAG presentation focused on providing relevant background to SBCAG Boardmembers concerning Project status, including the most recent action by the City Planning Commission, and options for committing additional funding to the 23938349.5
Project to support the completion of working drawings and readying the Project for construction.

The emphasis of the presentation was on funding options and not on the particulars of the Project design, including trail alignment. Nevertheless, the staff presentation included an overview graphic generally depicting the proposed alignment as described in the Project EIR (see graphic below from SBCAG staff presentation).

The same graphic was included in the Carpinteria Planning Commission staff report packet, both as part of Exhibit #4 and on the cover page of the staff report itself. It was also shown in the staff presentation at the Planning Commission hearing. Additionally, the engineered plans included in the Planning Commission staff report as Exhibit B to Attachment 1 reflect the same proposed alignment as what is shown in the above overview graphic.

The important distinction is that the Planning Commission staff report also presented the Alternative 3 option to the Commission for consideration, which was identified in the EIR as the environmentally superior alternative. The Alternative 3 option employs nearly the same alignment, except for the easternmost portion of the trail where it instead descends at a slightly steeper slope (6% instead of 5%), arriving at the historic abandoned railroad bench at a more westerly point and utilizing this existing bench to connect to the Rincon Beach County Park. An updated “concept” design showing this minor alignment change is depicted as Figure 6.2 in the Final EIR. Beyond this concept design, the working drawings for “Alternative 3” have not yet been completed.

Therefore, the Project as presented to both the Planning Commission and SBCAG depicted the same proposed Project. The Planning Commission, 23938349.5
however, voted to move forward with the Alternative 3 design, in light of its reduced impacts to the environment compared to the proposed Project and other Project alternatives evaluated in the EIR.

A1-3 The City, as the lead agency, has the discretion to consider a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the environmental effects of the Project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) & (d); City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 414; South of Market Community Action Network v. City & County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 345.) The level of analysis of each alternative also is subject to a rule of reason and does not need to be an exhaustive evaluation of each alternative. (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 547.) An EIR need only contain sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. (Id.; CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(f).)
As discussed in Section 6.6.4 of the EIR, the design engineers created an alignment for Alternative 4 using the same trail specifications as the Project, including paved width, trail surface slope not greater than 5%, and connecting the point where the trail alignment crosses the UPRR tracks to a point near the existing bike path facility at Bates Road. The engineers provided calculations of the earthwork volumes, including export of earth materials, for Alternative #4.

The calculated earthwork volumes were used to determine relative impacts in the areas of air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology, hydrology, and noise.

Dudek biologists and archaeologists also provided additional survey work to address Alternative #4 in the Final EIR.

Accordingly, the EIR contains sufficient information to evaluate the Alternative #4 relative to this Alternative’s ability to achieve the project objectives and lack of potentially significant environmental effects associated with the proposed Project. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a); Sierra Club, 163 Cal.App.4th at 547-548.) Please see response to comment no. A1-10, below, for additional information on alternatives.

A1-4 Neither the proposed Project, nor the environmentally superior alternative (Alternative 3), as both are described in the EIR, include an extension of the proposed trail through the parking lot of Rincon Beach County Park. The Transportation section of the Draft EIR (section 3.12.4) acknowledges that County Parks staff and SBCAG staff have held several meetings to discuss a possible future separate project that could route cyclists wishing to continue south past Rincon through the County Park to Bates Road, however the 23938349.5
discussion in the Draft EIR makes clear that such a connector trail is not proposed as part of the current Project, nor is it required as a mitigation measure for the Project. A preliminary proposal to study such a connector trail is included in the Draft EIR as Appendix K. “County Connector Trail Proposal- Rincon Park Project Components Study” prepared by Bengal Engineering (see Attachment C, Exhibit 3). (See additional response to comment nos. A1-1, above, and A1-10, below.)
The Alternative 4 Project, as described in both the Draft and Final EIRs, includes a continuation of the trail all the way to Bates Road. This continuation of the trail would extend the overall length of the trail by approximately 1,200 feet compared to either the proposed Project or Alternative 3 design, and would likely require retaining walls for some portion of this additional extent. However, the Alternative 4 design contemplated in the EIR remains on the highway side of the “Bates Ridge” for its entire length and does not, as currently conceptualized, encroach into County Parks property.

A1-5 While the Geologic Energy Management Division (“GEDM”) response identifies recommendations for properly abandoning oil wells consistent with current standards, it fails to acknowledge that the well of potential concern (API:
0408304324) was a dry hole. This means that no oil was encountered during the exploratory drilling, and the well was therefore immediately abandoned. The well record indicates the status of the well as “plugged” which, at the time the well was drilled, would have simply involved backfilling with the removed earth material. GEDM indicates they have no record of an oil/gas zone plug, freshwater plug, casing shoe plug, or surface plug for the well, which is to be expected from a dry hole that was abandoned prior to the adoption of the rigorous abandonment standards that exist today. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 3208(a) (2020)). It is unlikely that a casing was even installed for this well, but if there is a casing encountered during Project grading, it would be a simple matter to cut the casing at an elevation below the surface of any site improvements, and to plug the casing with concrete. There is no public health risk associated with this abandoned dry hole.

Also, given the lack of a known and precise location of the abandoned well, and the history of transportation facility development in this area, it is highly unlikely that the well of concern is located within the alignment for the Rincon Trail. Refer to Exhibit 1, Rincon Abandoned Well Data from the California Department of Conservation “Well Finder” website for more information.

In addition, Condition of Approval No. 46 for the City’s Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit (“CUP/CDP”) for the Project requires construction activities to comply with any other applicable governmental requirements. As such, if the abandoned well exists along the project alignment, 23938349.5
the project team will need to comply with all applicable federal, state and local requirements to address the abandoned well in order to comply with this condition..

A1-6 Coastal Act §30240 states:
“(a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (“ESHA”) shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat and recreation areas.” According to the analysis provided in the Final EIR (section 3.3), three special status plant species (cliff malacothrix, woolly seablite, and south coast branching phacelia) were detected within the biological survey area. While these plants are listed by the California Native Plant Society’s (“CNPS”) “California Rare Plant Ranks (“CRPR”),” they are ranked as 4.2 and 3.2, respectively, which are “rare” but not considered to be special status species for the purposes of CEQA, but do add to vegetation community value designated as ESHA. Plants with a threat ranking ending in 0.2 are considered to be “moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat).” No federal, state, or CNPS CRPR 1A, 1B, 2A, or 2B plants, or locally rare plants, were identified within the biological survey area for the Project.

Given this ranking and lack of classification as being locally rare and the limited extent of impacts to the identified species not being significant enough to transfer the species to a more sensitive rank, these impacts were found to be less than significant. Based on these findings, no mitigation is required for the impacts to these specific “rare” plant species. Mitigation is, however, required for potentially significant impacts to specified ESHA plant communities as described in section

3.3.4 of the Proposed Final EIR (Attachment C, Exhibit 1) and the Draft EIR (Attachment C, Exhibit 2).

A1-7 There are several trees, including two Monterey Pines, which may be impacted by the proposed Project. One of the Monterey Pines (10” Diameter at Breast Height (“DBH”)) is located near the western terminus of the trail; the other (12” DBH) is located within the proposed trail alignment within Rincon Beach County Park. The 10” Monterey Pine would potentially be equally impacted by any of the Project alternatives, as they all share the same route west of the Union Pacific Railroad (“UPRR”) crossing. The 12” Monterey Pine would likely be impacted by the proposed Project or Alternatives 2 or 3.
23938349.5
These potential impacts were disclosed in the EIR (section 3.3). However, as Monterey Pines are not native to the area, and these specific trees were not found to be provide important habitat for wildlife, the biological resource impacts of removing one or both of these trees was found to be less than significant.

A1-8 The EIR prepared for the Project provides objective, measurable analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed Project and identified mitigation measures and/or Project alternatives, wherever feasible. As demonstrated in the analysis provided in the EIR, Alternative 3 results in the least severe impacts, overall, from amongst the proposed Project and considered alternatives.

Where a potential environmental impact was found to be less than significant, no further analysis was necessary to determine whether a given Project alternative could further reduce the severity of any identified impacts. In the case of Class II, significant but mitigable impacts, the EIR demonstrates that by further reducing earthwork quantities by slightly narrowing and steepening a portion of the trail, as described in Alternative 3, impacts to biological resources, geology/soils, water quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and air quality, can be slightly reduced as compared to the proposed Project.

Note, these further reductions in the severity of impacts are not strictly required to be implemented since all identified Project impacts were found to be feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission found Alternative 3, as the environmentally superior alternative, to be the preferred Project to proceed with based on the substantial evidence presented in the EIR.

A1-9 As discussed in section 3.5.1 of the EIR, the entire Project area is located in a seismically active region subject to potential impacts from seismic activity along one or more faults in the area (although none are currently deemed “active” and the area is not included in any Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones).

However, as discussed generally in the description of Alternative 2 (section 6.5 of the EIR), and in further detail in the Project-specific geotechnical report (EIR Appendix E), an area of historic landslide activity was identified southwest of the proposed trail alignment, south of the UPRR crossing. This area of ancient landslide activity is located in the area of the large “switchback” feature of the Alternative 2 trail alignment, where approximately 1,000 linear feet of retaining walls, up to 14’ in height, were expected to be needed to construct the trail through the area given existing topography and grade differences. In order to stabilize the large landslide feature in the area, multiple deep caissons would be required to attempt to pin the mass in place. Nevertheless, movement could still 23938349.5
occur between the caissons. Given the cost and constructability challenges posed by the historic landslide area, the Project team sought out alternative alignments that avoided this landslide area.

A1-10 Alternative 4, as described in the EIR, would result in greater impacts to biological resources and geology/soils, as a product of its extensive additional length (which extends to Bates Road), when compared to the proposed Project or the Alternative 3 alignment. As previously discussed, both the proposed Project and the Alternative 3 alignments terminate at the westerly terminus of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot. There currently is no continuation of the trail through the County Park proposed at this time, nor is such a continuation of the trail required as mitigation for any impacts identified for the proposed Project.

While County Parks staff has discussed the possibility of a future trail through the County Park, the location, design, and alignment of such a trail has not been determined at this time. An agency is not required to consider environmental impacts of a “specific future action that is merely contemplated.” (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 398.) To qualify for environmental review, the plans must have matured into a specific commitment, but where the future development is uncertain, evaluation of future environmental impacts associated with that development “must await the future decisions that could cause the effects.” (See Topanga Beach Renters Assn. v.

Department of General Services (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 188, 196.) As such, a conceptual, future project to improve the Rincon Beach County Park and improve bicycle and pedestrian access to the Pacific Coast Bikeway and the Ventura County portion of Rincon Beach is outside the scope of the review for the proposed Project. It also cannot be accurately concluded that Alternative 4 would have fewer or less biological resource impacts or earthwork quantities than either the proposed Project or Alternative 3, even if combined with an as-yet undetermined possible future trail or other improvements in and through the County Park.

Further, courts also use an “independent utility” to evaluate the relationship between multiple projects. Specifically, courts look to whether the projects (1) have “different project proponents”; “serve different purposes”; or “could be implemented independently of each other.” (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1226.)
Even if the County’s conceptual plan for improvements to Rincon Beach County Park were available for incorporation into the EIR, the proposed Project and the Rincon Beach County Park improvement plan would have sufficient independent utility to separate environmental review. First, the County would be the lead agency and project proponent for the environmental review of the County Park 23938349.5
improvement plan. Second, the proposed Project serves an independent purpose by providing non-vehicular access from the Carpinteria Bluffs to the Rincon Beach County Park consistent with the conditions for approval for the Linden Avenue and Casitas Pass Interchanges and Via Real Extension Project (No. 09- 1522-CUP/CDP). Third, the proposed Project and potential improvements to the Rincon Beach County Park each serve a different purpose, i.e., improving nonvehicular public access and improving the park facilities, respectively. (See, e.g., Del Mar Terrace Conservancy, Inc. v. City Council (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 712, 732-734; Aptos Council v. County of Santa Cruz (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 266, 279- 285.) As such, the EIR properly evaluates the proposed Project separate from the potential future improvements to Rincon Beach County Park, it does not necessitate additional improvements to Rincon County Beach Park other than those already contemplated in the EIR, and environmental review and consideration of potential improvement plans would be speculative at this time.

A1-11 This statement is not true. In terms of “slope work”, Alternative 4, which is much longer than the proposed Project, or other alternatives, including the preferred alternative, would require more “slope work” to build: about 30% more earth would be exported to cut the trail on the existing slopes. In addition, a considerable amount of retaining wall will be required to locate the trail on the bluff face in between the County parking lot and the Southbound off ramp at Bates Road. As a related topic, to build Alternative 4, some of this wall could be difficult to build, or could require relocation of the “new” sewer force main which pumps sewage from the Rincon Point community uphill toward Highway 150.

A1-12 City staff has made a good faith effort to identify and evaluate the significance of all potential Project-related environmental impacts. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15003(i); 15151 [“An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.”].) .) Potential impacts identified during the environmental scoping phase of the EIR were evaluated and addressed in the EIR. The City’s response to comment no.

A1-3, above, provides further discussion of the evaluation of the Project alternatives. Likewise, comments received during the public review period of the Draft EIR have been addressed and incorporated into the Final EIR.

The majority of the Planning Commission present to hear the item found the Final EIR to have satisfactorily met the requirements of CEQA and voted to accept and certify the EIR as such.

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
23938349.5
Response to Appeal Letter A2
Stan M. Barankiewicz II
Orbach Huff & Henderson LLP
January 28, 2022
A2-1 The appellant is correct to state that air is included in the CEQA definition of the “environment”. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21060.5; CEQA Guidelines, § 15360.) Section

3.2 of the EIR is devoted to the topic of Air Quality. With regard to Air Quality, according to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a significant impact related to air quality would occur if the Project would:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

The criteria above, however, do not include changes to air flow patterns as suggested by the appellant. With respect to attributes of the natural environment, the Project’s impacts upon wind were determined based upon significance thresholds employed in the Biological Resources Section of the EIR (FEIR p. 3- 37). Refer to the FEIR for the identified conclusion of less than significant impacts to avian species (FEIR p. 3-44) and Monarch butterflies (FEIR p. 3-45) associated with changes to localized airflow/wind patterns. This analysis is further supported by Professor Paolo Luzzatto-Feliz’s Airflow Analysis (EIR Appendix I), which concluded that the proposed Project could result in up to a 30% reduction in wind velocities approximately 30 feet above the bluff face above an approximately 1,790 foot long portion the proposed trail. Please refer to response to comment A2-2 (immediately below), for a detailed discussion regarding CEQA requirements for the evaluation of a project’s impacts on Recreation. Dennis Pagen’s comment letter presents the most detailed critique of concerns about the conclusions of the Airflow Analysis. Please refer to Professor Paolo Luzzatto-Feliz’s response to Denis Pagen’s letter (Luzzatto-Feliz 2022) in Exhibit 2, where he refutes the concerns raised by Dennis Pagen and other members of the soaring community.

The opportunity for enthusiasts to engage in free flight in airspace above various landforms is not an environmental issue within the meaning of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and the definition of “environment” under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21060.5; CEQA Guidelines, § 15360; see, 23938349.5
e.g., Save Our Access-San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conservation Auth. (2021) 68 Cal. App. 5th 8, 25, review denied (Dec. 15, 2021) [displacement of visitors who would use recreational areas due to reduced availability of parking is a social impact]; Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 566, 579-580 [finding an EIR did not need to analyze the social impact associated with loss of community character associated with closing a horse boarding facility].)
Relatedly, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines does not include alterations to opportunities for soaring (or free flight) as a potential recreation impact. (See EIR, § 3.11; Planning Commission Staff Report, pp. 14-15.) The CEQA Guidelines further do not designate “recreational activities” as part of the “environment.” (Pub. Res. Code, § 21060.5; CEQA Guidelines, § 15360 [““Environment” means the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance…”].) As such, impacts to recreational activities that do not result in a corresponding impact to the “environment” do not constitute a significant environmental impact for the purposes of CEQA. Additionally, the Airflow Analysis demonstrates that the proposed Project would not result in reductions over 30% in the velocity of vertical or horizontal wind speeds at low altitudes over the bluff area. Lastly, the author of the Airflow Analysis refutes the criticism of the study as presented by Dennis Pagen. (See Exhibit 2.)
A2-2 Dudek commissioned an objective, site specific analysis of the alterations to airflow patterns that would result from the Project, and the effects of those changes on soaring opportunities above the Project alignment. Professor Luzzatto-Fegiz has considerable experience with fluid dynamics modeling, including airflow. (See City Council staff report Attachment C, Exhibit 3; EIR, Appendix I, and Exhibit 2) Professor Luzzatto-Fegiz’s research for this particular study included a number of research papers and books addressing airflow and wind patterns for soaring opportunities. Professor Luzzatto-Fegiz reviewed Mr.

Dennis Pagen’s comment letter and has prepared a detailed response refuting the concerns raised by Mr. Pagen. (See Exhibit 2.)
As a dedicated commercial facility offering both launch space and soaring lessons, Torrey Pines Gliderport (“TPG”) has well-documented and substantiated data regarding the range of horizontal wind conditions that generally support launching of tandem and solo gliders. This range of wind speeds was one data point, among others in the Airflow Analysis, in determining if the magnitude of potential horizontal wind speed reductions resulting from proposed slope modification associated with the Project could significantly impair conditions favorable to launching hang gliders and paragliders in the vicinity of the Project 23938349.5
alignment. Relying on this data point and the other cited references, the Airflow Analysis concluded that the proposed Project could result in up to a 30% reduction in wind velocities approximately 30 feet above the bluff face above an approximately 1,790 foot long portion the proposed trail. (EIR, Appendix I.) The appeal letter also fails to acknowledge that Mr. Pagen generally acknowledges that he “examined the various graphs and equations [in the Airflow Analysis] and find them to be reasonable and accurate, except for a few caveats…” which he lists. (See Appendix B to Appeal Letter A2, p. 1, below.) Further, the appeal letter states that on a sunny day, with wind perpendicular to the bluffs, the anticipated maximum 30% reduction in wind speeds “may not result in a significant impact for launching a paraglider,” with which we agree.

Thus, the evidence provided with this comment and the Airflow Analysis supports that the potential changes to airflow resulting from the Project would not eliminate soaring opportunities above the Project.

It is the responsibility of the lead agency to weigh the evidence, and it may accept one expert opinion over another, so long as the decision is supported by substantial evidence. (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Envt’l Dev. v City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 327, 335; see also Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e); 14 CCR §§ 15064(f)(6) & 15384.) As indicated above, the appellant’s cited expert found the Airflow Analysis “to be reasonable and accurate, except for a few caveats” such that the experts agree that the project is unlikely to eliminate free flight, but they may disagree regarding the extent of reduction in airflow velocities. (See Appendix B to Appeal Letter A2, p. 1, below.) The Planning Commission, and City Council on appeal, thus could properly conclude, based on the Airflow Analysis and evidence, that the EIR found that this reduction in wind speeds would not result in a significant impact to either free flight opportunities or to the environment, as defined by CEQA.

Please see response to comment no. A2-3 regarding thresholds of significance.

A2-3 The appeal letter’s assertion that the Planning Commission was required to establish a threshold of significance for impacts to wind is misplaced. The CEQA Guidelines encourage, but do not require, a public agency to develop and publish thresholds of significance for general use, through a public process, supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7(b).) A threshold of significance “may assist lead agencies in determining whether a project may cause a significant impact” on a case-by-case basis. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(b)(2) [emphasis added]; see Oakland Heritage All. v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 896 [stating the CEQA Guidelines do “not require a public agency to adopt significance thresholds and it does not forbid an agency to rely on standards developed for a particular project”].) The City also is not 23938349.5
aware of any agency that has adopted a specific threshold of significant for wind impacts affecting free flight or other recreational activities.

The Planning Commission thus was not required to establish a threshold of significance when it made its determination that, based on the available scientific and factual data, the Project would not have a significant impact on the environment. Rather, as discussed further above in response to comment no.

A2-1 and below, the Planning Commission evaluated the EIR’s evidence, in light of the whole record, to assess whether the proposed Project may have a significant effect on the environment consistent with Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.) The City Council similarly may conclude that the Project does not result in a specific adverse impact to the environment, as defined by CEQA.

Further, CEQA does not define the “environment” to include recreational resources or activities. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21060.5; CEQA Guidelines, § 15360 [““Environment” means the physical conditions which exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical or aesthetic significance…”].); see also CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(e).) Rather Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines asks agencies to consider how a project’s impact on recreation may create corresponding impacts on the physical environment. (See Save Our Access-San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conservation Auth. (2021) 68 Cal. App. 5th 8, 24-26, review denied (Dec. 15, 2021) [“Under CEQA, a project's social impacts need not be treated as significant impacts on the environment. An EIR need only address the secondary physical impacts that could be triggered by a social impact.” (citations omitted)].)
For example, in Save Our Access-San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conservation Authority, the court upheld an EIR for an improvement project in the Angeles National Forest that would remove parking spaces, which the petitioners argued would displace visitors who would otherwise use the area for recreation, because the availability of parking spaces is a social impact, not a significant impact on the environment. (Id. at 24-26.) Similarly, the proposed Project’s potential 30% reduction in wind velocities approximately 30 feet above the bluff face may reduce the ability for free flight under certain conditions, displacement of these recreational users alone does not constitute a significant impact on the environment.

Notwithstanding the above, the EIR evaluates potential impacts to recreation according to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, which state a significant impact related to recreation may occur if the Project would:
23938349.5
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
c) Result in cumulatively considerable recreation impacts.

Under a) the trail proposal would not “increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur.” The trail itself is a new facility, which would facilitate non-vehicular access for pedestrians and cyclists to/from Carpinteria Bluffs Preserve and Rincon Beach County Park. Further, the airspace above the trail alignment is not characterized by the City or County as a “recreational facility.” Even assuming that the airspace constitutes a recreational facility, based on the Airflow Analysis, the estimated 30% reduction in wind velocities approximately 30 feet above the 1,790 foot long portion of the bluff face would not significantly impact the environment and the trail would not significantly reduce opportunities for free flight or increase use of the airspace such that it would result in a substantial deterioration of a “facility.” Under b) the criteria requires examination of new recreational facilities, and their adverse physical effects on the environment. This question similarly focuses on the new recreational facilities’ physical effect on the environment, not the social impacts on recreation opportunities. (See Save Our Access-San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conservation Auth. (2021) 68 Cal. App. 5th 8, 25, review denied (Dec. 15, 2021).) The Airflow Analysis provides an evaluation of the changes to localized air flow patterns (horizontal and vertical wind speeds), which biologists then used to determine that impacts to avian species and insects most dependent on such wind patterns would be insignificant. (See EIR, §§ 3.3,

3.11, Appendix I.) Moreover, the EIR thoroughly evaluates the proposed Project’s impacts on each of the resource areas of the environment itemized in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and determines that, based on substantial evidence, all Project impacts upon the environment could be mitigated to less than significant levels.

Under c) opportunities for cycling, walking, and enjoying views of the ocean (all recreational activities), would be enhanced under the Project. The Project also excludes housing or long-term employment opportunities that would increase local population that could contribute to cumulative impacts on the use and degradation of parks and recreation facilities.
23938349.5
The three criteria from the current Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines under Recreation (listed above) were employed as the significance thresholds for project impacts upon recreation. The Project’s impacts upon wind were determined based upon significance thresholds employed in the Biological Resources Section of the EIR (FEIR, p. 3-37). Please refer to the FEIR for the identified conclusion of less than significant impacts to avian species (FEIR, p. 3- 44) and Monarch butterflies (FEIR, p. 3-45) associated with changes to localized airflow/wind patterns.

Further, revisions were made to the proposed Project design (and Alternative 3), following comments received during the Draft EIR public review period, to further reduce earthwork quantities and reduce impacts on air flow by eliminating the previously shown upper elevation bench above the proposed trail bench. This design revision was found by Professor Luzzatto-Fegiz to minimize any added turbulence to the air flow conditions above the project site. (See “Comment #3 in Professor Luzzatto-Fegiz’s response letter (Exhibit 2) for additional information.) A2-4 The Project area is a highly modified transportation corridor and recreational area that has been subject to significant landform modification over the past 100+ years to accommodate past and current alignments of railroads and highways through the Project area. The existing slopes upon which the proposed trail alignment would traverse are man-made slopes themselves, and are presently (in some areas) interrupted by existing man-made benches cut into the slope faces. In this sense, modifying the existing man-made slope faces, without affecting the overall height of the slope features themselves, and introducing new bench features on the slope faces would not constitute a significant aesthetic impact in and of itself. (See EIR, Section 3.1.) See response to comment no. A2- 40 for additional information on past transportation projects involving landform modification in the Project area.

Requiring review by the City ARB and County BAR is standard and acceptable mitigation to address potentially significant aesthetic impacts. (CMC § 2.36.100; County Coastal Land Use Plan, Policy 4-1; see also EIR Section 3.1.2.3.) The City ARB and County BAR are charged with reviewing the aesthetics and design of projects, and have the authority to recommend revisions to design details, as needed, to enhance aesthetics. Designing new man made features such as trail fencing, bridge color and railing details, and lighting (if any) would help to ensure that these features reflect quality design and are appropriate to the character of the existing setting.

The approval of the Project design by the City ARB and County BAR is important to ensure the physical elements of the Project, including fencing, the UPRR Bridge, and pavement treatments are consistent throughout the Project, 23938349.5
regardless of jurisdiction. The scale of these improvements will, however, remain subordinate to the overall scale of the Project and visibility of the resulting graded areas. In regard to grading, the slopes to be modified have not formed naturally, but instead resulted from former transportation project grading. These slopes are currently very regular, consisting of inclined planes, rather than the undulating landforms produced by natural erosion processes; relatively sparse vegetation has established over time within these steeply graded slopes. The new slopes would have a similar overall appearance at distance to the existing slopes but would at first be lacking any vegetation. One of the more important aspects of ensuring the Project’s visual impacts would be mitigated is the planting of the slope areas to more closely re-create the visual character of the most visible elements within the Project alignment. While presented as a biological resources mitigation measure, MM-BIO-5 would also mitigate impacts to the existing visual resources of the Project alignment.

Comment I-32-3 (see Final EIR, pp. 180) stating that “[t]he proposed removal of 92,526 cubic yards of the existing Little Diamondhead Bluff, will be an elimination of a regional coastal resource” is neither a comment on the adequacy of the EIR nor an accurate description of the Project proposal. Although grading for the entire trail, from the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue to the Rincon Beach County Park, would involve 92,526 cubic yards; this total volume was not proposed to be taken out of “Little Diamondhead” formation alone. Only the western nose of “Little Diamondhead” would be reshaped, leaving most of the “Little Diamondhead” feature intact. The appellant also fails to clearly note which section of the EIR is allegedly inadequate with respect to the regrading, but not removal, of the “Little Diamondhead” feature.

With regard to the Project following the natural contours of the landscape (Coastal Act Policy 30251 and CLUP Policy 4-3), the EIR explains that the entire Project alignment is located on topography that has been regraded from earlier transportation projects including the Southern Pacific rail line and State Highway

2. The overly steep slopes in this area are not natural and are prone to excessive erosion. The Project would regrade this artificial slope angle to be somewhat less steep, resulting in a very similar appearance to the present conditions, but resulting in greater long-term stability and encouraging the establishment of more vegetative ground cover. For the purposes of CEQA, local agencies have the discretion to determine whether a proposed Project is “compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the applicable plan.” (Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance v. County of San Bernardino, (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 677, 694-697.) A project is only found to be inconsistent with a policy when it is “clearly” inconsistent with a “fundamental, mandatory and specific” policy. (Id. at 697.) As a result, the Planning Commission could find that the EIR contains substantial evidence to support that the proposed Project with 23938349.5
mitigation does not constitute a significant adverse impact on aesthetics and is consistent with applicable policies.

A2-5 Consistent with CEQA, the Recreation Section of the EIR describes the environmental setting and existing conditions of the Project, including the history of soaring over the Project alignment as well as other unsanctioned pedestrian trails and crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad (“UPRR”) tracks. (EIR, § 3.11.1; CEQA Guidelines, §15125.) Both soaring activities and pedestrian trails were incorporated into the environmental setting and baseline for the analysis of significant impacts to the environment consistent with the cases cited in the appeal letter. As such, the EIR does evaluate the Project’s potential significant environmental impacts on the environment relative to the existing baseline conditions, including soaring activities.

The appeal letter also states that the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) recognizes the “Bates Bluff airspace” and cites to a commenter’s statement that soaring activities are “fully legal and sanctioned.” (FEIR, p. 215.) CEQA requires findings to be supported by substantial evidence. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064(f)(5), 15204(c), 15384.) Substantial evidence includes “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(b).) Substantial evidence is not “argument, speculation [or] unsubstantiated opinion or narrative…” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a); see Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 583.) The appeal letter and commenter do not support these assertions with substantial evidence that soaring activities are legal and sanctioned in this area.

The EIR further evaluates the proposed Project for inconsistencies with federal, state and local law, regulations, plans and policies. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(d).) These policies include Federal Aviation Regulation (“FAR”) Part 103, Federal Aviation Regulation, Ultralight Vehicles, which generally apply to soaring activities in “ultralight vehicles” such as paragliders and hang gliders. Section 103.15 of the FAA Regulations states that “[n]o person may operate an ultralight vehicle over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons.” (14 C.F.R. § 103.15 [emphasis added].) In addition, FAA administrative materials state that FAA Regulation Section 91.119(b) applies to operation of ultralight vehicles and “prohibits operating an aircraft over any congested area below an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.” (In the Matter of: David C.

Siddall, 2008 WL 4948486, *3; 14 C.F.R. § 91.119(b).) The City is not aware of whether the appropriate FAA official has issued a case specific determination authorizing the use of the airspace above the trail alignment for ultralight vehicles, including hang gliders and paragliders, based on applicable FAA regulations.
23938349.5
The Assistant Director of the Santa Barbara County Community Services District also submitted a letter (see City Council staff report Attachment J) stating that County Code section 26-22 applies to the Rincon Beach County Park. County Code section 26-22, Landing Aircraft, also specifically states:

No person shall land, launch or operate any aircraft, including, without limitation, any balloon designed to carry passengers, airplane, hang glider, ultralight airplane, glider, drone or flying apparatus on or within any county recreation area except in case of emergency or with the prior written permission of the director of community services or deputy. (emphasis added.)
The appellant and commenter have not provided evidence that they or other have obtained prior written permission from the County director of community service or deputy to operate an aircraft within Rincon Beach County Park.

Additionally, as part of the City’s research for the appeal and a request to investigate the viability of a “flight park” by a member of the Soaring Community, the City contacted Mr. John King, the managing member of the Rincon Bluffs Group, LLC, and owner of the property near the east end of Bluffs III where free flight pilots typically launch to access the airspace above the trail alignment. Mr.

King indicated that he recently recorded a “Notice of Consent to Use Land,” which allows for members of the public to use the property as a scenic look out and/or paragliding launch site, subject to the owner’s approval. (See City Council staff report Attachment I.) City staff also contacted UPRR, who confirmed that no such permission to use UPRR property for launching or landing of aircraft has been or would be granted, and requested the City submit information sufficient for UPRR to consider pursuing a cease and desist order.

Thus, the appellants have not provided substantial evidence that refutes the information presented in the EIR and from the County Code that soaring activities above a portion of the Project alignment are expressly authorized by the FAA and County. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384; see Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 583.) Notwithstanding the above, the EIR adequately considers existing free flight activities and evaluates how the Project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment based on this baseline.

A2-6 Neither the analysis provided in the EIR, nor the public comments submitted to date, have demonstrated that the proposed Project or Alternative 3 would destroy free flight in the area. Notwithstanding that recreational activities are not part of the “environment” for the purposes of CEQA, the City’s consultant commissioned an independent Airflow Analysis to evaluate the potential impacts on the 23938349.5
opportunity for free flight. (See Pub. Res. Code, § 21060.5; CEQA Guidelines, § 15360 [defining “environment”]; see also City of Pasadena v. State of California (1993) 14 Cal.App.4th 810, 829, [“CEQA does not address the purely social effects of a project.”]; Preserve Poway v. City of Poway (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 560, 566, 579-580 [finding an EIR did not need to analyze the social impact associated with loss of community character associated with closing a horse boarding facility]; Save Our Access-San Gabriel Mountains v. Watershed Conservation Auth. (2021) 68 Cal. App. 5th 8, 24-26, review denied (Dec. 15, 2021) [displacement of visitors who would use recreational areas due to reduced availability of parking is a social impact]; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(e) [“Evidence of economic and social impacts that do not contribute to or are caused by physical changes in the environment is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.”].) This Airflow Analysis relied upon in the EIR concluded, based on a variety of cited sources, there could be up to a 30% reduction in favorable wind conditions 30 feet above the bluff face across an approximately 1,790 foot portion of the trail alignment and that such reduction was a less than significant impact to soaring activities.

Despite the contrary statement in the appeal, Alternative 4 would not meet all stated Project objectives. Specifically, Alternative 4 would not best meet the intent of Objectives 5 and 7, to create a multi-use path that improves coastal access and recreation opportunities by completing a critical missing link in the CA Coastal Trail in a manner that is consistent with the goals of Senate Bill 908 (2001). Alternative 4 would also fail to do anything to stabilize the eroding coastal bluffs on the south side of the UPRR crossing (Objective 4).

With respect to the potentially significant impacts identified in the EIR, the appellants’ allegation that Alternative 4 is the least environmentally damaging alternative is not supported by the record. With regard to the analysis of recreation impacts, refer to response to comment no. A2-3 (above). Alternative 4 would increase the volume of earthwork, as compared to the proposed Project or Alternative 3. (See EIR Section 6; EIR p. 6-20.) Because of the increased earthwork, impacts on air quality & greenhouse gasses, energy, geology, noise, hydrology and transportation would also likely increase under Alternative 4. While reductions in vertical and horizontal airflow over the bluffs would be avoided with Alternative 4, no significant impacts have been identified in relation to air flow reductions resulting from the Project or Alternative 3. Consequently, Alternative 4 is not the least environmentally damaging alternative; Alternative 3 (with the slightly narrower pathway southeast of the UPRR alignment) is the environmentally superior alternative.

Lastly, this comment references certain comments in the record to support the above assertions and suggests that the EIR provides incomplete responses to 23938349.5
multiple commenters regarding the ability of Alternative 4 to avoid impacts of the Project related to the loss of soaring opportunities from wind flow reductions. It is common practice in preparing responses to comments as part of an EIR to refer the reader back to previous comments that address the issue raised and/or provide a general response. (See CEQA Guideline, §§ 15088(c), 15204(a).) 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.

23938349.5
Response to Appeal Letter A2 Continued
“Attachment 1”
“RE: Formal Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, Rincon Trail Project” Santa Barbara Soaring Association
January 28, 2022
A2-7 Please refer to response to comment no. A2-3, above, for a more in depth response.

A2-8 Mr. Dennis Pagen’s comment letter prefaces the detailed comments section with, “[t]o 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…” Mr. Pagen does not dismiss the entire analysis as inadequate or inaccurate, and in fact provides critique of only four aspects of the Airflow Analysis (Luzzatto-Feliz, 2021). While Mr. Pagen asserts the study methodology should be adjusted to more accurately predict a change to the wind flow patterns from the Project, he does not provide substantial evidence, such as suggested numeric adjustments to accompany model parameters of which he is critical. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384.) Professor Paolo Luzzatto-Feliz has prepared a response letter to Mr. Pagen’s comment letter, in which he refutes the arguments presented by Mr. Pagen; the reader is referred to Professor Luzzatto-Feliz’s response for detailed information (refer to Exhibit 2, Luzzatto-Feliz 2022).

A2-9 The appellant does not cite to any evidence to support the assertion that “CEQA requires all forms of recreation to be valued equally.” As discussed above in response to comment no. A2-3, the EIR evaluates the proposed Project based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. There is no language in the checklist that compels the examination of one form of recreation relative to another recreational resource.

In considering the merits of a project, however, a lead agency can evaluate the advantages and drawbacks associated with the proposed project design and corresponding alternatives. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal. 3d 376, 392, 764 P.2d 278, 283 (1988), as modified on denial of reh'g (Jan. 26, 1989) [“The EIR process protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.”].) The CEQA Guidelines state it is an implicit policy in CEQA “that decisions be informed and balanced” and that “[i]t must not be subverted into an instrument for … delay of social, economic, or recreational development or advancement. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15003(j) [citations omitted].) As such, the EIR evaluates and describes various considerations associated with the proposed Project.
23938349.5
Currently, pedestrians and some cyclists use informal pathways from the east end of Carpinteria Avenue, and across the UPRR, in order to reach Rincon Beach County Park without using a motor vehicle. It is currently unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists to use these routes; the proposed Project would not only provide walking and cycling opportunities for residents and visitors but it would also create a safe, physical link between the Carpinteria Bluffs Preserve and Rincon Beach County Park for cyclist and pedestrian travelers. The proposed Project also has great recreational value in closing a gap in the local segment of the California Coastal Trail system. All of these recreation benefits would derive from the Project, even if the Project may result in a potential reduction in the frequency of days where airflow velocities could provide ideal free flight opportunities above the Project.

Moreover, as discussed above in the response to comments nos. A2-1 through A2-3, in the EIR and Airflow Analysis, the topographic modifications associated with the Project would not be anticipated to eliminate soaring opportunities above the Project alignment.

A2-10 The purpose in an EIR of examining alternatives to the proposed project is primarily to determine if the major objectives of the project could be achieved in a manner that reduces potential impacts on the environment, compared to the proposed project. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6.) Because of the concerns regarding earthwork volumes raised by the County and California Coastal Commission, the examination of alternatives to the Project focused on means of reducing earthwork volumes, while still providing a trail that closes the existing local gap in the California Coastal Trail System. (See Attachment C, Exhibit 1 Proposed Final EIR, Section 6, and Attachment C, Exhibit 2 Draft EIR, Section 6). A total of 4 alternatives were examined, and it was found that earthwork volumes could not be reduced to a substantial degree under any of the alternatives. Examining other alternatives is beyond the requirements of CEQA, which stipulates the range of alternatives examined need not be exhaustive. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) & (d); City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 414; South of Market Community Action Network v. City & County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 345.) With respect to the excerpted passage from the County Coastal Land Use Plan, "… recreational uses on oceanfront lands, both public and private, that do not require extensive alteration to the natural environment… shall have priority,” the Project alignment consists of heavily modified terrain remnant from former transportation facilities. The slopes and benches the Project seeks to grade to accommodate the trail are not natural in form and would be re-graded to increase long-term stability. Please refer to the previous response to comment no. A1-3, above, for further discussion of alternatives.
23938349.5
Further, the portions of the proposed trail alignment located in the County’s jurisdiction are designated for transportation and recreation uses. A public multiuse pathway is consistent with the types of land uses anticipated in both land use designations/zoning districts. Locating a multi-use trail in the area, connecting Carpinteria to Rincon Beach County Park, has been designated as a high priority regional alternative transportation project, is identified as a planned capital project in the City’s General Plan/Coastal Plan, and has been made a required condition of approval of the Linden Avenue and Casitas Pass Interchanges and Via Real Extension Project (No. 09-1522-CUP/CDP).

The Project has been designed in an effort to minimize environmental impacts, including but not limited to landform modification and earthwork quantities while still achieving the stated Project objectives and fulfilling the intent of the various policy and regulatory mechanisms triggering this Project. The physical and environmental constraints of the Project area are such that providing a multi-use trail through the Project area that does not result in any alterations of the area would be infeasible.

Lastly, despite the “historic” use of the area by free-flight enthusiasts, County Code section 26-22, Landing Aircraft, specifically prohibits the landing, launching or operation of any aircraft, including, without limitation, any balloon designed to carry passengers, airplane, hang glider, ultralight airplane, glider, drone or flying apparatus on or within any county recreation area except in case of emergency or with the prior written permission of the director of community services or deputy. The Assistant Director of the County Community Services Department submitted a letter confirming that this section applies to the Rincon Beach County Park. (see City Council staff report Attachment J.) The City is not aware that the County has provided permission for free flight above or within the Rincon Beach County Park. Please refer to the previous response to comment no. A1-5, above, for further discussion.

A2-11 The proposed trail is not intended to solely serve cyclists or provide a direct connection to the continuation of the Pacific Coast Bikeway, which commences at Bates Road and continues southbound along the U.S. Highway 101 shoulder.

Rather, the proposed trail is intended to be a multi-use pathway that can serve a variety of different trail users with different objectives, including but not limited to pedestrians, beachgoers, park visitors and cyclists. Further, part of the intent for designing a coastal trail is to offer a safe, legal, convenient and attractive alternative to the present use by the public of informal trails that trespass through UPRR property to connect Carpinteria to Rincon Beach, or that travel along the unprotected shoulder of U.S. Highway 101.
23938349.5
A trail that runs along the U.S. Highway 101 shoulder from SR 150 to Bates Road may benefit cyclists wishing to continue their ride on the Pacific Coast Bikeway, but it would not materially improve access to Rincon Beach County Park or its vertical coastal access points. In such a scenario, beachgoers (whether as pedestrians or cyclists) would instead still be faced with climbing the hill through the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot to reach the coastal access points in the park, and would then have to descend the same hill to exit the park and return to the trail back to Carpinteria. Also, there is a greater likelihood that pedestrians and cyclists wishing to visit Rincon Beach County Park would continue to opt for the more direct informal trespass trails across the UPRR corridor to connect Carpinteria to the County Park.

The termination of the proposed trail at the western terminus of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot was reviewed and evaluated by the City’s consulting traffic engineer. (See Exhibit 3, memorandum from TKM Engineering, dated February 17, 2022; see also City Council staff report Attachment C, Exhibit 3- EIR, Appendix J.). In the memo, Mr. Mericle noted that routing bicycle paths into parking areas is a common practice in the coastal Santa Barbara and Ventura area, and has not been found to pose a safety hazard. Rather, the introduction of additional pedestrians and cyclists into an already slow speed mixed traffic area is likely to further encourage drivers to exercise greater caution in traveling through the parking lot. The parking lot drive aisle width near the trail entrance/exit provides more than the standard width needed for this parking/drive aisle arrangement, which provides additional opportunity for maneuverability to reduce negative interaction between vehicles, cyclists and/or pedestrians. The eastern end of the proposed trail approaching Rincon Beach County Park is generally flat, such that cyclists and other trail users approaching the parking lot would not significantly change their speed. The western portion of the parking lot is similarly relatively flat. By the time cyclists reach the steeper downhill section towards the eastern end of the parking lot, the cyclists are already integrated into the slow speed mixed traffic environment of the parking lot.

A2-12 Please refer to the previous response to comment no. A1-5, above, in the Karl Cameron appeal letter and Exhibit 1.

A2-13 Please refer to the previous response to comment no. A1-2 in the Karl Cameron appeal letter.

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

23938349.5
Response to Appeal Letter A2 Continued
“Appendix A”
“Corrections to the Final EIR of December 2021”
Santa Barbara Soaring Association
January 28, 2022
A2-14 Please refer to response to comment no. A2-5, above.

A2-15 As discussed above in response to comment no. A2-3, the environmental setting of the Recreation Section of the EIR describes the history of soaring activities over the Project alignment; this comment and others on the Draft EIR have provided more detailed comments about the aspects of the local topography that are beneficial to wind patterns that support soaring activities. The Airflow Analysis and supplemental response in Exhibit 2 have carefully considered the existing topographic conditions and resulting wind patterns, and subsequently evaluates the changes to these air flow patterns from the proposed topographic modifications to implement the trail Project.

A2-16 “Little Diamondhead” is not proposed to be removed by the Project. The existing ridgeline throughout the Project alignment will remain largely at the current crest elevation and with slope faces oriented toward the ocean that remain steeper than 2:1. The Airflow Analysis has carefully considered the existing topographic conditions and resulting wind patterns, and subsequently evaluates the changes to these air flow patterns from the proposed topographic modifications to implement the trail Project. Please refer also to response to comment no. A2-1 through A2-3, above, for additional discussion.

A2-17 The City has used the term “unsanctioned” with respect to soaring activities above the trail alignment chiefly due to existing prohibitions to launch or land on certain public and private properties including Caltrans right-of-way, County Property (including, Rincon Beach County Park), and the UPRR right-of-way.

While private property owners in the vicinity of the bluffs supporting soaring may allow take-off or landing that supports soaring over the Project alignment, the absence of authorized landing sites represents a constraint to legal use of the low altitude airspace above the Project alignment. The County, however, generally prohibits free flight above the Rincon Beach County Park. (See City Council staff report Attachment J.)
The primary launch site for soaring activities occurs on private property, and is informally used. The launch site has not been officially sanctioned or recognized by the City. The private property(s), however, generally appear to have not prohibited launch activities to occur on their property historically and may grant 23938349.5
permission for launch activities. (See City Council staff report Attachment I) Likewise, the informal launch site is not currently recognized as, zoned for, or designated as a glider park or similar public recreational facility. Please see response to comment no. A2-5, above, for additional discussion.

A2-18 Pedestrians and cyclists traveling along an unprotected shoulder immediately adjacent to a federal highway with high traffic volumes and high travel speeds is inherently dangerous. (EIR, pg. 3-12.) In most circumstances where a suitable alternative route is available, pedestrians and cyclists are prohibited from traveling along the highway shoulder due to the potential safety risks. Informal and unprotected crossings of the UPRR corridor is trespassing through private property and also poses a significant safety hazard. According to a 2019 report prepared by the Santa Barbara County Grand Jury, there were a total of 20 railroad-related fatal accidents in Santa Barbara County during the four-year period from 2015 through 2018.1 Of those 20 deaths, 19 (or 95% of the fatalities) were the result of pedestrian trespassing on the UPRR rail right-of-way.

Replacing informal and unsanctioned railroad crossings with a safe and legal alternative improves public safety and guarantees the use of this public access way for the future.

The City’s consulting traffic engineer has reviewed the proposed Project, including the eastern termination of the trail into the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot, and concluded that such a design does not pose a significant safety hazard. (See Exhibit 3, memorandum from TKM Engineering, dated February 17, 2022; see also City Council staff report Attachment C, Exhibit 3- EIR, Appendix J.) Numerous examples of mixed traffic environments are found throughout the coastal Santa Barbara area (e.g., Shoreline Park/Ledbetter Beach parking lots; Butterfly Beach; Oil Piers Beach, etc.) where pedestrians and cyclists intermix with vehicles in a slow travel speed environment without experiencing significant safety impacts to pedestrians, cyclists or motorists.

A2-19 The existing informal crossing at Bluffs I that provides access to the Seal Rookery from the Carpinteria Bluffs Open Space Preserve is an unsanctioned crossing. Future improvement of this crossing is anticipated in the City’s General Plan and Bluffs Open Space Master Plan. It is expected that as part of any future development proposal on Bluffs I, a formalized rail crossing would be established.

While foot traffic across the UPRR corridor in the Project vicinity is unsanctioned and considered trespassing, soaring activities in the area also conflict with other

1 See Santa Barbara Superior Court, 2018-2019 Grand Jury Report, Railway Fatalities in Santa Barbara County (June 13, 2019) available at http://www.sbcgj.org/2019/RailwayFatalities.pdf. 23938349.5
regulations specific to flying in the area. Further, part of the intent of the proposed Project is to address and correct the unsanctioned pedestrian and cyclist crossing of the UPRR corridor by providing a safe, formalized and legal crossing recognized by UPRR and the CA Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”).

Please see response to comment no. A2-5, above, for additional information.

A2-20 Commenters have asserted that “no aviation rules are being violated at this site.” These assertions, however, do not provide substantial evidence that the FAA has officially recognized the legality of the “Bates Bluff airspace” or that the soaring activities are “fully legal and sanctioned.” CEQA requires findings to be supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence includes “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(b).) Substantial evidence is not “argument, speculation [or] unsubstantiated opinion or narrative…” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384(a); see Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 583.) The appeal letter and commenter do not support these assertions with substantial evidence that soaring activities are legal and sanctioned in this area.

Please see response to comment no. A2-5, above, for additional information.

A2-21 This statement is correct in so much as the proposed trail Project would not impact the glider’s launch site. Discussion of the launch site is provided for the purposes of context, both to help explain how the pilots access and utilize the area for their flights, but also to acknowledge the informal nature of the activity in this location. The EIR analysis of free flight does not consider the preferred launch site as the grounds to disqualify free flight from CEQA.

A2-22 The EIR describes that the most common launch area is under private ownership, without any covenant that guarantees the continued use of the property for launch activities. The Project will not affect the launch site, this is correct. But the continued use of the private property for launching of soaring activities is not secured, and therefore the future of soaring opportunities accessed from said site cannot be taken for granted or assumed.

Notwithstanding, the informal nature of the launch site does not factor into the analysis and conclusions drawn in the EIR with respect to impact significance.

Rather the information about the launch site is provided for the purpose of context. Please see response to comment no. A2-5, above, for additional information.

A2-23 Neither Mr. Dennis Pagen, nor any other member of the soaring community has provided a quantitative evaluation refuting the findings of the Airflow Analysis (Luzzatto-Feliz, 2021). In fact, Mr. Pagen generally acknowledges that he “examined the various graphs and equations [in the Airflow Analysis] and find them to be reasonable and accurate, except for a few caveats…” which he lists. 23938349.5
(See Appendix B to Appeal Letter A2, p. 1, below.) Professor Luzzatto-Fegiz reviewed Mr. Pagen’s comment letter and has prepared a detailed response refuting the concerns raised by Mr. Pagen. (See Exhibit 2.) The statement that “flight can only be maintained at Little Diamondhead if the existing geological features remain intact” is not supported by facts. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064(f)(5), 15204(c), 15384.) As supported by the Airflow Analysis and Professor Luzzatto-Fegiz’s response, a small portion of “Little Diamondhead” (the nose of the ridge as it descends to the UPRR tracks) would be re-graded for the trail; this amount of modification is very slight compared to the total ridge length, and would not eliminate the existing air flow currently supporting soaring over the majority of the bluff face / ridge top.

A2-24 It is not clear what location on County property this comment refers to when discussing rare windy days where pilots launch outside of the Rincon Beach County Park or any private property.

Areas below the “standard” launch site on the bluff face are located in UPRR right-of-way, which is private property. The appellant has not provided evidence that launching from this location is authorized for recreational use generally by UPRR or launch of hang gliders or paragliders, specifically.

If the appellant is referring to County property, it should be noted that the County does not permit launching from County recreation areas under County Code section 26-22. The City is not aware that the County has granted explicit permission to launch from areas owned by the County of Santa Barbara outside of a recreation area; however, given the County has generally prohibited launching and landing within the Rincon Beach County Park without permission, absent evidence that the County has granted permission, it can be assumed that permission to launch from the area below the bluff is not permissible under the County Code. (See City Council staff report Attachment J.) Please refer to response to comment A2-5, above, for additional discussion.

A2-25 With respect to the excerpted passage from the County Coastal Land Use Plan, "…recreational uses on oceanfront lands, both public and private, that do not require extensive alteration to the natural environment… shall have priority,” (County Coastal Land Use Plan, Policy 7-6) the Project alignment consists of heavily modified terrain remnant from former transportation facilities. The slopes and benches the Project seeks to grade to accommodate the trail are not natural in form and would be re-graded to increase long-term stability.

The proposed trail use is consistent with the types of land uses anticipated in the transportation and recreation land use categories and the corresponding zone districts. Please refer to response to comment no. A2-4, above. 23938349.5
A2-26 Testimony provided by the soaring community at various public hearings may qualify as expert opinions with respect to personal soaring experience above various landform types, in given wind regimes. Soaring pilots are definitely wellversed in soaring characteristics and are very qualified to compile observations such as, “a steeper and higher bluff face leads to stronger uplifts.” And this comment refers to the type of evidence offered by members of the soaring community, with intimate knowledge of the wind flow over existing terrain, gathered from flights. Such pilots, however, are not experts in determining with any specificity the quantitative changes to airflow that would result from a detailed engineering plan prepared for the re-grading of the existing topography into the Project-resultant topography. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064(f)(5), 15204(c), 15384.) Mr. Pagen claims to have the engineering experience to provide such analysis, and yet he does not in his comment letter specify the changes to be made to any assumptions for the modeling, or quantitative corrections to include as revisions to the Airflow Analysis (Luzzatto-Feliz, 2021).

The soaring community has therefore not provided substantial evidence that the Project would have a significant impact on soaring opportunities nor that such impact would constitute a significant adverse impact on the environment to directly refute the air flow analysis or the EIR’s conclusions. Please refer to response to comment no. A2-5, above, for additional discussion.

A2-27 Again, Aaron LaPlante is a certified pilot, however, he is not a fluid dynamic engineer. His detailed account of how the trail will drastically affect airflow is in fact generalized conjecture without the benefit of any quantitative evaluation based upon Project grading plans. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064(f)(5), 15204(c), 15384.) The link to the video is part of the public record and has been made available to all decision makers as part of the public comments submitted for the Project.

A2-28 Refer to responses to comments no. A2-26 and A2-27, above. Mr. Dennis Pagen, an engineer with flying experience, took the opportunity to comment and he did not provide detail to support any different conclusion. Specifically, he states “[t]he air flow reduction would be greater than 20%.” However, he does not provide substantial evidence or calculations to support this assertion. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15064(f)(5), 15204(c), 15384.) The Airflow Analysis (LuzzattoFeliz, 2021), is substantiated, but the appellants’ and commenters’ criticisms of the Airflow Analysis conclusions have not been substantiated with substantial evidence or technical analysis.

A2-29 The Airflow Analysis (Luzzatto-Feliz, 2021) provides evidence that the Project would not result in the elimination of local air flow patterns that typically support soaring activities. Mr. Dennis Pagen indicates some assumptions that he 23938349.5
believes should be changed, but he neither identifies the manner to improve the assumptions for the analysis, nor the outcome or conclusions of the analysis were other assumptions to be employed instead. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15384.) Please refer to Paolo Luzzatto-Feliz’s response to Mr. Denis Pagen’s letter, where he refutes the concerns raised (Exhibit 2, Luzzatto-Feliz, 2022).

A2-30 Thank you for pointing out that parasailing involves a tow boat; the term is easily confused with paragliding, which is a soaring or free-flight activity using a frameless parachute. The parasailing reference in Exhibit 2 should be “paragliding” instead. However, the assertion that no “data or evidence” has been provided regarding the airflow impacts of the Project is incorrect; the Airflow Analysis (Luzzatto-Feliz, 2021), prepared by a highly qualified expert in fluiddynamics, provides data and evidence to support the conclusions reached in the EIR.

A2-31 Wind gradient effects are explicitly included in the Airflow Analysis (LuzzattoFeliz, 2021); please refer to Professor Paolo Luzzatto-Feliz’s response to Mr.

Dennis Pagen’s letter for detailed discussion of wind gradient (Exhibit 2, Luzzatto-Feliz, 2022). One of the links provided in the comment is for a technical paper by Crawley & Schmanske; this paper was considered during preparation of the Airflow Analysis (Luzzatto-Feliz, 2021), as evidenced by the references to the Airflow Analysis [Crawley, E. F., & Schmanske, M. (1994): Optimum ridge lift: A scaled experimental investigation. Technical Soaring, 18(4), 120–128]. The second link provided in the comment is to an introductory-level primer on lift conditions along a ridge, which are described in greater detail in Mr. Pagen’s publications cited in the Airflow Analysis (Luzzatto-Feliz, 2021). The turbulence effects cited in the comment letter were also included in the Airflow Analysis (Luzzatto-Feliz, 2021), based on works by Belcher & Hunt (1998), Bowen (1980), and Jackson & Hunt (1975).

A2-32 As a dedicated commercial facility offering both launch space and soaring lessons, Torrey Pines Gliderport (“TPG”) has well-documented and substantiated data regarding the range of horizontal wind conditions that generally support launching of tandem and solo gliders. This range of wind speeds was one data point, among others in the Airflow Analysis, in determining if the magnitude of potential horizontal wind speed reductions resulting from proposed slope modification associated with the Project could eliminate conditions favorable to launching hang-gliders and paragliders in the vicinity of the Project alignment.

As indicted in the Airflow Analysis (Luzzatto-Feliz, 2021) and response to Mr.

Dennis Pagen’s letter (Exhibit 2, Luzzatto-Feliz, 2022), modifications to “Little Diamondhead” are not anticipated to substantially reduce horizontal or vertical wind speeds in the low altitude air space above this ridge. 23938349.5
A2-33 The stability of the resulting slopes is addressed in Section 3.5 of the EIR; the minor reduction in the slope angle above the trail bench is intended to greatly improve the long-term stability of these slopes. The primary reason for former slope failure along the former railroad alignment was the creation of artificial slopes steeper than the natural slope angles. The proposed Project drainage system specifically addresses drainage control to minimize storm-water erosion within the Project alignment, and sea-level rise impacts are specifically also addressed in the EIR (Section 3.8).

As stated in the EIR (p. 3.8-12) by the Year 2100, there is a 2% probability of a 5- foot rise in sea level elevation along the coast adjacent to Carpinteria Bluffs and Rincon Point. Accelerated erosion would primarily result from wave action superimposed on the higher elevation sea level surface); however, the anticipated acceleration of bluff retreat rates from sea level rise have not been quantified. The proposed trail is set back from the base of the bluffs by a distance ranging between 60 and 100 feet horizontally. Even if the bluff retreat rates were to double from the influence of sea level rise (i.e., 1 foot per year), the closest portion of the trail to the base of the existing sea cliff would represent a horizontal distance equivalent to 60 years of erosion. While storm drain outlets on the bluff face may need to be periodically repaired or replaced in this 60-year period, the trail itself likely would not be threatened within this timeframe. For transportation infrastructure, a useful life of 50-75 years is typically employed (50 years for pavement, 75 years for bridges, Caltrans 2018). (EIR, p. 3.8-12.) A2-34 The City, as the lead agency, has the discretion to consider a reasonable range of alternatives that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the Project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the environmental effects of the Project. (CEQA Guideline, § 15126.6(a) & (d); City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 414; South of Market Community Action Network v. City & County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 345.) The level of analysis of each alternative also is subject to a rule of reason and does not need to be an exhaustive evaluation of each alternative. (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 547.) An EIR need only contain sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. (Id.; CEQA Guideline § 15126.6(f).) Please refer to the previous response to comment no. A1-3, above, for further discussion of alternatives.

The purpose in an EIR of examining alternatives to the proposed project is primarily to determine if the major objectives of the project could be achieved in a manner that reduces potential impacts on the environment, compared to the proposed project. One of the key objectives for the Project, which has been identified since the 1980’s, is to close the existing local gap in the California 23938349.5
Coastal Trail (CCT) system. With regard to Carpinteria, a trail consistent with the goals and objectives of the CCT would be located between the very busy U.S.

Highway 101 Corridor and the Pacific Ocean. Within this area, a total of four alternatives were examined to reduce potential impacts of the Project on the natural environment. Examining other alternatives is beyond the requirements of CEQA, which stipulates the range of alternatives examined need not be exhaustive. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) & (d); City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 414; South of Market Community Action Network v. City & County of San Francisco (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 321, 345.) The suggestion of providing a barrier separation between vehicle traffic on U.S. Highway 101 and cyclists along the shoulder of the southbound lanes “similar to the continuance of the trail, east of Bates Road” ignores the fact that a bluff is not present between the bike path and the ocean southward/eastward of Bates Road; ocean views are available to cyclists as they use the existing path. Hence, such an alternative could not be found to have met key Project objectives. It also overlooks horizontal space limitations that exist within this portion of the U.S. Highway 101 corridor, where a third travel lane was recently added, without expanding the right-of-way width for the freeway.

The statement, “The City has not provided substantial evidence and/or sufficient analysis of exploring any alternatives on… the north side of “Little Diamondhead,” which is aligned with the U.S. 101 southbound side of the highway” is conclusory and inaccurate. In fact, discussion with the community led to the development of the completely new “Alternative 4”, which has been added to the EIR, and studied with substantial effort.

A2-35 The Final EIR provides a written response to each and every comment received on the Draft EIR consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15088. (See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15088(c), 15204(a).) While the comment presents a broad allegation of the inadequacy of the content of responses in the Final EIR, no specific examples are given of individual responses that are inadequate. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15088(c), 15204(a).) The implication that the “majority” of the responses are inadequate is conclusory. The majority of the Planning Commission present at the hearing in voting to accept and certify the EIR for the Project found the EIR to be sufficient and to have satisfied the statutory and procedural requirements of CEQA.

A2-36 The approval of the Project design by the City ARB and County BAR is important to ensure the physical elements of the Project, including fencing, the UPRR Bridge, and pavement treatments are consistent throughout the Project, regardless of jurisdiction. The scale and appearance of these improvements will, however, remain subordinate to the overall scale of the Project and visibility of the resulting graded areas. In regard to grading, the slopes to be modified have 23938349.5
not formed naturally, but instead resulted from former transportation Project grading. These slopes are currently very regular, consisting of inclined planes, rather than the undulating landforms produced by natural erosion processes; relatively sparse vegetation has established over time within these steeply graded slopes. The new slopes would have a similar overall appearance at distance to the existing slopes but would at first be lacking any vegetation. One of the more important aspects of ensuring the Project visual impacts would be mitigated is the planting of the slope areas, to more closely re-create the visual character of the most visible elements within the Project alignment.

While presented as a biology mitigation, MM-BIO-5 would also provide additional mitigation by restoring native habitat on the current, over-steeped manufactured slopes that dominate the existing visual resources of the Project alignment.

Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-5 is provided below:

MM-BIO-5 Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Prior to approval of a coastal development permit, the City shall contract with a qualified biologist to develop a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Plan (Plan) to mitigate for impacts to County ESH/City ESHA vegetation communities. The Plan shall outline efforts to restore or enhance coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub communities, and, therefore, preserve or provide wildlife habitat, in areas temporarily impacted by construction of the trail and within similar habitats adjacent to the impacted biological resources.

Please also refer to response to comment no. A2-4, above, for additional information.

A2-37 The concrete “rip rap” which was placed by Caltrans at the outfall of their storm drain will remain because, as has been previously stated, this area is outside of the footprint of the Project. (FEIR, response to Comment Letter 01, pg. 63 of PDF).

In terms of “gullification” of the four drains constructed by the Project, two already exist and will be replaced; so the Project only introduces two new drains. All the drains will be buried to minimize visual impact. One of the old drains, namely the rusted old storm drain which exists on the beach will be replaced with a new, smaller, buried drain.

As part of the design process, the engineers have specifically addressed impacts to the beach to avoid such “gullification”. Therefore a plan to “spread out” the water, using more drains, coupled with natural rock placed strategically at the outfall to dissipate energy from the flowing water, has been implemented.

Mitigation is also included to require the ongoing upkeep and maintenance of 23938349.5
these drainage facilities for the life of the Project in order to ensure proper functioning of storm drainage improvements. (EIR Section 3.8, pg. 3.8-16).

A2-38 Refer to responses to comments nos. A2-1 and A2-2 of the Orbach Huff & Henderson LLP appeal letter.

A2-39 If constructed as proposed, the trail Project would indeed offer an alternative to vehicle travel at the very least between the eastern terminus of Carpinteria Avenue/Carpinteria Bluffs Preserve and Rincon Beach County Park/Rincon Point residential neighborhood. However, given it closes a gap in the already extensive local portion of the California Coastal Trail system, the likelihood is that it will effectively support cycling as an alternative transportation mode between Ventura and Carpinteria. As such, Measure A funds applied to the Project are completely appropriate.

A2-40 Analysis of the stability of the completed slopes is one component of the engineering required for this Project, and the geology here is fairly complex.

Therefore, the City’s “assessment” included investigation and analysis on multiple levels, by multiple engineers from different disciplines (Civil Engineers, Engineering Geologists, Geotechnical Engineers) whose work included field testing, trenching, test pits, borings, record searches, and reviews of previously completed projects, in addition to computer modeling and numerical analysis.

It is important to note that this ridgeline is not a natural landform, instead it is a remnant left over from many grading operations which started with the original construction of the Southern Pacific Railroad in the late 1800’s. After building the railroad, this ridgeline has been altered again and again. Projects subsequent to the railroad include the construction of Hwy 2 in 1929, more work to Hwy 2 in 1937, a realignment of this same section in 1949, and finally complete relocation of the Southern Pacific Railroad and the freeway in 1970. The “ruins” of the old walls further east provide a glimpse of where Hwy 2 was previously located, and the ridgetop “windsock” used by the paragliders is in the middle of the old Hwy 2 alignment.

Today it is hard to believe how much earth was moved to build the current U.S.

Highway 101 and to move the UPRR to the current alignment. What is referred to as “Little Diamondhead” is the left-over sliver of ridgeline where the old railroad and the current railroad rejoined their alignment.

With the area influenced by the all the grading and earthwork of these past projects, engineers were faced with the task of selecting a feasible alignment to cross the railroad with a bridge on the remaining, heavily altered, landform.

Selecting this alignment required that the engineers consider grades, geology, 23938349.5
right-of-way, construction staging, and environmental impact, along with feasibility, slope stability and cost. Building the proposed bridge is not a trivial matter in itself; this is a long structure which will be built on a substantial foundation.

Indeed, this Project is located on “fairly steep slope[s]”. This Project faces some of the same engineering and construction challenges as the past projects mentioned previously, and just like those past projects, the Rincon Trail Project proposes to grade a portion of the ridgeline to accommodate the current project goal. Nevertheless, the maximum height of the ridge is expected to remain unchanged.

A2-41 No construction of the Project has begun. The alleged completion of the “foundation of the NW bridge buttress” is inaccurate; no portion of the Project, including but not limited to the “foundation,” have been constructed. However, the team has performed excavations for various investigations, including borings and trenching for the project-specific geotechnical reports, and to support required cultural resources investigations. To accomplish this work, we have obtained the appropriate approvals. Information collection activities also are generally categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15306.

A2-42 Economic considerations, including construction cost of the proposed Project and/or Project alternatives is not within the purview of CEQA. CEQA is, instead, concerned with evaluating the potential environmental effects of a given project. (See, e.g., CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(e).)
A2-43 While the header of the I33 response incorrectly identifies the comments as having been provided by Ottis Gillespie (this was inadvertently carried over from the response to I-32), the responses provided under I-33 do in fact address Tim Barker’s comments, labelled as comment letter I33.

With respect to the charge of “dismissive or canned” responses, it is common practice in preparing responses to comments as part of an EIR to refer the reader back to previous comments that address the issue raised. (See CEQA Guideline, §§ 15088(c), 15204(a).) Further, if a statement does not address a CEQA issue or does not provide a substantive comment requiring further discussion or revisions to the EIR, it is appropriate to describe the statement as such in order to acknowledge the comment but make clear that no further discussion is warranted to respond to the comment.

Appendix B:

Letter from Dennis Pagen
January 17, 2022
To: City of Carpinteria Planning Commission
Re: Agenda Items #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

23938349.5
Response to Appeal Letter A2 Continued
“Appendix B”
Letter from Dennis Pagen
January 17, 2022
A2-44 Please refer to the Introduction section of “Response to Mr. Dennis Pagen’s Comment Letter of January 17, 2022” prepared by Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz, PhD, dated February 25, 2022. See Exhibit 2.

A2-45 Please refer to the “Comment #1” section of “Response to Mr. Dennis Pagen’s Comment Letter of January 17, 2022” prepared by Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz, PhD, dated February 25, 2022. See Exhibit 2.

A2-46 Please refer to the “Comment #2” section of “Response to Mr. Dennis Pagen’s Comment Letter of January 17, 2022” prepared by Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz, PhD, dated February 25, 2022. See Exhibit 2.

A2-47 Please refer to the “Comment #3” section of “Response to Mr. Dennis Pagen’s Comment Letter of January 17, 2022” prepared by Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz, PhD, dated February 25, 2022. See Exhibit 2.

A2-48 Please refer to the “Comment #4” section of “Response to Mr. Dennis Pagen’s Comment Letter of January 17, 2022” prepared by Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz, PhD, dated February 25, 2022. See Exhibit 2.
1 Nick Bobroff
From: Helen ONeill <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 4:46 PM
To: Nick Bobroff
Cc: helen
Subject: Fw: Appeal to City Planning Decsion, Jan 18 2022-RE:Bike safety Bates/Rincon Point Rd. **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 28, 2022

Mr. Nick Bobroff, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Dear Mr. Bobroff:

The focus has been on bike safety in the parking lot. I would like to addresss the area of Rincon Point Rd. (i.e. the end of Bates rd).

Plan 3, the plan adopted, will promote Bikers diangolnally crossing into the Rincon parking lot.

Even with a car one has to (or should ) approuch the lot gingerly becausde of bad sight-lines. This will also make bikers more assesable to colliding with cars from the Rincon Point parking lot.

Also one must be aware of the increase of use of Electic bikes. Electic bikes are great because they have expanded the ridership range for biking. But it must be noted that Electirc bike riders tend to not be seasoned bike riders. This along with the fact the bikes go fast has made it a saftey situation. We have one person in our community that broke her back, during a crash becasue she couldn't control her bike. This also still encourages more bikers into the parking lot. There has been more than one collision. One even resulting in a broken leg.

If the bike trail continued on, the south bound 101, shoulder it could be easily marked with a straight path. There would be less confusion on where the bikes travel. I prefer a protected lane over ocean view. Especailly for such a short distance.

Also to utilize the south bound shoulder would not require the huge dirt removal, which environmentally damaging. And hopefully making the freeway route cheaper too? Also would it be possible to have a tunnel for the Train Track crossing instead of a Bridge? Thank you for your time,
With all my Biking Heart,

Helen O’Neill
805-701-7661
Bike Ventura!
Bike HUB Ventura
2 Bike HUB Oxnard
Sierra Club
Steering Committee Member, Friends of Bates Beach.

23938349.5
Response to Appeal Letter A3
Helen O’Neill
January 28, 2022
A3-1 Currently, the coastal bike trail extending north from Ventura County terminates at Bates Road. Cyclists must enter or cross Bates Road near the U.S. Highway 101 southbound ramps, by choosing to either continue on Bates Road for travel to northern destinations or cross into the Rincon Beach County Park.

Consequently, there are already cyclists completing the maneuver for which you have stated a safety concern under current conditions in one direction. The entrance to the Rincon Point State Beach parking lot also is generally on the opposite side of Bates Road from the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot entrance, which introduces some impediments to smooth flow or high vehicle maneuver speeds along this segment of roadway. As such, cyclist and pedestrians leaving from the Rincon Beach County Park under the proposed Project or other alternatives or from the end of the Alternative 4 trail and navigating the Bates Road intersection would be present in any of the Alternatives. The City consulting traffic engineer has suggested specific markings to make the trail alignment more visible and to increase driver awareness to further reduce the potential for automobile and bicycle conflicts; some of these same measures could be considered at the bike crossing point of Rincon Point Road. (Exhibit 3, TKM memorandum, February 2022; see also City Council staff report Attachment C, Exhibit 3- EIR, Appendix J.).

A3-2 Electric bikes are already in use on the coastal bike trail extending north from Ventura County and on roads within the City and County, including Bates Road.

While electric bikes in some cases for certain individual may allow a higher speed than can be achieved by conventional self-propulsion bicycles, electric bikes would typically occur in a mix with conventional bicycles on existing and future bike paths, with the conventional cycle speeds limiting the general speed of the overall cycling masses. Also, it is not the speed capability of the cycle, but the judgement and awareness of the cyclist that must be counted on to avoid accidents, just as with high performance automobiles mixed in with slower vehicles on roadways and highways.

As discussed in the City’s consulting traffic engineer memo, (Exhibit 3, TKM memorandum, February 2022; see also City Council staff report Attachment C, Exhibit 3- EIR, Appendix J), the use of parking lots for mixed-vehicle travel is not unusual and is not generally considered to be dangerous. Such parking lots are, by their very nature, slow speed environments. Further, the introduction of additional bicycles and pedestrians into a mixed-traffic setting is likely to further improve safety by encouraging motorists to be more vigilant of pedestrians and 23938349.5
cyclists using the lot. The trail exit/entrance and parking lot would be signed with appropriate safety and directional signage alerting trail and parking lot users of the mixed traffic environment. It is the responsibility of trail users and parking lot users to follow posted safety signage.

A3-3 The proposed multi-use path is not intended to be solely a bicycle path that connects to the Pacific Coast Bikeway. Rather, it is intended to be a multi-use path that can serve a variety of trail users with different objectives, including enhancing pedestrian/cyclist access to Rincon Beach County Park and the vertical coastal access points within the County Park. Such a trail would not meet the Project objectives.

Further, placing the bike path on the shoulder of the highway is not a viable option. Caltrans has previously indicated that there is not sufficient width on the existing highway bridge overpass over the UPRR corridor to accommodate the multi-use path. There is also not sufficient shoulder width along portions of the highway between SR 150 and Bates Road to accommodate the proposed trail and maintain an emergency lane for vehicles.

A3-4 Please refer to the response to comment A3-3, above, in the Helen O’Neill appeal letter.

While it might seem like a relatively simple undertaking, widening the south bound shoulder of U.S. Highway 101 for a bike path is not a trivial matter. Such an undertaking, on a multi-lane highway includes accommodation of a crashresistant safety barriers like those at Ortega Ridge in Summerland or the Mussel Shoals. In this area, widening the freeway corridor to provide the room for the safety barrier and the trail would require significant earthwork and significant traffic control measures during construction, like you see currently underway further south in Carpinteria.

Adding another construction complication, much of the southbound shoulder is already occupied by a “new” sewer pipeline which is pumping sewage from the lift station in Rincon Beach County Park to Highway 150. Impacts to this sewer pipeline, including possible relocation, will need to be studied if this option were to go forward. The utility agreements, construction accommodations, and construction staging to move the sewer, if needed, would likely be very complicated, time consuming, and expensive.

A still greater challenge would be either widening the existing U.S. Highway 101 bridge over the UPRR, or building a new, separate, bridge for the trail alongside U.S. Highway 101. Because this bridge would be much longer than the preferred 23938349.5
alternative and would be built in a location with poor construction access, this option presents greater engineering hurdles and cost than other alternatives.

Lastly, when completed, if the trail were built to follow the steeper existing freeway grades, users will face steeper uphill profile grades as they travel west along most of the run from Bates Road to Highway 150, in comparison to other alternatives. Such a design would likely not comply with ADA design standards, which would limit the utility of such a trail to the broadest range of potential users, inconsistent with the Project Objectives.

To overcome these detriments, Alternative 4, has been presented in the EIR as a more feasible approach to accommodate the idea of a trail located in the existing highway corridor, but with less environmental impact and less cost, and to provide a wider, gentler trail.

A3-5 Tunneling underneath the UPRR corridor for the trail would not be cheaper, easier, or meet ADA accessibility requirements as the profile grade required to descend to this elevation would be too steep to be feasible. Further, such a design is not likely to receive approval from UPRR.

Attachment H
Exhibit 1: CA Department of
Conservation “Well Finder” Data
for API 0408304847
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022

WELL INFORMATION FOR WELL API 0408304847
API LeaseName WellNumber WellStatus WellType OperatorCode 408304847 Lease by Dr. R. W. Hill 1 Plugged DH 02268
OperatorName FieldName AreaName District CountyName BaseMeridian Dr. R. W. Hill Any Field Any Area Southern Santa Barbara SB Section Township Range Latitude Longitude GISSource
03 03N 25W 34.37746811 -119.480629 hud
isConfidential isDirectionallyDrilled SpudDate WellSymbol WellTypeLabel N N PluggedDH Dry Hole
Well type is “DH” – or dry hole. No oil was encountered during drilling.

Well status is “plugged” – which would have meant just backfilling with soil, as no oil was encountered.

Attachment H
Exhibit 2: Response to Dennis
Pagen Comment Letter Prepared
by Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz, PhD,
dated February 25, 2022
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022
Response to Mr. Dennis Pagen’ Comment Letter of January 17, 2022 Planning Commission Agenda Item #2 (Rincon Trail Project) Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz, PhD
February 25, 2022
Introduction
Mr. Pagen’s comment letter primarily addresses the evaluation methods and conclusions of the airflow analysis that I previously prepared for the proposed regrading of the Rincon bluffs. For this reason, I have been asked to respond to the comments in Mr. Pagen’s letter.

First, I would like to thank Mr. Pagen for contributing his expertise, and for offering the information and assessments summarized below. It is valuable to know that Mr. Pagen generally finds the calculations employed in the analysis to be reasonable (under the given assumptions). We address below the thoughtful additional concerns and caveats raised by Mr. Pagen, using the same numbering organization for our responses as in his letter. An overall clarification is that, although qualitative discussions of the flow are of course conceptually useful, the analysis was designed to provide quantitative estimates of the airflow changes, which are necessary for decision-making. In the discussion below, we also seek to provide quantitative estimates of the effects that are qualitatively discussed by Mr. Pagen.

Comment #1
Mr. Pagen expresses the concern that the air flow analysis was limited to a twodimensional evaluation, assuming an incoming wind direction perpendicular to the ridge, which may not match conditions in the natural environment, where airflow may approach from different directions (in other words, with different yaw angles).

It should be clarified that, when one analyzes airflows that are not perpendicular to a ridge, a well-established approach is to consider separately the wind velocity components that are parallel and perpendicular to the ridge. The topographic acceleration and uplift are then calculated using the perpendicular wind component. This approach is attributed to Baker (1985), who justified it intuitively by pointing out that only the airflow component that crosses the ridge will experience changes due to topography. Several studies have since tested Baker’s approach, using both experiments and field measurements (see for example Rowcroft et al. 2015, Barthelmie & Pryor 2018). It has been found that, for yaw angles smaller than approximately 30 degrees (defined so that zero degrees represents wind perpendicular to the ridge), Baker’s approach provides a good approximation; the accuracy of Baker’s approach progressively reduces for larger yaw angles. For reference, for the Rincon site, a wind rose generated by the micrometeorology service windy.app (whose products are targeted also to the paragliding community) indicates a prevalent wind direction corresponding to a yaw angle of less than 30 degrees (see Fig. 1), indicating that Baker’s approach is appropriate.

Figure 1. Estimated wind statistics for the Rincon site, from the micrometeorology service:
https://windy.app/forecast2/spot/35515/Rincon%2C+United+States/statistics Mr. Pagen expresses particular concern that the grading modification for the southerly UPRR bridge landing and overlook area would widen the canyon associated with the UPRR tracks, to an extent that would negatively affect the entire ridge with respect to wind flow conditions for soaring. Mr. Pagen proposes that the widening of the canyon may result in a substantial amount of the wind wrapping around the end of the ridge, rather than flowing across the ridge.

To help appreciate the significance of the proposed lowering of the upper slope at the southerly bridge landing and overlook area, it is useful to refer to the scale of this aspect of the project. The overall height of the bluffs is approximately 150 ft, and its length from the south/east side of the UPRR tracks to the Rincon Beach County Park is approximately 1,200 ft. The height reduction will be approximately 22 ft over a length of about 160 ft – this constitutes approximately 15% of the height over 13% of the ridge length, corresponding to approximately 2% of the ridge frontal area. Therefore, comparing the scale of the proposed ridge reduction and associated widening of the gap (along the UPRR corridor for the southerly bridge landing and overlook area) to the size of the entire ridge, one would expect that this portion of the project would not influence wind flow over most of the 1,050 feet of the ridge length, where the ridge elevation would be unchanged.

Three-dimensional drawings of the existing ridge and of the proposed alterations for the southerly bridge landing and overlook area have been supplied by the engineering team, and are shown in Fig. 2, to help convey the scale of the modification.

Figure 2: 3D wireframe drawings, comparing the existing and proposed topographies for the bridge landing area and overlook.

Comment #2
Mr. Pagen is concerned that the wind flow analysis may not account for the effects of wind gradient, and for the effects of buoyancy due to air heating along the beach surface.

In brief, wind gradient effects are already included in the second analysis listed in the EIR, which used empirical data for conditions where a gradient was indeed present. Effects of heating, for this specific site, can be estimated to be small, by comparison to the vertical momentum imparted to the airflow by the interaction with topography. Furthermore, as pointed out by Mr. Pagen, the effect of buoyancy is to enhance uplift; therefore any buoyancy effects would actually mitigate lift reduction, implying that the aerodynamic analysis is conservative in this respect.

To further clarify the matter of wind gradient effects, it may be of interest that wind gradient is actually the key complication that prevents the application of more manageable mathematical models for flow over complex topography. For this reason, the second analysis in the EIR used the experimental data of Bowen & Lindley (1977), whereby a Carpinteria Rincon Trail – Response to Planning Commission Appeal to City Council

Existing topography of proposed bridge landing area and overlook. Topography with proposed grading for bridge landing and overlook. wind gradient had been generated ahead of the topography. The gradient was designed to be representative of flow over land and was therefore stronger than the gradient that develops over the water surface and over coastal areas. (More specifically, the experiments had a gradient height that was 20 times the height of the topography, with an exponent of ⅙.) Therefore, effects of wind gradient are already accounted for, and the analysis is expected to be conservative in this respect.

To comment on the concern about heating, we further clarify that the significant effect is the relative decrease in density in the air, which is associated with an upwards force (that is, buoyancy) for the airflow. Even when buoyancy is absent, experiments have shown that switching to a flow that would “sidle along the surface” would require a much smaller slope than planned in the re-grading project (Bowen & Lindley 1977). This is already true in a neutral buoyancy regime; if the flow benefits from some buoyancy effects, the result will be an uplift that is actually less sensitive to slope reductions.

As a brief aside, if one were to nevertheless estimate whether buoyancy is currently providing an important contribution to the uplift, one could calculate the relative order of magnitude of the buoyancy force, as compared to force imparted by the slope alone. The details are more technical than what can be included here; in brief, due to the relatively short path of the airflow over the beach, and due to the steepness of the topography, the contribution from buoyancy is of the order of 5% of the total vertical lift.

Comment #3
Mr. Pagen expresses a concern that air turbulence, which may be dangerous for soaring pilots, could be substantially increased with the addition of a second upper bench at an elevation above the trail bench along the existing ocean bluff face (i.e., the portion of the trail south/east of the UPRR tracks).

It should be noted that the upper elevation bench has been removed in the proposed regrading, and the project no longer includes a mid-elevation bench above the trail for the segment to the south/east of the railroad alignment. This will result in a finished slope angle similar to the existing one, with the same number of benches, thereby minimizing any added turbulence.

Comment #4
Mr. Pagen expresses concern that wind tunnel experiments and mathematical modeling are necessarily different from real world conditions experienced by the soaring community and feels that data from the soaring community should have been sought for preparation of the analysis.

We appreciate this comment and agree with Mr. Pagen that any analytical method or experimental model must be developed with the support of real-world data. We would like to clarify that although the analysis indeed made use of wind tunnel experiments, these experiments had been extensively validated against measurements and analysis of wind flow over large-scale landforms in the natural environment (see for example: Bowen 1980; Teunissen et al. 1987; Emeis et al 1995; Glanville & Kwok 1997; Holmes et al 1997; Conan et al. 2016; Lange et al. 2016; El bahlouli et al 2020). This agreement between flows in the laboratory and the environment is made possible by the fact that, in both cases, airflows must follow the same fundamental physical laws, stating that mass, momentum and energy are conserved. Techniques for achieving similarity between laboratory and full-scale conditions are well established in engineering practice (e.g.

White 2015). A key component in these techniques is dimensional analysis, which ensures the relative importance of different effects is matched between experiments and the real world. This ability to rely on laboratory experiments and mathematical models is highly valuable, since data from a specific site can describe present airflow conditions, but present data alone may not be sufficient to predict how airflow will vary in response to topographical changes. In addition, it should be emphasized that the information being provided by the soaring community is valued and is indeed being considered, as I hope is attested by the discussion of Mr. Pagen’s comments provided above.

It is also my understanding that the City retained Dudek to prepare the EIR, and I was invited to the team to prepare an objective analysis of wind flow affects associated with the proposed topographic modification, on the basis that the person conducting the analysis should not be involved in the proposed project, and should not be negatively or beneficially affected by the project outcome, since one of the cornerstones of CEQA is that studies should be objective and impartial. Consequently, the local soaring community has provided detailed comments on the air flow analysis, which I understand are also being considered by decision-makers, as intended under CEQA.

References
Baker, C. J. (1985). The determination of topographical exposure factors for railway embankments. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 21(1), 89–99.

Barthelmie, R. J., & Pryor, S. C. (2018). The impact of wind direction yaw angle on cliff flows. Wind Energy, 19, 2271.

Bowen, A. J. (1980). Full scale measurements of atmospheric turbulence over two escarpments. In J. E. Cermak (Ed.), Wind Engineering (pp. 161–172). Pergamon.

El Bahlouli, A., Leukauf, D., Platis, A., zum Berge, K., Bange, J., & Knaus, H. (2020).

Validating CFD Predictions of Flow over an Escarpment Using Ground-Based and Airborne Measurement Devices. Energies, 13(18), 4688.

Emeis, S., Frank, H. P., & Fiedler, F. (1995). Modification of air flow over an escarpment — Results from the Hjardemål experiment. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 74(1), 131– 161.

Holmes, J. D., Banks, R. W., & Paevere, P. (1997). Measurements of topographic multipliers and flow separation from a steep escarpment. Part I. Full scale measurements.

Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 69-71, 885–892.

Lange, J., Mann, J., Angelou, N., Berg, J., Sjöholm, M., & Mikkelsen, T. (2016). Variations of the Wake Height over the Bolund Escarpment Measured by a Scanning Lidar.

Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 159(1), 147–159.

Rowcroft, J., Burton, D., Blackburn, H. M., & Sheridan, J. (2016). Siting wind turbines near cliffs-the effect of wind direction. Wind Energy, 19(8), 1469–1484.

White, F. (2015). Fluid Mechanics (8th ed.). McGraw Hill.

Selected Credentials - Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz, PhD
Paolo Luzzatto-Fegiz graduated with a BEng in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Southampton, UK, where he received the Royal Aeronautical Society Prize for highest first-class degree, as well as the Graham Prize for best experimental project in the School of Engineering Sciences. He holds an MSc in Applied Mathematics (Imperial College London, UK), and an MS and PhD in Aerospace Engineering (Cornell University). His doctoral work received the Acrivos Award of the American Physical Society for outstanding dissertation in Fluid Dynamics at a U.S. university. He was awarded a Devonshire Postdoctoral Scholarship from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, as well as a Junior Research Fellowship from Churchill College, University of Cambridge, UK. His research in fluid mechanics has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals including Journal Fluid Mechanics, Physical Review Fluids, Physical Review Letters, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Journal of Computational Physics.

Attachment H
Exhibit 3: TKM Engineering
Memorandum dated February 17,
2022
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022

MEMORAMDUM

DATE: February 17, 2022

TO: John Ilasin, Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Carpinteria

FROM: Thomas Mericle, Principal
TKM Engineering
SUBJECT: Evaluation of Rincon Multi-Use Trail 65% Design In February 2021 I reviewed the Rincon Multi-Use Trail Project 65% preliminary design plans and provided comments to the City while working for Interwest Consulting Group. At the time, the City asked for a review of the 65% preliminary plans with regards to potential conflicts between the two trail terminus points and adjacent roadway or parking areas. I specifically reviewed sheets 8, 10, 20, 21, 37, and 39 that show the preliminary layout, signage, and delineation. The cover sheet and sheets indicated above are attached for reference.

I re-reviewed my comments and plans, and comments are summarized as follows:

1. The signage and striping details between shown on the detail sheet and delineation plan such as striping and stop legends are not consistent; one sheet shows some and the other shows something else. All signing and striping to be installed by the contractor need to be on one “signing and delineation” plan sheet so the contractor has installation notes, and it is clear what they are bidding on and installing.

2. In general, terminating a mixed-use trail either onto a public street or into a public park parking can be appropriate due to the slower-speed-mixed-vehicle environment. In this location, it is certainly preferable to putting bike traffic on the freeway and provides a connection to the trail facility south of this location. Many public (State and County) parks along Hwy 101 in the Santa Barbara-Ventura area have these types of interaction as the Pacific Coast Trail intersects public parking lots and public streets. A key to making the interaction between motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians as safe as possible is making sure the terminus points have appropriate signing and striping. As the design moves into the final detailed design phases, City review will include making sure that the designs meet CA MUTCD compliance and use best practices for signing and striping of this type of facility and mixed mode space. I recommend the following be considered by the design engineer when they prepare the next submittal:
a. Install a 4’ edge line around the cul-de-sac to help deter movement onto the trail by vehicles.
b. Install a flexible delineator in the middle of the trail access points to deter vehicle access.
c. Use R5-3 sign instead of R53 sign shown on sheets 37 and 39. d. Install signs reminding drivers that the parking lot is being used by walkers and bike riders and is a shared space.
e. Install guide signs that indicate where the trail goes or what the name of the trail is for improved user experience. Placement of these signs at the entrance to the parking lot where the trail is accessed from would be helpful for out-of-town tourists.

3. The location of the terminus at Carpinteria Ave may want to be moved. Because the trail comes out near the intersection with Hwy 150, there is no place for trail users to park and get directly to the trail. Consider moving the terminus of the trail so that it connects to the parking areas where people can access the trail directly. This is especially beneficial for kids.

In addition to my review of the 60% plans, the City has received comments that have expressed the following concerns:

1. The introduction of additional cyclists and pedestrians to the parking lot will increase the likelihood of incidents with vehicles using the parking lot, particularly on weekends when both the parking lot and trail may be at their highest use.

Response:

Parking lots at public beach areas by their nature are low-speed environments where there is a mix of users driving, walking, and biking. This configuration is similar to the bike path along Shoreline Drive in Santa Barbara that connects directly with the Ledbetter Beach Parking lot. In a conversation with the City of Santa Barbara they indicated that they have not experience any safety issues with this design and it was a better choice than putting the bike riders on the street with higher speed vehicles.

The layout and dimensions of the parking lot at the top near the improved trail entrance and exit provides 20-feet for 90-degree parking on one side and a 28-foot aisle for mixed users. The 28-feet is more than the minimum aisle width standards (25-feet for 90-degree parking) for parking lots. This additional space increases opportunity for maneuverability to reduce negative interaction.

2. The downhill approach to the parking lot and the downhill slope through the parking lot have the potential to increase speeds of bikes into and through the parking lot.

Response:

The multi-use trail approach to the trailhead at the parking lot is a 2.3% slope down for about 165-feet followed by a 1% slope up for about 185-feet for a total of approximately 350-feet ending at the trailhead. This distance includes a 100-foot vertical curve transition between the two grades (see layout sheet 10). This relatively flat grade approach will not significantly change the speed of a bicycle as the rider approaches the trailhead. In addition, the trailhead itself does not provide direct connection to the parking lot area but connects through a trail Y and then into a cul-de-sac. Both these features coupled with signage and striping will reduce speeds of bikes before they enter the parking lot area.

The remainder of the parking lot area is not a concern because bikes that come off the trail have already integrated into the mixed mode environment. In addition, the increased presence of people walking and biking in the entire parking lot will be a more frequent reminder to motorists that it is a mixed mode environment, and they should pay attention.

This has been the case with the implementation of facilities elsewhere that have increased walking and biking activities.

Attachment I
“Notice of Consent to Use Land”
Recorded by Rincon Bluffs
Group, LLC
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022

Attachment J
Letter from County Parks and
Recreation re: Soaring Activities
in County Parks
Rincon Trail Project Appeal
19-2015-CUP/CDP
City Council Hearing, March 28, 2022
George Chapjian, Director, Community Services
Ryder Bailey, CPA, Deputy Director, Chief Financial Officer Dinah Lockhart, Deputy Director, Housing & Community Development Jeff Lindgren, Assistant Director, Parks Division
Ashley Watkins, Division Chief, Sustainability Division Sarah York Rubin, Executive Director, Office of Arts & Culture

County Parks Division, Division of Energy & Sustainability Initiatives, Housing & Community Development Division:
123 East Anapamu Street, 2nd Floor, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 ∙ T: (805) 568-2461 ∙ F: (805) 568-2459 Office of Arts and Culture: 1100 Anacapa Street, 3rd Floor, Rotunda Tower, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 sbccsd.org
Mr. Nick Bobroff
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
March 23, 2022
Dear Mr. Bobroff,
This letter is to confirm that Rincon County Beach Park is a County recreation area and that Chapter 26 of Santa Barbara County Code is applicable. Chapter 26 states:

Sec. 26-22. Landing aircraft.

No person shall land, launch or operate any aircraft, including, without limitation, any balloon designed to carry passengers, airplane, hang glider, ultralight airplane, glider, drone or flying apparatus on or within any county recreation area except in case of emergency or with the prior written permission of the director of community services or deputy.
(Ord. No. 3708, § 1; Ord. No. 4833, § 1, 4-10-2012; Ord. No. 4965, § 1, 5-10-2016) Thank you for the Please let me know if you have any questions.

Jeff Lindgren
Santa Barbara County Community Services Department, Parks Division Assistant Director
City of Carpinteria
Cour.rcr- Aceruon Srnrr RepoRr
MencH 28,2022

ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Review of the Mid-Year Budget Report and making related adjustments to appropriations.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Accept the Mid-Year Budget Report and approve adjustments to the budget as summarized in Attachment D.

Motion: I move to accept the Mid-Year Budget Report and approve amendments to the adopted budget as provided for in Attachment D.

Requires a roll call vote.

BACKGROUND
Each fiscal year the City conducts a Mid-Year review of the budget in order to examine financial results and trends as they compare to budget projections. This report compares Mid-Year results of the current budget year to the full year revenue and expenditure estimates in order to identify corrections or adjustments that may be necessary. The year-to-date actuals reviewed to project to the end of the fiscal year is the last month closed (July to February 2022).

This report also reviews the condition of significant revenue and expenditure categories and other important conditions known or anticipated at this time that are expected to impact the budget. ln this context, the mid-year budget also informs early staff work being done for the next fiscal year's Budget.

The Mid-Year results indicate that the City's budget projections within each fund were generally sound. The primary interest is the General Fund, which is the funding source for a majority of the City's basic services, such as law enforcement and legal services.

The adopted 2021122 budget projected General Fund revenues excess of expenditures Review of the Mid-Year Budget Report and making related adjustments to appropriations March 28,2022
Page2
by $+80,955, Transfer in $8,600 (ARPA funding), and (9506,555) in subsidies to the Park Maintenance, ROW Assessment District and Recreation Services Fund. To fully support and fund the programs in the subsidy funds, Measure X also contributed $160,000.

Attachments A, B and C shows the Governmental Funds Revenues, Expenditures, and Transfer ln/Out with the proposed increase/ (decrease). The columns represent total activity for FY's 2019120 and 2020121, Current Budget 2021122 Year to tjate (yTD) as of February 2022, Current Budget 2021122, and Proposed Mid-Year 2021t22. ln addition, the attachment shows the variance and percentage change between Current Budget 2021122 and Mid-Year 2021t22.

Attachment D - Proposed Mid-Year 2021t22 Fiscal Review, Summary by Fund. The first table is the summary of funds for the current budget, second table is the proposed mid-year summary and the third table are the proposed changes to the current budget.

Overall, the recommended adjustments for all funds proposed an increase to revenue of $4,141,400, increase to expenditures of $101,025 and decrease to General Fund Subsidy of $128,211. ln addition, the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for June 30,2021 reported the General Fund Available Fund Balance (AFB) of '
$1,423,234 compared to the Current Budget AFB of $1,767,681 , thereiore a decrease by $344,442.

The proposed appropriations for General Fund are expected to show expenditures and other fund subsidies in excess of revenues. The American Rescue plan Act (ARPA) COVID-19 pandemic response expenses and revenue loss reimbursement resulted in an estimated operational excess of $2,317,497, which is 92,346,054 favorable to the current budget.

The City Council Finance / Budget Committee meets monthly and reviewed the MidYear Budget Report, including recommended adjustments, at its most recent meeting of March 22,2022.

DISCUSSION
General Fund AFB balance increase $2.346.054 and Subsidv decrease $12g.f 11 Proposed decrease to revenues of g1g4,SO0 include; $600,000 in Transient Occupancy Tax, $180,800 Charges in Services, $164,000 Sales Tax, 923,000 Licenses & peimitsj and offset by decrease of $1,218,000 in lntergovernmental Grants and $1O,0OO Franchise Fees.

Proposed increase to expenditures of $164,530 include; $139,750 in professional Services, $18,475 to Other Operating Expenses, $5,670 in Utilities, and offset by decrease of $60,000 in non-operating and $15,ooo in capital ouflay.

G :\Licette\Budget\M idyear\FY 2022\M idy r22.docx
Review of the Mid-Year Budget Report and making related adjustments to appropriations March 28,2022

Proposed decrease to operating transfers of $128,111 is due to ARPA revenue loss reimbursement to allfunds that includes the subsidized funds.

Proposed decrease to subsidies includes: $16,641 Park Maintenance Fund, offset by decrease of $122,774 Recreation Services and $22,078 in ROW Assessment District Fund. Primarily due to ARPA reimbursement.

The ending AFB, $3,148,868 is $2,346,054 more than the budget General - Special Proiects Reserve Fund decrease $27.391 Proposed increase to expenditures is the Linden to Holly Trail and Concha Park projects. This expenditure requires a subsidy from General Fund of $50,459 to complete the project.

The ending fund balance, $0 is $27,391 less than budgeted General - Maior Asset Replacement decrease $44.000
Proposed increase to expenditures is for vehicle replacement for Community Development Code Enforcement Division.

The ending fund balance, $393,073 is $44,000 less than budget.

Measure X Fund balance increase $710.450
Proposed increase to revenue of $522,000 in Sales Tax (Measure X Local Sales Tax) Proposed decrease to expenditure of $11,900 includes: $30,450 in Personnel Services offset by a decrease of $18,850 in Professional Services and $24,000 in Capital Outlay Proposed decrease to operating transfers of $167,550 primarily due to ARPA reimbursement.

The ending fund balance, $3,201 ,776is $710,450 more than budget.

American Rescue Plan Act increase $3.212.000
Proposed increase to revenue of $3,212,000 includes ARPA revenue reimbursements and lnterest Revenue.

Proposed decrease to operating transfers o13,212,000 is to reimburse the operating expenditures of all funds going back to the start of the pandemic in March 2020.

The ending fund balance, $0 is $8,600 more than budget.

G :\Licette\Budget\M idyear\FY 2022\M idY r22.docx
Review of the Mid-Year Budget Report and making related adjustments to appropriations March 28,2022

Recreation Services Fund balance decrease $28.219
Proposed decrease to charges for services revenue of $950.

Proposed increase to expenditureS of $08,795 includes: $33,2S0 in Contract Services, $13,550 in Professional Services, 912,000 in Capital Ouflay, $6,g50 in Utilities, and $3,400 in Other Operating Expenses.

Proposed decrease to subsidies of $122,774 funded by General Fund primarily due to ARPA reimbursement. This fund operates the community pool, veteran's hall, and ocean beach services.
capital lmprovement Proiects Fund balance increase $540.300 Proposed increase to revenue of $540,330 includes: $500,000 lntergovernmental and $40,300 Charges for Services.

The ending fund balance of $1 ,618,003 is $540,300 less than budget.

GOVID-19 Update
The impacts of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) are winding down and now beginning to see revenue recovery in current fiscal year. The Finance/Budget Committee meets monthly on the fourth Thursday to discuss the prior months financial reports. The committee stays informed of any immediate impacts that may occur. These impacts come in three areas: lncreased expenses, decreased revenues, and deferred revenues Two of the City's top General Fund revenue sources, sales and hotel bed tax, continue to recover and trending better than originally projected during the budget process. Sales Tax (Bradley-Burns 1%) projecting an increase to revenue oi $1oa,Oob for a total of $2,000,000 ($1,9000,000 FY 2018) and Transient Tax increase of $600,000 a total of $2,900,000 ($2,500,000 FY 2017). The is also an increase to Measure X revenue of $522 thousand for a total projection in current fiscal year of $3,7000,000. Expenditures are generally tracking per budget with slight increase ($76,000) than originally projected during the budget process.

The City received the first tranche of the American Rescue Act Plan (ARPA) recovery funds on July 2021 and is expecting the second tranche July 2022. These funds were intended for the City's revenue loss and additional expenditures, which exceed the ARPA allocation, in response to the pandemic beginning March 2OZO (and that continued through the current fiscal year).

G : \Licette\B ud get\M idyea r\FY 2022\M idy r22.docx
Review of the Mid-Year Budget Report and making related adjustments to appropriations March 28,2022

POLICY CONSISTENGY
Making adjustments to the budget during the fiscal year is consistent with the City's fiscal and budgeting policies

FI NANCIAL CONSI DERATIONS
Amending the budget at Mid-Year is a procedural matter conducted annually to, in part, ensure adequate funds for projects, programs and services, and to more accurately project year end results.

LEGAL
No legal analysis is provided as a part of this report.

OPTIONS
The City Council may direct staff to modify any or all individual budget line items.

PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Unknown

ATTACHMENTS
A. Revenue Account Summary Report
B. Expenditure Account Summary Report
C. Transfers In/Out Account Summary Report
D. Budget Summary by Fund
Staff contact: Licette Maldonado,
Administrative Services Director
(805) 7 55-4448, I icettem@d. carp i nteria L ca. us
Signature
Reviewed by: Dave Durflinger, City Manager
(805) 7 55-4400, [email protected]. ca. us
G :\Licette\Budget\M idyear\FY 2022\M idYr22.docx
Attachment A
Governmental F-unds TotalActivity 2019120, TotalActivity 2020121, Current Budget 2021122 YTD as of February, Current Budget 2021122 and Proposed Mid-year ZOiltZZ Revenue Account Summary Report
Carpinteria, CA
Account Number
Fund: 101 - GENERAT FUND
SubProgram: 101 - Legislative & Policy
101-101-5101 Elected/Appointed Wages101-101-5120 Health lnsurancel-01-101-5121 Dental lnsurance L0T1O1-5I22 Life lnsurance101-101-5123 Disability lnsurance101-101-5140 MedicareTax101-101-5150 Flexible Benefits Program 101-101-5151 Fitness Benefit
101-101-5500 Printing & Advertising101-101-5505 Public Relations101-101-5510 Dues & Subscriptions101 101-5512 Meetings&Travel101-101-5560 Supplies & Materials Total SubProgram: 101 - Legislative & Policy:

SubProgram: 102 - Commissions Boards and Committees
101-102-5100 Regular Wages101-102-5106 Other Pay
IOI-1O2-5]-2O Health lnsuranceIO1,-I02-5721, Dental lnsuranceIO1- IO2-51-22 Life lnsurance !OI-IO2 5123 Disability lnsurance101-102-5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution IO7-Ij2-5I32 PERS Prepay UAAL
10L-!02-5L40 Medicare Tax
101-102-5150 Flexible Benefits Program101-102-5151 Fitness Benefit101-102-5152 Cell Phone Allowance101-102-5201 Professional Services101-102-5500 Printing & Advertising L01-LO2-5512 Meetings & Travel
Parent Budget
202r-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 MY
Comparison I
to Parent
Budeet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
Budget Comparison Report
Account Summary

0.00%o.00%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%0.00%o.oo%

70.oo%
o.oo%
%
2019-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t 2021-2022
Total Activity YTD Activity
Through Feb
t3?,243.43 LS2,7I4.OS 114,489.27 t77,65O.@ 179,050.00
18,738.65
94,203.O3
6,O42.62
5r2.96
t82.25
250.59
4,405.17
374.40
1,539.70
3,ro7.r42,tt4.oo
1,659.50
t73.42

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00
1,880.00
380.00
417.95
17,050.00
LLL,661.45
6,216.LL
571.62

34.50 228.76
6,332.23

0.00 45.78
!,741.98
8,326.00
350.00
L55.62
12,400.oo
78,583.03
5,067.64
4L6.24

48.40 L7L,43
4,2tO.56

0.000.00
468.81
9,636.003,387.16

0.oo
18,600.00
125,000.00
7,000.00
600.00

50.00 300.q)
6,400.0017(n.00
s00.00
3,850.00
10 900.00
2,000.00
7s0.00
3&000.00
2,300.009,000.00
s00.00
100.00
1s0.00

0.00 7,600.00
s00.00s00.00
100.00

0.00 1,000.001,000.00
1,000.00
18,600.00
125,000.00
7,000.00
600.00

50.00 300.00
6,'!00.00
x,[email protected]
500.00
3,8s0.00
10,900.00
3,400.00
7s0.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
1,400.00

0.00 1,400.00 0.79%

0.00 0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
900.00
L,475.OO

0.00 3,993.2r
106.16
345.26

56.33 8.81
L2.OS
45L.77697.64

59.2732.L2

0.00 29.2s
1,100.001,378.00

0.00 37,000.00
2,300.009,00o.00
s00.00
100.(x)
150.00
1,000.(X)
7,m.00
[email protected]
100.@
200.@
1,s00.002,000.00
1,000.00
-1,000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.00 1,000.00
-200.00

0.000.000.00
200.00500.00
1,000.00

0.00 -2.63%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.00%o.og%
-2.63%
o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%0.oo%
s0.00%
LOO.OO%
o.oo%
Page i of 38 3/22/20)-2 1 :05:40 PM
Budget Comparison Report
20t9-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
2,430.OO
Parent Budget
2023-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison I
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budset
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
Account Number
101-102-5590 Advisory Board Stipend
Total SubProgram: 102 - Commissions Boards and Committee SubProgram: 111 - City Administration
101-111-5100 Regular Wages101 111-5106 Other pay
10L-1,1-1--5120 Health lnsurance101-111-5121 Dental lnsuranceL0L-71.1.-5722 Life lnsurance 101-111 5123 Disability lnsurance101-111 5130 pERS CLASSTC Contribution101-111-5131 PERS PEPM Contribution 101-111-5132 PERS prepay UAAL101-111-5133 PERS Retiree Additional Contri 101-111 5134 Deferred Compensation101'l-11-5140 Medicare Tax101 111-5150 Flexible Benefits program 101-111-5151 Fitness Benefit
101-111-5152 Cell phone Allowance101-111-5153 Auto Allowance101-111-5165 Pension Trust 101-111-5199 Contra Account - pension Trus:701-IIL-52O1, Professional Services 101-111-5510 Dues & Subscriptions101 111-5512 Meetings&Travel 101 111-5560 Supplies & Materials
Total SubProgram: 111 - City Administration:

SubProgram: 121 - legal Services
LOL-I2L-5270 Legal ServicesL0]--1.21.-527L Litigation Legal Services lOL-12L-5272 Third Party Legal ServicesL01-12L-5273 Legalservices - MHRS Ordinan101-121-5301 Contract Services101 121-5510 Dues & Subscriptions Total SubProgram: 121 - Legal Services:

SubProgram: 131 - Records Management
101-131-5100 Regular Wages
101-131-5102 Part-time Wages101-131-5104 Overtime Pay
4,685.00 3,815.00 6,500.@7,362.9s 6,190.00 Lo,699.A7 68,25{r.00 68,250.q' -1,500.00 -23.08% 0.00 0.oo% 236,17s.89
12,794.38
36,2t6.t8
2,655.6L
2,O59.60
819.0s
16,458.83

3.03 16,769.OO
3,353.04
12,206.69
3,843.912,171.76

0.000.00
4,620.835,400.00
-5,400.00
35,400.00
6,420.OO
2,5s8.98
1,668.61
r97,993.9r
LO,807.76
29,703.48
2,I4t.48
1,8s1.68
s06.03
2L,390.98
295.54
33,27L.32
3,869.61
11,163.16
3,r23.433,7t9.37

44.29 780.00
7,560.00

0.000.00
10,150.00

0.00 159.36

0.00 106,736.s9
8,390.27
17,690.86
1,455.68t,793.64
269.74
11,836.22
162.99
18,282.16
2,520.24
L]-,163.16
1,730.08
2,284.O8

0.00 513.50
s,040.00

0.00 0.00
10,800.00

90.00 2,86s.32

0.00 242,W.N
15,500.0042,1@.@
3,100.(x)
600.00
700.00
25,800.00
350.00
41,590.(p
3,500.@
11,900.00
3,800.(n
4,200.@
500.00
[email protected]
7,550.(x)

0.00 0.(X)
20,om.oo
2s0.00
1,000.00
100.00
242,W.@
15,500.00
42,100.00
3,100,00
600.00700.00
2s,800.00
350.00
41,600.00
3,500.00
11,900.00
3,800.00
4,[email protected]
500.00800.00
7,550.00

0.@

0.00 25,000.00
250.@
1,000.00
100.00

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

10.00 0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 5,000.00

0.00 0.000.00
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%0.o2%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%

25.OO%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%
396,195.39
700,982.L4
78,96t.20
13,968.00
55,720.OO
472.50
2,302.37
89,799.582L,443.63
r24.69
738,356.78
3,079.00
57,259.rO
7,426.51

0.00 2,462.52
59,706.18
19,148.s8

32.r7
312,571.2s

0.00 18,078.50
5,751.00

0.00 1,336.91
2L.45
4,346.54
68s,000.00
50,0@.@50,000.00
10,000.00
1,000.00
2,500.00
s9,000.00
3,000.00
100.00
68s,000.00
50,000.00
s0,000.00
10 @0.00
1,000.00
2,500.@
s7,600.0o
4,400.00
100.00

0.00 0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 0.oo%
338,s31.40 2O3,624.s3 421:t40.00 430,350.00 s,olo.oo t.t8% 4s2,4o6.2r 808,583.91 337,7?7.66 798,5m.00 798,5{D.00
-1,400.00
1,400.00

0.00 -2.37%

46.67%

0.oo%
3/72/2022 1:05:40 PM Page 2 of 38

16.89 Budget Comparison Report
Other Pay
lnterpreter Pay
Health lnsurance
Dental lnsurance
Life lnsuranceDisability lnsurancePERS CLASSIC ContributionPERS PEPRA ContributionPERS Prepay UAALMedicare TaxUnemployment lnsurance Flexible Benefits ProgramFitness Benefit
Cell Phone Allowance
Pension Trust
Contra Account - Pension Trus'
Professional Services
Softwa re Su bscription/Mainter
Printing & AdvertisingDues & SubscriptionsMeetings & Travel Supplies & Materials
Total SubProgram: 131 - Records Management: 165,162.55 1t3,7O7.37 19,350.41 123,750.110 115,300.00 -8,450.00 -6.a3% 20L9-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budeet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
Account Number
101-13 1-5106101-131 51081.OL-1.3r-5120101- 13 1-5 12 11-0L-L3L-5L22101- 13 1-5 123101 131-5130101-131 5131101-131-5132101-131-5140101 131-5141101-131-5150101 131-5151101- 13 1-5 152101- 13 1-5 165 101-131-5 19910L L31,520r101-131,5360101-131-5500101-131 551010 1- 13 1-55 12101-131-5560 SubProgram: 132 - Elections
101-132-5100101-132-5 1061.07-132 512010L-1.32 5L2L
r07-132-512210L 132-51-23
101 132-5130101- 13 2-5 13 1
tu.-132-5r32101-132 5140101-132 5150101 132-5151rot r32-5r52

1.QL-13?-52O1
Regular Wages
Other Pay
Health lnsuranceDental lnsuranceLife lnsuranceDisability lnsurance PERS CLASSIC ContributionPERS PEPRA ContributionPERS Prepay UAALMedicare TaxFlexible Benefits Program Fitness Benefit
Cell Phone Allowance
Professional Services
4,3r4.O7
675.00
to,846.r2
1,1s7.o2
393.93556.75
4,629.O8

0.00 6,376.00
r,603.79

0.00 556.85

0.000.00
3,000.00
-3,000.00
6,1s8.61

0.00 1.4,709.LO
235.00
589.27
996.06
L,5!7.69

0.00 5,237.rO
323.L2
194.812to.L6
6,068.91

0.00 9,46r.14
7,r53.O2
74LOO
687.65

69.60 715.00

0.00 0.00
t,759.2L

0.00 5,868.40
57s.00
125.00119.63
10,855.76
274.62931.40

56.00 33.6736.42
1,109.45

0.00 r,720.o2
1s8.93L2L.99
L2.65

0.00 9,483.84
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

63.58 0.000.000.000.000.000.00
7,662.84
5,984.667,r84.OO

0.00 s0.0030.45
3,800.00

0.00 5,000.(n
300.00200.002(n.00
6,4(x).00

0.00 9,mo.00
1,200.00

0.00 700.00200.00800.00

0.000.00
15,150.00
3,000.00
10,000.00
600,00
3,700,00
1,400.00
3,800.00

0.00 s,000.00
300.00
200.00200.00
6,400.00

0.00 9,m0.00
1,200.00

0.00 700.00200.00500.00

0.oo0.00
4,000.00
6,000.00
10,000.00
600.00
3,700.00
1,40().00

0.00 0.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
-300.00

0.000.00
11,150.00
3,000.00

0.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00
300.00
o.oo%0.00%o.oo%0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%

0.oo%0.oo%
-37.sO%
o.oo%o.oo%
-73.60%
100.00%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%

66.67%
8,O92.24
283.86
725.2r

45.61 35.2834.6r
846.42

0.00 575.00
115.07

30.84 0.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.oo
10,700.(D
700.00900.00

50.00 50.oo50.00
1,200.00

0.00 2,[email protected]
1s0.00100.00

50.00 0.00
30,(x)0.00
10,700.(n
700.00900,00
s0.0050.0050.00
1,200.00

0.00 2,000.00
150.001(x).00

50.00 300.00
50,000.00
3/27-/2A?-) 1 :05:'i0 PN1 Page i cf 38
27,792.O5 20,000.00
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
101-132-5560
2019-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
Pt 2022MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budeet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
-1-.92%
-29.4L%
o.oo%
Supplies & Materials
Total SubProgram: 132 - Elections:

SubProgram: 141 - Staff Recruitment, Retention and Development 101-141-5100 Regular Wages10L-).4L 5IO2 part-time Wages101-141-5104 Overtime pay 101-141-5106 Other pay
101-141-5120 Health lnsurance1,01-L41 5L21, Dental lnsurance10L-1,41 5122 Life lnsurance107-L4L 5723 Disability lnsurance 101-141 5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution10L 141-51.32 PERS Prepay UAAL 101-141-5135 Retiree Health101-141-5136 Retiree Life tnsurance 1-01--L41.-51.40 Medicare Tax107-141.'5L41, Unemployment lnsurance101-141-5150 Flexible Benefits program 101-141 5151 Fitness Benefit10L-1-4L-5L52 Cell phone Allowance 101-141-5160 Health lnsurance Fees - Retire(101-141 5161 Health lnsurance Fees LOL 14L-5765 pension Trust1-O1 14I-5199 Contra Account - pension Trus.101-141-5201 Professional ServicesL0L L4I-5221 Employee Training 101 141-5360 Software Subscription/Mainter101 141-5501 Recruitment 101-141-5510 Dues & Subscriptions7OI L41-5512 Meetings & Travel101-141-5531 Employee/public Relations 101-141-5532 Flexible Benefits Admin Fees101-141-5533 pre-placement Health101-141'5560 Supplies & Materials Total SubProgram: 141 - Staff Recruitment, Retention and DeSubProgram: 142 - Risk Management 101-142 5100 Regular Wages1"0L-1-42 5106 Other payLAf 142-51.20 Health lnsurance 364.r7 320.64
tt,t48.3L 25,115.39
258.18 ,+00,00 /100.fi) 0.00 0.oo%
24,O5O.2? 45,350.00 66,650.dt 20,300.00 43.80%
91,687.91
L,872.53

0.00 1,934.78
7,O53.O7
457.49
305.44
37L.43
5,011.456,510.00
29,828.65
101.60671..r7

0.00 702.Or

0.000.00

0.00 I,820.65
2,400.00
-2,400.oo
3,722.50
799.00

0.00 4,585.81
304.00
3,657.356,637.OO
1,844.00
2,8s4.502,O20.95
79,616.23
30,698.71
246.96
L,987.7r
8,023.06
437.54
263.76275.57
L2,427.92
79,032.5750,422.76
243.84
r,598.17
5,984.00
934.32

0.00 780.002L2.63
L,662.6I

0.000.00
26,000.00
200.00

0.00 3,885.39
6ss.00
1,653.00
\,653.72
2,442.75
3,390.75
T,O4L.TL
53,379.7t
26,863.93

0.00 L,379.39
s,350.67
294.33!75.44198.14
9,O77.87
14,008.18
24,553.28
r37.82
1,159.52
230.12592.17

0.00 430.13
726.94
r,166.62

0.000.00
19,730.00

0.00 t,823.OO
26,347.8L
4,7L5.OO
4,O20.664,294.!9
734.60
2,689.3t
408.35
106,000.00
28,000.00
300.00
6,80O.00
1&200.0o
1,250.00
400.00
400.00
t4,750.@
22,000.00
42,000.(D
250.00
2,000.00
11,480.00
1,[email protected]
400.00
800.(D
250.(X)
1,800.00
0,00

0.00 34,@O.00
s,000.00

0.00 29,000.00
5,000.002,650.00
zs0o.00
1,200.(X)
4,000.00
1,200.00
94,000.00
40,000.00
300.00
6,800.00
1&200.00
1,250.00
/t00.(x)
/100.00
14,750.00
22,[email protected]
43,400.00
250.00
2,000.002,m0.001,[email protected]
400.q)800.00250.00
1,800.00

0.000.00
65,m0.00
2,500.00
4,500.00
30,000.00
s,000.00
5,000.00
10,000.00
1,200.00
4,000.00
1,200.00
-12,000.00
12,000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00
1,400.00

0.00 0.00
-9,480.00

0.00 0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 31,000.00
-2,500.00
4,500.00
1,000.00

0.00 2,350.00
2,500.00

0.00 0.000.00
-tt32%

42.86%
o.oo%
o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.00%3.33%
o.oo%o.oo%
-82.58%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
9r.r8%
-50.00%

0.oo%

3.45%
o.oo%

88.68%

33.33%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
174,753.69 255,770,08 203,825.58 348,030.00 378,8{Xr.00 3O,77O.OO 8.84% 22,240.62
1,180.57
3,891.94
26,538.42
662.55
2,809.34
L7,773.27
459.74
1,783.33
26,000.00
1,700.002,7@.@
25,500.00
1,2(x).00
2,7@.@
-500.00
-500.00

0.00 3 i ?2i?J22' :05 :,-lO Plvl P?!e 4 ot 3Sl
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
1O1 742'51.21 Dental lnsurance707-742-5122 Life lnsurance 10L-1.42-5123 Disability lnsurance101-142-5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution lOI-1,42-5131 PERS PEPRA Contribution
101--142 5132 PERS Prepay UML
101"-3,42-5140 Medicare Tax701,-1"42-5150 Flexible Benefits Program101,-1,42-5751, Fitness Benefit IAI'I42-5752 Cell Phone Allowance10L-142-5221- Employee Training 1O7-1,42-55f2 Meetings & Travel
101-142-5560 Supplies & Materials
IO1.-!42-551O Liability lnsurance10L-142-5571 Workers' CompensationL01 L42-5572 Property lnsurance/Bonding Total SubProgramz I42 - Risk Management:

SubProgram: 151 - Emergency Preparedness
101-151-5100 Regular Wages
101-151-5106 Other Pay101-151-5120 Health lnsurance101-151 5121 Dental lnsurance 1OL-15L-5122 Life lnsurance
101-151-5123 Disability lnsurance101-151-5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution101 151-5131 PERS PEPM Contribution 10TL5L-5132 PERS Prepay UAAL
101- 151-5140 Medicare Tax
101-1-51-5150 Flexible Benefits Program101-151-5151 Fitness Benefit101-151-5152 Cell Phone Allowance101-151-5153 Auto Allowance101-151-5440 Utility - Communications/Teleg 101-151-5500 Printing & Advertising101-151-5510 Dues & Subscriptions101-151-5512 Meetings & Travel101-151-5560 Supplies & Materials Total SubProgram: 151 - Emergency Preparedness:
380,261.18 409,706.2A 347,727.62 473,350.q1 473,550.00
2019-2020
Total Activity
2020-2021
Total Activity
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
[email protected]
2,900.00

0.00 3,000.00
400.00300.00
1(x).00

0.00 1,200.001,000.00
1,400.00
231,'f00.00
m3,(no.00
97,900.00
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
F\ 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budeet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
191.66

84.64 76.30
r,r76.o2
800.41
1,579.00
326.O5231.90

0.000.00
688.2s

68.00 735.82
160,007.00
97,930.0089.053.00
t60.20

90.7993.49
2,989.04

0.00 4,636.O7
382.94
314.91

0.000.000.00

50.00 673.53
193,506.02
73,410.98
103,388.00
202L-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

99.4358.56
6s.88
2,010.36

0.00 3,104.81
256.50
2ro.66

0.00 130.00299.20

0.00 987.52
154,271.36
68,652.0097,565.0036,7L9.76
1,529.82
7,333.L7
938.86
].46.48
133.90
r,28r.4t1,955.04
2,037.42
525.62690.26

0.00 364.00s60.00
587.21

0.00 75.00

0.00 274.rO
[email protected])100.00
2,900.00

0.00 4,m0.00
400.00
3@.(D
100.00
300.00500.00
1,700.001,m0.00
231,400.00
103,m0.00
97,900.00

0.000.000.000.000.00
1,000.00

0.000.000.00
300.00
-700.00
700.00

0.000.000.000.00
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%

33.33%
o.oo%o.00%o.oo%o.oo%
-s833%

70.00%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
300.00 0.06%
4].,4r3.34 -1,300.00
2,953.017,79t.OO
41o.72r39.37
\26.98
1,984.801,600.65
2,940.00
623.59
450.31

0.00 0.00
s9s.00902.47

0.000.00
L,r23.631,395.33
66,074.88
2,340.57
ls,802.40
845.00
194.80
200.28
L,929.78
3,547.563}-30.77
t,oo8.74L,259.48

0.000.00
840.00
878.O2

0.00 75.00

0.00 400.93
70,4o0.w
4s0o.0o
16,100.00
9s0.00200.oo200.00
1,9s0.00
4150.00
2,000.00
1,100.001,100.00
2s0.00

0.00 850.00960.00

0.(n
150.00

0.000.00
69,100.00
4s0o.00
16,100.00
[email protected]
1,9s0.00
4150.00
2,500.00
1,100.00
1,100.00
250.008(X).00850.00
1,[email protected]

0.00 150.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.00 s00.00

0.000.000.00
800.00

0.00 40.00

0.000.000.000.00
-t.85%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%

25.OO%
o.oo%0.00%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%4.t7%o.oo%o.00%o.oo%0.oo%
3/ 22/7-027, 1 : 05 :40 PIY Page 5 of 38
64,45O.t5 98,528.21 55,092.05 104,860.00 1114,900.00 40.00 0.o4% Budget Comparison Report
20t9-2020
Total Activity
Account Number
SubProgram: 151 - Communication and Community promotions 101-161-5100 Regularwages 56,061.53101 161-5102 Part-time Wages 2,O2g.gg101 161-5104 Overtime pay 625.44 101-161'5106 Other pay 3,433.85101 161-5108 tnterpreter pay 25.50101 161-5120 Health tnsurance l-,l-,,756.16 101-161 5121 Dental lnsurance 696.25IO3"-L6L-5L22 Life lnsurance 207.23 101-161-5123 Disability tnsurance 191.31101--161-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution 2,772.98 101-161-5131 pERS pEpRA Contribution 2;-3069 101-161-5132 PERS prepay UAAL 3,980.00 101-161-5140 Medicare Tax 867.5s
101-161-5141 Unemployment lnsurance 0.OO101'161-5150 Flexible Benefits program 502.96 101 161-5151 Fitness Benefit O.OO101-161 5152 Cell Phone Allowance O.OO101-161-5201 professional Services O.OO 101-161-5301 Contract Services 40,190.00101 161-5500 printing & Advertising 6,656.00 101-161-5512 Meetings & Travel 248.65 101-161-5560 Supplies & Materials 2,245.67
Total SubProgram: 151 - Communication and Community pro SubProgram: 162 - Economic Vitality
101-162 5100 RegularWages
101-162 5106 Other pay10I-L62 5120 Health lnsuranceL01-1,62'5121. Dental lnsurance 3,01--L67 5],22 Life lnsuranceL0L L62-5123 Disability tnsurance 101-162-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution101-162 5131 PERS pEpRA ContributionL0L-L62-5132 PERS prepay UAAL 10!102:144 Medicare Tax
101-162-5150 Flexible Benefits Program101-162 5151 Fitness BenefitrcI L62 5152 Cell Phone Allowance101-162-5165 Pension Trust 3,500.00
94,A67.20 52,283.23 153,100.00 153,100.00
2020-202!
Total Activity
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
Parent Budget
202t-2022
Fa( 2022AtJ
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
FY 2O22i/IY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Brrdpet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
37,465.21

0.003.88
722.48390.00
17,484.39
734.L6
t39.62L34.96

0.00 2,820.57

82.57 564.6r

0.00 800.68

9.94 715.00
s,220.oo
s,364.86
26,573.8r
121.00
r,519.46

0.000.00

44.O9

0.00 2.942.42

0.000.000.000.005.14

0.000.000.00
24,7t9.OO

0.008.7t
648.40
2s5.00
5,668.31
7t6.so
103.98

96.25 45r.77
r,615.56
745.92352.26

0.00 511.6s

0.00 2Lt.25
3,850.005,950.006,326.5L

0.00 58,000.00

0.000.00
3,000.00
400.00
12,000.00
700.00
100,00
1s0.00
2,000,002,800.00
4,@0.00
800.00

0.00 800.00
250.00
800.00
16,200.00
27,M.@
20,000.00
200.00
20,8(x).00
r300.00
3,100.0o
100.@

50.00 50.00
2,250.@

0.00 2,500.00
300.00200.00
s0.00

0.00 o.00
58,000.00

0.00 50.@
2,550.00
400.00
12,000.00
1,000.0o
200.(X)
150.00
2,000.00
2,800.00
4,000.00
800.00

0.(n
800.002s0.00
800.00
16,2@.@
27,400.@20,000.00
200.(p
3,s00.(x)
20,800.00
1,300.00
3,100.00
100.00

50.00 50.00
2,100.00

0.00 2,500.00
300.00200.00
s0,00
150.00

0.00 0.000.00

50.00 -450.00

0.000.00
300.00
100.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00
o.o00.000.00

0.00 o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
-L5.OO%
o.oo%o.oo%

42.86%
100.00%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.o0%

0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
-6.67%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%

0.oo%

52.t6
134,610.65
52,952.46
1,774.44
10,408.40
794.25
715.2L
296.0s
2,OOO.72
375.76
3,810.00
836.93
193.18

0.00 0.00
2,000.00

0.00 0.oo%
3,993.2r
106.16
345.26

56.33 8.81
L2.05
45L.77

0.00 697.64

59.27 32.t2

0.00 29.25

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 -150.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00
150.00

0.00 3 / 2,,-/ 2A?-2 1 :05 :4 0 PFi Page 6 of 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
101-162-s199101-162-5301101-162-55 10101 162-556070L-1.62-5602 Contra Account - Pension Trus'Contract Services
Dues & Subscriptions
Supplies & Materials
Community Services Agreemel
Total SubProgrami t62 - Economic Vitality:

SubProgram: 153 - Community Services Support
101-163-5100 Regular Wages101 163-5106 Other Pay101-163-5120 Health lnsurance 70L-1,63-5121- Dental lnsuranceL01,-1,63-5f22 Life lnsurance 1,01 163-51.23 Disability lnsurance
101-163-5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution
101-163-5140 Medicare Tax
101-163-5150 Flexible Benefits Program
10L-L63-5279 SB County Branch Library
101-163-5601 Community Services Grants101-163 5602 Community Services Agreemet Total SubProgram: 163 - Community Services Support:

SubProgram: t7 t - Law Enforcement
IO1,-17t'5732 PERS Prepay UAAL
101-171-5133 PERS Retiree Additional Contri1,07-171,-5165 Pension Trust 101-171 5199 Contra Account - Pension Trus'
L07-171-5753 SB County Mental HealthL0L-77L-5254 SB County Sheriff 101-171-5255 SB County SheriffAugmentatic
101-17L-5345 Equipment Repairs/Replacem(
1,01,-171,-576\ Major Equipment
Total SubProgramt 17t' Law Enforcement:

SubProgram: 201 - Financial Management Services
101-201-5100 RegularWages1-0L-201 5102 Part-time Wages
101-201-5104 Overtime Pay101-201-5106 Other Pay
L01,-7OI'5L20 Health lnsurance]0L-20I'5121- Dental lnsurance r44,7t2.39 54,759.59 6,s95.87 91p00.00 31,800.00 -60,000.00 -6s.36% 20t9-2020
Total Activity
-2,000.00
80s.00
s9.99
350.00
70,000.00
708.3r

16.66 r73.52

7.r8

2.622.69

73.44 LO.O2

5.39 30,000.0049,803.14
21,610.00
244,909.OO
294.57
20,000.00
-20,000.00
2,38s.00
3,s72,808.00
23,165.88

0.00 8.150.95
2ro,984.89
30,490.80
7-79.84
LO,967.5L
48,933.72
!,644.27
2020-202L
Total Activity
2021-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

0.00 805.00

0.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.00 23,402.OO

0.00 r92,777.36

0.000.000.00
2,506.00
2,323,O27.OO
23,57r.7L

0.000.00
124,000.80
10,466.93

36.74 11,311.13
22,238.5r
r,r87.52
Parent Budget
202L-2022
FY 2022 AB

0.00 1,(x)O.00
100.00

0.00 60.(xn.oo
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budpet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
-too.oo%
o.oo%
-o.40%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%

0.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.00
30,000.0055,198.30
10,000.00
256,980.00
444.2L

0.00 0.00
2,445.OO
3,384,643.O4
6t,240.18
4,606.24

0.00 203,743.62
3,365.63

0.00 8,L97.27
34,843.57
L,769.95

0.000.00o.000.00o.00

0.000.000.000.00
30,000.00s0,000.00
22,500.00
289,[email protected]
lt()o.00
o.000.00
2,400.00
4,000,m0.00
50,0m.00

0.000.00

0.00 1,(X)O.00
100.00

0.000.000.000.00o.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.00
30,0m.00
s0,000.0022,500.00

0.000.000.000.00
-60,000.00

0.00 100.00
100.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.00 o.oo o.oo%

0.00 -400.00

0.000.00
100.00

0.000.000.000.00
-300.00 -o.ot%

0.00 805.00

0.000.00
53,900.00
1:o2,4t2.97 9s,198.30 23,4O2.OO 102,5d,.qt $a500.00
o.ooy
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
-too.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%4.17%o.oo%0.00%
o.oo%0.00%
3,A51,7t3.41 3,7LO35A.67 2,541,882.07 4,!142,(X)0.00 4!]41,7q).00 2(x),000.@
25,000.00

0.00 12,30O.00
3&000.00
2,300.00
289,200.00

0.000.000.00
2,500.00
4,000,000.@
s0,000.00

0.00 0.00
200,000.00
24900.00
10o.00
12,300.00
38,@0.00
2,300.00
-J I 22/ 2a2 2 i : 05 : 40 Pi'4 Pacle 7 oF 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
L01--20I-51-22 Life Insurance101-201-5123 Disability lnsurance 101 201-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution101-201-5131 PERS PEPM Contribution10L 2OI-51.32 PERS prepay UAAL rcI-2OL 5L40 Medicare Tax
101-201 5150 Flexible Benefits program101-201-5151 Fitness Benefit101-201 5152 Cell phone Allowance 101 201-5165 pension Trust101-201 5199 Contra Account - pension Trus. 101-201-5201 Professional Services101 201-5210 Annual AuditL0L 201.-5236 Banking & Credit Card Fees 101-201-5301 Contract Services101-201,5500 printing & Advertising 101-201 5510 Dues & Subscriptions
7O1"-2O1 55L2 Meetings & Travel101-201-5530 tnterest/penalty Fees101-201 5560 Supplies & Materials Total SubProtram: 201 - Financial Management Services:

SubProgram: 211 - Central Services
101-211-5100 Regular Wages70L 211-5704 Overtime Pay101 211-5106 Other pay 101-211-5108 lnterpreter pay707'21"1 5720 Health lnsurance L07-2L1 51"?1, Dental lnsuranceL01 2L1-5122 Life lnsurance L0I-27L-5123 Disability tnsurance101 211-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution101-211-5131 PERS PEPRA Contribution 101"-27L-5132 PERS Prepay UAALL0L 211.-5).40 Medicare Tax101-211-5150 Flexible Benefits program 101-211-5151 Fitness Benefit
101-211-5152 Cell Phone Allowance
101-211-5165 Pension Trust10T-2L!-5170 Uniform Cleaning 349,480.23 25L,tOt.49 475,750.00 470,850.00 _4,900.00 -1.o3% 20t9-2020
Total Activity
2020-2021
Total Activity
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY2022MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
lncrease
(Decrease)
202l-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
348.78
380.41
7,664.23
4,33L.76
rr,964.54
2,rr9.56
L,229.92
524.16
659.75

0.000.00
17,L89.OO
30,800.00
742.96
152.00

75.60 805.00
2,491..L5

77.51 so,229.O7

34.83 3,766.97
1,020.00
13,356.10
t,o54.7r
168.45170.39
r,642.52
2,828.292,620.67
797.87
L,1.47.95
rr2.32141.38

0.000.00
202t-2022
FY 2O22AB
[email protected]
11,550.00
7,8s0.00
17,000.00
3,4(X).00
3,100.00
500.00
1,6(n.00

0.000.00
98,500.00
33,7(x).00
6,s00.00
500.00

0.00 1,150.00
9,900.00

0.00 80,000.00

0.00 3,000.00
1,5s0.00
23,'too.0O
1,700.00
300.00250.00
2,500.00
4800.00
4000.q)
1,300.0o1,800.00
500.(x)

0.(X)

0.000.00
Parent
662.9L
830.63
7,822.47
4,306.09
14,980.00
3,600.50
t,913.23

0.000.00
5,800.00
-5,800.00

0.00 34,737.OO
8,279.53
19,036.60

0.00 974.99
6,639.63
24,538.06
6,938.45
6L6.t7
600.94
tL,572.80
7,851.79
18,33t.47
3,139.512,834.r8
734.L6
1,560.00

0.00 0.00
3,390.00
35,593.00
7,383.69
433.00

0.00 r,629.OOL,L62.7L

75.OO
651.89
80,252.57

25.26 I,745.29
1,560.00
22,295.75
1,196.01
281.30
260.02
2,430.80
4,687.39
4,016.47
L,223.O4r,64t.97
197.10

0.000.00

0.00 700.00700.00
11,550.00
7,850.00
17,(x)0.00
3,400.(D3,100.00
500.00
1,600.00

0.000.00
94s00.00
40,o00.00
1,500.00
s00.00
100.00
1,150.00
8,000.00
100.00
1,000.00
7gs(X).00
100.00
4,000.00
1,550.(X)
23,,+00.00
1,700.00
300.(n250,00
2,[email protected]
4,800.00
[email protected]
1,300.001,8m.00
50o.00400.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00
-4000.00
6,300.00
-5,000.00

0.00 100.00

0.00 -1,900.00
100.00
-500.00
-1,500.00
100.00
1,000.00

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.00
400.00

0.000.00
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.o0%o.oo%
o.oo%
-4.06%

18.69%
-76.92%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
-L9.r9%
o.oo%
-3333%
-r.88%
o.oo%

33.33%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.00%
o.oo%o.00%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
439,OOt.t2
76,970.sr
5,618.30
25,r48.37
1,300.s0
3r,oLs.28
2,995.37
370.6r
402.34
2,9rL.79
3,556.855,465.00
r,546.r4L,609.I7

0.00 0.00
1,300.00
472.71
1,i)'/. n:-/ r'nq i r DM Pa.te I oF 38
Budget Comparison Report
Uniform Allowancelndividual Equipment/Safety
Contra Account - Pension Trus:Contract Services
Equipment Repairs/ReplacemeUtility - ElectricUtility - Natural GasUtility - SewerUtility - WaterUtility - Communications/Tele1Printing & AdvertisinBMoving ExpensesPostageDues & SubscriptionsEquipment/Office Rent & Leas, Supplies & MaterialsVehicle Operations & Mainteni
Fuel Expense
Major Equipment
Vehicle Purchase
Furniture & Fixtures
Total SubProgram: 211 - Central Services:

SubProgram: 221 - Management lnformation Services
L07-221,-5LO0 Regular Wages1O1- 221-5104 Overtime Pay
701--221 5106 Other Pay10L-221-5120 Health lnsurance
IOt 22L-5121, Dental lnsurance101-221--5L22 Life lnsurance1-OL-27f-5I23 Disability lnsurance101-221 5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution L0L-22r-513I PERS PEPRA Contribution7OI 221-5132 PERS Prepay UAAL707-22] 5140 Medicare Tax1-Oi--27L-5150 Flexible Benefits Program 10!-22L-515I Fitness Benefit
IOr'227-5!52 Cell Phone Allowance
1-AL 22f-520f Professional Services
tQ!:L21j345 Equipment Repairs/Replaceme
854,058.08 250,607.30 154,189.99 265,180.00 2il,[email protected]
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY2O22MY
Comparison I
to Parent
Brrdcet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
20t9-2020 2020-202t
Total Activity Total Activity
116.33
263.84
-1,300.00
L2,277.16
4,310.91
23,70r.30
5,199.632,482.766,952.37
32,5L7.1.1
6,42L.41
12s,295.48
L7,7L2.16
233.25
235,917.93
27,243.06
2,859.976,742.55

0.00 L9,Orr.s2
17r,426.40

0.000.00

0.00 r,2t3.34L,543.49
2r,923.6t
5,503.832,734.829,309.14
23,306.87
1,395.11

0.00 7,799.79
293.24
28,909.88
16,969.82
7,292.54
777.72
5,192.00

0.00 529.25
2021-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

0.000.oo0.00
L79.67

43.24 16,742.49
4,OLs.64
t,777.!2
5,001.79
15,818.58
587.\2

0.00 s,s00.00

79.49 14,788.7410,013.21
293.47
857.91

0.000.000.00
26,571.38

0.00 2,423.72
4,765.r5
254.29

74.6481.39
t,642.LO
928.rr
2,563.85
42I.37
263.53
II2,32r4r.37
3s,059.70
494.32

0.@0.(x)0.00
2,540.@2,s00.00
21,[email protected]
7,200.@2,830.009,81t0.00
25,500.00
s,000.00

0.00 9,000.00
300.00
21,960.0023,000.00
2,090.00
720.@

0.000.00
6,000.00
r14,300.00

0.00 2,650.009,000.00
s00.00
150.00
150.00
2,s00.00
1,700,00
3,000.00
700.00
&n.00
200.00

0.@
70,(n0.00
2,000.00

0.000.000.fi)
1,@0.00
0,00
26,700.M
8,000.003,600.00
10,000.00
24000.00
2,500.00

0.00 9,000.00
300.00
22,000.0023,(D0.00
1,s00.001,500.@

0.000.(x)
6,[email protected]
43,900.00

0.00 2,650.00
9,000.00
s00.oo
150.(X)
150.00
2,500,@
1,[email protected]
3,00o.00
700.00
800.00
200.00
400.00
70,000.00
2,000.00

0.000.00

0.00 -1,540.00-2,500.00
s,100.00
800.00770.OO
160.00
-1,500.00
-2,500.00

0.000.000.00

40.00 0.00
-s90.00
780.00

0.00 0.000.00
o.00%o.oo%o.oo%
-60.63%
-100.00%

23.6r%
LI.T\%

27.27%
r.63%
-s.88%
-50.oo%
o.o0%o.oo%o.oo%o.La%o.oo%
-28.23%
]r0833%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
-o.90%
o.oo%o.oo%

0.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.o0%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%

0.oo%
Account Number
10L-2LL-517L
101-211-5180
101.-21.t-5199
101-211 5301
10L-2LL-5345
10L,2Lr-5400
IOr 21-1,-54rOror,2LL-5420]'01.-21-7-5430ror-2r1-5440101-211-5500roL,21.7-550210 1-2 1 1-5509101-211-55 10101-211-5536101-211-5560101-21-1-5581 ror-271.-5582101,211-slsl
r0L,2L1.-5767ro1.-2L1.-5763
-980.00 -O.37%
42,842.99

9.43 2,678.4L7,306.01
32s.80
LL7.27L23.40
3,377.25
794.55
3,O42.OO
637.94
380.71

0.000.00
62,526.20
974.\1
43,659.08

0.00 r,756.23
7,687.45
398.98
136.L4r33.94
2,48t.59
r,682.20
3,927.85
661.95
624.99t57.32

0.00 61,856.58
r,414.79
-400.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
400.00

0.000.00
3/ 22/2A?-2 1 :05 :40 PI\4 Page 9 of 38
Budget Comparison Report
20t9-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
48,313.85
264.64
5,267.s2
20,930.09
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
18,607.77
256.32
s,924.54

0.oo
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
53,150.00
1,000.00
10,000.00
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Blr.lrFt
lncrease /
(Decrease)

0.000.00
10,000.00
-15,000.00
%

0.oo%
o.oo%
LOO.OO%
-100.00%
36,618.24
2s6.00
25,399.32
48,574.67
53,150.00
1,000.00
20,000.00

0.00 Account Number
1-01-22L-5360 Software Subscription/Mainter
L0L-221 5560 Supplies & Materials101-221 5565 Computer Hardware/Replacen L0L-22L 576L Major Equipment
Total SubProgra m: 221 - Management lnformation Services:

SubProgram: 301 - Community Development Administration
101-301-5100 Regular Wages
101-301-5104 Overtime pay101-301-5106 Other pay
101-301-5108 tnterpreter pay101 301-5120 Health Insurance101-301-5121 Dental Insurance 101-301-5122 Life lnsurance101-301 5123 Disability tnsurance 101 301-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution101-301-5131 PERS pEpRA Contribution 101-301 5132 PERS prepay UAAL101-301 5140 MedicareTax101-301 5150 Flexible Benefits program 101-301 5151 Fitness Benefit101-301 5152 Cell Phone Allowance 101-301 5512 Meetings & Travel101-301 5560 Supplies & Materials Total SubProgram: 301 - Community Development Administr SubProgram: 302 - Advance Planning
101-302-5100 Regular Wages101 302-5104 Overtime pay101 302-5106 Other pay 101-302-5108 tnterpreter pay101-302 5120 Health lnsurance101-302-5121 Dental lnsurance 101-302-5122 Life lnsurance101-302-5123 Disability tnsurance101-302-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution 101 302-5131 PERS pEpRA Contribution
L01-302-5132 pERS prepay UML
101-302-5140 Medicare Tax101-302-5150 Flexible Benefits program 101 302 5151 Fitness Benefit
235,924.30 201,353.19 100,585.87 215,8(x).(xl 211,800.00 -5,000.00 _2.3L% 66,542.9L
377.3L
2,9143]-
765.00
15,479.79
937.14131.95
216.13
5,873.98
705.15
4,725.00
94L.29639.81

37.44 0.007.50
910.00
r83,245.76
2,802.52
4,350.20
802.50
27,931.60
2,223.r9
232.93688.24
5,569.63
890.91
13,011.00
2,802.54
4,I77.78

74.88 66,75s.06
166.36
1,456.89
195.00
rL,524.47
799.32
181.69
223.O2
5,337.17
r,52L.28
8,267.45
977.2283s.33

78.84 780.00

0.00 49.32
\74,256.IO
I24.22
4,84I.76
585.00
36,949.05
2,6t9.20
506.93570.59
r-0,990.91
5,997.44
17,08s.69
2,518.062,O9r.70
139.93
44,I43.96
r90.77
1,080.82
r27.50
7,337.39
489.55
rTT.4L150.51
3,519.02
1,018.18
5,408.61
650.03
547.79

0.00 1s6.00

0.00 76.rr
t28,370.45
170.92
3,920.r7
382.s0
29,O94.53
2,L89.t3
392.7r
473.37
7,273.60
4,964.59
L1,209.96
1,869.181,612.22

0.00 68,8(x).00
500.@
3,700.00
20o.00
11,100.00
750.00
$0.(m
200.00
5,2s0.00
1,600.(n
&000.00
1,000.00
8q).00200.00
800.00
s00.00

50.oo
225,70n.00
1,000.00
13,300.00
6m.00
50,700.00
3,700.00
600.00
7s0.00
10,8s0.00
9,900.00
17,000.0o
3,350.00
2,700.@
800.00
68,800.00
500.00
3,700.(X)
200.00
11,100.00
750.00
150.00
200.00
s,250.00
1,600.00
8,000.00
1,000.00
800.00200.00
800.005(x).00

50.00 225,70n.@
1,000.00
13,300.00
600.@
50,700.00
3,700.00
600.00
7s0.00
10,850.00
9,900.00
17,000.00
3,350.00
2,700.OO
800.00
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.00%0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%

0.oo%o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
tor,t4r''.7t 99,148.36 65,007.55 103,600.00 103,6qt.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.oo

0.00 0.oo%
312?i2A22 1:05:4C Pli Page 10 cl 3E
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
101-302:5152101-302-5165101-302 5199141--302-520L101-302 5510101 302 5512 202L-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
74r.OO

0.000.00
40,521.00
s,000.00

0.00 67.24
233.49
2,L7t.57
r39.72

35.1847.49
1,095.02
39I.24
t,702.40
276.72
rs2.49

0.00 45.50

0.00 Parent Budget
2021-2022
FY 2022 AS
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budset
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
20t9-2020 2020-202L
Total Activity Total Activity
Cell Phone Allowance
Pension Trust
Contra Account - Pension Trusr
Professional Services
Dues & SubscriptionsMeetings & Travel
Total SubProgram: 302 - Advance Planning: 598,435.89 372,835.06 218,r8s.27 592,850.00 692,850.00

0.00 7,650.00
-7,650.00
444,5]-5.O4
s,0s0.00

68.r7
rs,o23.r3
249.38
398.04
2,r76.29
105.9s

36.63 46.97
1,,O78.76
350.18
1,067.00
276.93
108.58

0.000.000.00
228,725.47
2,706.798,794.29
2s5.00
3s,806.66
2,923.94
737.86899.s7
13,623.59
2,839.83
16,240.00
3,400.99
t,94t.99
262.O8
455.00

0.00 0.00
108,103.48
5,000.00

0.00 84.26
346.91
3,238.94
195.92

52.8567.44
1,666.00
582.62
2,602.80
325.08
249.L2

27.6t

6.s0

0.oo
307,358.28
140.93
9,709.LL
t,L70.oo
57,561.05
4,489.96
950.86
r,062.62
23,rO2.57
8,090.28
35,617.32
4,542.624,655.L4
362.65
400.00

0.000.00
345,m0.00
5,000.(x)
1,[email protected]
400.00

0.000.00
34s,000.00
s,000.(D
1,500.00
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%

0.00 0.oo%

0.000.000.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 SubProgram: 311 - Housing
101-311 5100101-3 11-5104101-311 5106101-3 11-5120
IOT-3IT 5121tor-3L1.-51.22101 311-5123
101-311 5130
10 1-3 1 1-5 13 110 1-3 11-5 13 2101-311-5 140101-3 11,5150101-311 5151101-311-5 152 10 1-3 1 1-5 20 1
Regular Wages
Overtime PayOther Pay
Health lnsuranceDental lnsuranceLife lnsuranceDisability lnsurancePERS CLASSIC ContributionPERS PEPRA ContributionPERS Prepay UAALMedicare Tax Flexible Benefits ProgramFitness Benefit
Cell Phone Allowance
Professional Services
Total SubProgram: 311 - Housing:
22,23L.96 14,774.43
203,240.06
L,O4L.87
5,338.16
76s.00
39,L94.66
3,059.39
597.74
759.57
15,206.95
s,398.03
23,304.50
2,997.9L3,L60.37

0.00 23,[email protected]
300.00
1,300.(x)
3,300.00
200.00

50.00s0.00
1,650.00
650.00
2,500.00
3s0.00
250.00

50.00 0.00
30,000,(X)
307,800.00
1,0(X).00
16,000.00
1,200.00
s8,000.00
4,5(n.00
900.00
1,000.00
22,650.@
28s0,00
36,700.00
4,@0.004 500.00
1,200,00
23,100.00
300.00
1,300.00
3,[email protected]
200.00

50.00s0.00
t650.00
650.00
2,500.00
350.00
250.@
50,00
100.00
30,000.00
307,800.00
1,000.00
16,000.00
1,[email protected]
58,000.00
4,s00.00
900.00
1,000.00
22,650.W
7,850.00
36,700.00
4,600.004500.00
1,200.00
-100.00

0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.00 100.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.oo
-o.43%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.00%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.o0%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%0.00%0.00%
o.oo%o.00%o.oo%
20,857.84 31,678.01 2L,O72.49 63,850.qt 63,850.00 0.00 0.oo% SubProgram: 321 - Development Review and Building
101 321-5100 Regularwages101-321 5104 Overtime Pay101-321-5106 Other Pay 101-321-5108 lnterpreter Pay101-321-5120 Health lnsurance 1O7-37I 5121- Dental lnsurance
1-01--321 5122 Life lnsurance1-O1--32I-5I23 Disability lnsurance 101-321-5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution101-321-5131 PERS PEPRA Contribution10L-32I-5132 PERS Prepay UAAL1,OL-32I-5140 Medicare Tax101 321-5150 Flexible Benefits Program 101-32!5151 Fitness Benefit
3/22/7,022 1:05:40 FM Page 1i cl' 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
L0L-321- 5152 Cell phone Allowance
101-321 5165 pension Trust101-321-5199 Contra Account - pension Trus.L0L 327-5201. Professional Services 101-32L-5440 Utility - Communications/Teleg101-321-5500 printing & Advertisin8101 321-5510 Dues & Subscriptions 101-321 5512 Meetings & Travel101'321-5560 Supplies & Materials 101-321-5581 Vehicle Operations & Mainten;
Total SubProgram:321 - Development Review and Building:

SubProgram:331 - Code Compliance
101-331-5100 Regular Wages
101-331'5104 Overtime Pay101 331-5106 Other pay101 331-5108 lnterpreter pay 101-331-5120 Health lnsurance101-331 5121 Dental lnsurance l-01-331 5122 Life lnsurance101-331-5123 Disability tnsurance101 331-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution 101 331-5131 PERS pEpRA Contribution101 331-5132 PERS prepay UAAL 101-331-5140 Medicare Tax101 331-5150 Flexible Benefits program101 331-5151 Fitness Benefit 101-331-5152 Cell Phone Allowance101-331 5165 pension Trust101 331-5171 Uniform Allowance 101 331-5199 Contra Account - Pension Trus.101-331-5301 Contract Services101-331-5500 Printing & Advertising 101-331-5510 Dues & Subscriptions101-331 5512 Meetings & Travel101 331-5560 Supplies & Materials101-331-5581 Vehicle Operations & Mainten; 101-331-5582 Fuel Expense
Total SubProgram:331 - Code Compliance:
407,543.46 547,862.74 353,605.88 571,950.00 593,250.00 21,3OO.OO 3.72% 20t9-2020
Total Activity
2020-2021
Total Activity
202r-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
728.OO

0.000.00
47,747 .76
281.68

45.78 0.00
162.77

0.00 575.68
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
t"t 2022MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budeet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%

0.00 3,200.00
-3,200.00
83,788.32
245.54437.O9
2,O21.751,01s.38
883.32

0.00 215p22.rO
839.54
6,199.85
r27.50
63,749.37
3,138.03
825.18750.97
L2,54L.47
2,224.23
15,331.00
3,22L.72
2,269.43
224.64

0.00 4,050.00

0.00 -4,050.00
5,600.002,125.43
285.00
2,357.922,433.42

0.00 0.00
r,664.OO

0.000.00
8s,736.51
L26.56

0.00 282.OO

0.00 0.00
640.28
r97,049.68
r,652.69
3,647.65

0.00 61,360.73
4,75L.76
7t3.r5
729.76
16,233.7r
4,130.95
25,404.48
2,928.27
3,466.29
r24.r7
2,s09.00

0.00 300.35

0.00 2,000.00

0.00 28s.00
939.26273.54
3,348.80
r,350.64
138,963.99
485.08
2,OL6.9s

0.00 40,607.48
2,938.94
474.47
5L6.O7
rr,626.39
2,784.OL
18,037.94
2,O50.292,570.75

0.00 r,t37.50

0.00 119.90

0.00 1,090.00

45.78 48s.00
1,161.35

0.00 853.84
L,572.3S
1,600,00

0.oo

0.00 100,000.00
300.00
150.@
650.00
1,100.00
250.(D

0.00 21&8m.00
2,000.00
11,500.@

0.00 @,500.(x)
4,400.@
700.00700.0o
12550.00
4500.0o
28,m0.00
3,350.003,500.00
1,000.00
2,'100,00

0.00 500.00

0.00 2,400.002,200.OO
300.(p
3,500.00
300.00
4,@0.00

0.00 1,500.00

0.00 0.00
120,000.00
600.00
150.00
5s0.00
1,100.00
250.00
1,000.00
21&800.00
2,0m.00
11,500.00

0.00 60,s00.00
4,W.@
70o.00700.00
17,550.00
4s00.00
28,000.(X)
3,3s0.003,500.00
1,0(D.00
2,4@.@

0.00 800.00

0.00 2,400.@2,2@.@
50o.00
3,500,00
300.00
2,@O.002,000.00

0.000.00

0.00 20,000.00
300.00

0.000.00

0.000.00
1,000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 300.00

0.00 0.000.00
200.00

0.000.00
-2,000.00
2,000.00
o.00%o.o0%
o.oo%

20.oo%
700.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%

60.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.00%

66.67%
o.oo%
o.oo%
-so.00%
o.oo%
3/?2/2422- 1:05:/+C PM Page 12 of 38
340,156.80 332,599.88 229,53A.Oa 372,100.00 372,W.O0 s00.00 0.t3% Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
SubProgram: 341 - Animal Care and Control
101-341-5100 Regular Wages101-341-5104 Overtime Pay101-341-5106 Other Pay1,0I-34L'5120 Health lnsurance t}]--341,512L Dental lnsurance
1,01,-341,-51"22 Life lnsurance1,01,-341,-5123 Disability lnsurance101-341-5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution101-341-5131 PERS PEPRA Contribution 10L-341-51.32 PERS Prepay UAAL101-341-5140 Medicare Tax 101-341-5150 Flexible Benefits Program
101-341-5151 Fitness Benefit101 341'5152 Cell Phone Allowance 101-341-5301 Contract Services
101-341-5500 Printing & Advertising
101-341-5510 Dues & Subscriptions
101,'341-5512 Meetings & Travel
101-341-5560 Supplies & Materials
Total SubProgram: 341 - Animal Care and Control:

SubProgram:401 - Public Works Administration
101-401-5100 Regular Wages101-401-5104 Overtime Pay101-401 5106 Other Pay101 401-5120 Health lnsurance 101 4OI-572I Dental lnsuranceIO1- 4O1--5I22 Life lnsurance IOI-401-5I23 Disability Insurance
101-401 5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution101-401-5131 PERS PEPRA ContributionT0I'40L-5132 PERS Prepay UAAL101-401 5140 MedicareTax 101-401-5141 Unemployment lnsurance101-401-5150 Flexible Benefits Program101 401-5151 Fitness Benefit101 401-5152 Cell Phone Allowance 101-401 5165 Pension Trust101-401-5199 Contra Account - Pension Trus:
74,983.a2 98,355.84 67,692.23 111,250.q' 111,250.00
Parent Budget
202L-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Brrdget
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
2019-2020
Total Activity
2020-202L 202t-2022
Total Activity YTD Activity
Through Feb
34,5t2.54
L96.22
436.88
t2,563.94
7L9.77
to3.62118.51
2,OO5.73
1,100.07
2,450.OO
492.90
348.99
r49.76

0.00 19,401.00

0.000.000.00
383.89
42,985.37
900.15205.03
t9,295.OL
1,303.63
758.27
183.74
2,855.01
1,396.01
4,479.26
637.94
987.84

35.4852.00
21,868.00
486.00
250.00

0.00 277.tO
34,276.94
206.24
L39.28
12,45L.55
931.57
105.53t3t.r4
2,494.O8
940.4!
3,879.05
501.81753.09

0.00 344.50
9,999.19

0.00 250.00

0.00 287.85
54,[email protected]
1,100.00
2,[email protected]
$,/m0.0o
1,400.00
150.(X)
200.00
3,750.00
1,550.00
5,000.00
800.00
1,000.00
300.00

0.00 20,000.00
750.(X)
250.00

0.00 'too.00
169,000.00
1,000.00
11000.0028,100.00
2,[email protected]
550.00s00.00
t2,7W.N
4,050.00
22,000.oo
2,500.(n
0,(D
2,100.00
600.00
3,200.00

0.000.00
s3,200.00
1,100.00
2,[email protected]
1&t100.00
1,400.@
150.00
200.00
3,750.00
1,550,00
s,000.00
80i0.00
1,000.00
300.00800.00
20,000.(x)
750.00
2s0.00
0,00
'f0O.00
169,000.00
1,000.00
[email protected],100.0O
2,200.@
550.00500.00

1.2,700.@
4,050.(x)
22,@O.@
2,600.00

0.00 2,100.00
600.00
1,000.00

0.00o.00
-800.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
800.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.oo0.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00
-L.48%
o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%0.00%o.00%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo% o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%0.00%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
-68.75%
o.oo%o.oo%

0.00 0.00%
274,550.69
1,43t.45
8,239.00
27,123.83
L,975.29
808.01
1,008.08
5,703.7L
2,722.50
19,493.00
4,20L.6t
3,42L.93
3,\07.29

0.000.00
9,800.00
-9,800.00
L29,870.93
!,472.47
8,880.1s
]-5,7t7.29
t,276.L5
430.05
477.48
9,4r8.953,s63.8s
14,990.68
2,018.88

0.00 1,699.94

74.88 3,\92.15

0.000.00
82,309.62

45.37 4,453.45
LO,64s.75
989.13
277.70283.86
6,t4r.672,r58.239,547.98
1,253.06

0.00 t,297.56

0.00 s0s.05

0.00 0.00
-2,200.oo

0.000.00
3/22/7022 1 : C5: 10 P[1 Page 13 ci- 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
101-401-5201 Professional Services101 401-5301 Contract Services101-401-5360 Software Subscription/Maintel 101-401,5500 printing & Advertisint
101-401-5510 Dues & Subscriptions101-401-5512 Meetints & Travel101 401-5560 Supplies & Materials Total SubProgram:401 - Public Works Administration:

SubProgram: 403 - Capital lmprovements
101-403-5100 Regular Wages101 403-5104 Overtime pay
101 403-5106 Other pay101-403-5108 tnterpreter pay
101-403 5120 Health lnsurance1-01,403-51-21 Dental lnsurance10L'403-5122 Life Insurance 101 403-5123 Disability tnsurance101 403-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution 101-403-5131 pERS pEpRA Contribution101-403-5132 PERS prepay UAAL101-403-5140 Medicare Tax 101-403'5150 Flexible Benefits program101-403 5151 Fitness Benefit 101-403-5152 Cell PhoneAllowance
Total SubProgram:403 - Capital lmprovements:

SubProgram: 451 - Watershed Management
101-451-5100 Regular Wages
101-451-5104 Overtime Pay101-451-5106 Other pay101 451-5108 lnterpreter pay L0L-45L-51-20 Health lnsuranceL01.-451-512]. Dental lnsurance10L-45L-5122 Life lnsurance 101-451 5123 Disability tnsurance101-451 5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution101-451-5131 PERS PEPRA Contribution 10L-451 5L32 PERS prepay UAAL101-451 5140 Medicare Tax101 451-5150 Flexible Benefits program 20t9-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
2021-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
5,811.25
28,700.O3

0.00 331.56
1,8L4.OO
901.49

82.43 Parent
2021-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
lncrease
(Decrease)
%
?72,497.48 209,tL6.49

0.00 -630.00

0.00 747.OO
t,617.23
13,4s5.62
3,587.24

0.00 9,802.00

0.00 1,528.60
2,474.862,3r2.42

34.76 20,(x)0.00
24500.00

0.00 2,5(n.00
3,900.00
3,300.@
500.00
9s,000.0028,s00.00

0.00 2,5(x).003,900.00
3,3(x).00
5(E.00
7s,000.00

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00
800.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00
375.OO%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%
o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.o0%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.o0%o.oo%
o.oo%
152s43.13 318,3qt.q, 391,100.00 72,8OO.OO 22.A7%
70,414.59
405,77
2,762.0r

5.10 8,O13.92
685.14215.00
22L.70
4,4t3.67
1,860.34
5,000.00
1,016.56
449.70

0.00 0.00
27,0].8.49
s1.93

1.,068.47

0.00 2,906.42
205.80

99.2!

91.65 2,367.77
342.24
1,918.00
398.73248.80
Lrs,736.29
5r9.32
8,011.31

39.00 \6,027.8\
1,440.42
339.23
354.68
6,97t.95
4,L30.76
ro,893.I2
1,801.56r,747.66
t8.72

45.50 66,769.r3
r,o57.84
3,r23.s2

78.00 LL,289.37
1,111.39
230.33220.75
6,303.2s
881.20
9,587.74
r,or5.27I,O77.55
61,185.38
386.37
3,34L.8L

25.50 9,27r.47
94L.73\96.34
207.76
4,585.54
1,609.47
7,076.5r
939.72
956.07

0.00 318.50
42,152.46
747.73
1,922.64

51.00 7,837.46
835.53
155.40L6t.O2
4,O23.67
s48.15
6,120.L4
642.O7
8L4.4a
146,600.00
600.00
9,300.00

50.00 28,600.(x)
2,000.00
450.00500.00
11,900,00
2,900.00
19,m0.00
2,2@.@
1,900.00
500.(D

0.00 75,000.00
1,000.00
s,cDo.00
100.00
13,s00.00
1,400.00
250.00
2s0.00
5,8m.00
1,(nO.00
9,000.00
1,[email protected],200.00
146,600.00
6(x).00
9,300.00

50.00 28,600.00
2,000.(x)
450.00500.(x)
11,900.00
2,900.00
19,O00.00
2,2W.@
1,900.00
500.00800.00
75,m0.00
1,000.(n
5,000.00
100.00
13,500.00
1,/000.00
250.00250.(x)
6,800.00
1,0O0.00
9,000.00
1,100.001,200.00
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.o0%
o.oo%o.00%
o.oo%
95,463.44 L68,O77.33 9L,(l/.1.57 226,5txr.txt 227,30[,.N 800.00 0.35% ../))/1a)) I nq..!r, Drr Pacte 1.'1 oi' 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
101-451-5151 Fitness Benefit101 451-5152 Cell Phone Allowance101-451-5301 Contract Services101-451-5500 Printing & Advertising 101-451-5510 Dues & Subscriptions
101-451-5512 Meetings & Travel101-451-5560 Supplies & Materials Total SubProgram:451 - Watershed Management:

SubProgram: 451 - Resource Conservation
101-461-5100 Regular Wages101 461-5106 Other Pay
IO1,-46L 5120 Health lnsurance]']i--46L-5121, Dental lnsurance 101--461-51.22 Life lnsurance
101-46L 5123 Disability lnsurance
101-461-5130 PERS CIASSIC Contribution101 461-5131 PERS PEPRA Contribution 10I-461.-5132 PERS Prepay UAAL101'461-5140 Medicare Tax101 461-5150 Flexible Benefits Program101-461 5151 Fitness Benefit1,01-461,-51,52 Cell Phone Allowance101-461-5301 Contract Services 101-461 5500 Printing & Advertising
101-461-5510 Dues & Subscriptions
1-01--461--5512 Meetings & Travel
101-461-5536 Equipment/Office Rent & Leas,101-461 5560 Supplies & Materials Total SubProgram: 461 - Resource Conservation:

SubProgram: 501 - Parks and Recreation Administration
101-501-5100 Regular Wages101-501-5102 Part-time Wages101-501 5104 Overtime Pay101-501 5106 Other Pay 101-501 5120 Health lnsurance101-501 5121 Dental lnsurancelOI 501-5722 Life lnsurance101-501-5123 Disability lnsurance101-501 5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution 7O,778.4O 123,L8L.43 77,56a.5O 180,950.00 166,050.00 -14,900.00 -a.23% 202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

0.00 204.75
10,602.00

0.000.00
750.00

0.00 20,284.O8
776.49
2,76r.20
194.61

82.0579.00
2,000.12
20L.42
3,O92.97
296.28295.L4

0.00 159.25

0.000.00
850.00

0.00 L,062.76

0.oo
42,635.2r
5,029.81

0.00 903.66
7,938.3s
675.6!Its.741.42.r8
4,823.31
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Br r.lFFt
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
2019-2020 2020-202t
Total Activity Total Activity

0.00 0.00
24,766.6s
1,188.00
2,043.OO

0.00 6,063.24

0.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.00
5,849.28

0.00 76,345.20

0.00 606.00
1,887.O7
12,446.38
919.16
3t.26
376.28
2,36r.45

93.6029.25
t8,L62.69
1,355.18
450.00

0.00 344.37
68,0].6.23
3,275.59
910.58
3,564.O4
10,950.66
842.40
183.91
216.21
7,748.39
300.00
0,(x)
45,000,00
1,[email protected]
16,050.00
1,[email protected],300.00
300.00
400.00
30,000.00
1,500.00
1O0s0.00
900.00
1,300,00

0.00 400.00
15,000.00

0.000.00
-300.00

0.00 0.oo%o.00%
-3333%
o.o0%o.oo%
-25.OO%
o.oo%
5,849.28 51,733.58 32,t35.37 55,175.00 55,150.00
32,692.97
t,272.O2
3,985.76
257.67
Lr2.77LO2.63
3,253.4t
313.61
5,022.37
478.99
418.09

93.6022.75

0.00 0.00
1,075.00

0.00 2,632.OO

0.00 33,600.00
2,100.00
4100.00
300.00
100.00100.00
3,200.00
3s0.00
4000.00
s00.@
4s0.00
100.00

0.00 1,m0.00
5(D.00
1,125.00
500.00
2,650,00
500.00
74,400.@
1,000.00
600.00
2,800.00
12,300.00
1,000.00
200.00200.00
8,0s0.00
33,600,00
2,100.00
4100.00
300.00
x00.00100.00
3,200.00
350.00
4,000.00
500.00
450.00
10o.00
lmo.00
1,m0.00

0.00 1,2(x).00
5(D.00
3,150.00

0.00 74,400.@
1,@O.00
600.00
2,800.(x)
12,[email protected]
1,000.00
200.00200.00
8,050.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.00
400.00

0.00 -500.00

75.00 0.00
500.00
-500.00
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%0.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%0.00%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
-100.00%

6.67%
o.oo%

18.87%
-100.00%
o.oo%o.o0%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.00%o.oo%
-25.00 -o.o5%

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.00
3 / 22-/ 7 02?- 1 : 0 5 :'10 Plvl Page 15 of 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
101 501-5132 PERS prepay UAAL101-501 5140 MedicareTax
101-501-5150 Flexible Benefits program101-501 5151 Fitness Benefit 101-501 5152 Cell phone Allowance101-501-5165 Pension Trust101-501 5199 Contra Account - pension Trus. 101-501-5500 printing & Advertising101 501-5510 Dues & Subscriptions101 501-5512 Meetings & Travel 101 501-5560 Supplies & Materials
Total SubProgram: 501 - Parks and Recreation Administration SubProgram: 502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance
101 502-5100 RegularWages
101 502-5104 Overtime pay101-502-5106 Other pay101-502-5120 Health lnsurance 101-502 5121 Dental lnsurance1.01502 5L22 Life tnsurance 101-502-5123 Disability tnsurance101-502-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution101-502 5132 PERS Prepay UAAL 101-502-5140 Medicare Tax101 502-5150 Flexible Benefits program 101 502-5151 Fitness Benefit101-502 5301 Contract Services101 502-5345 Equipment Repairs/Replaceme 101 502-5350 Landscape Maintenance101-502-5362 Janitorial Services 101-502 5510 Dues & Subscriptions101-502 5560 Supplies & Materials101 502-5561 Janitorial Supplies101'502-5567 Landscaping Supply Repairs &
Total SubProgram: 502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance:

IO2,343.7O trt,t22.t2 71,o78.2t 117,400.q' t17,4(n.oo
2019-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
2021.2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
7,448.52
698.98
429.37

0.00 182.00

0.000.00

0.000.oo

33.08 22.33
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison I
Budget
202L-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budset
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
5,42r.O0
282.32139.93

0.000.00
3,8s0.00
-3,850.00

0.00 170.00

0.00 1,357.65

0.00 0.000.000.00
-7.20

0.00 0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00
30,o2r.4215,738.00

0.000.00
r,904.49

0.00 12,037.32
1,O92.3t
868.84

0.00 806.00

0.00 0.00
136.00
317.00

0.00 156.64
6,643.20
3r2.1r
255.50
2,280.98
78L.54

15.1620.3r
692.82
r,o43.o4
105.53
r22.69

0.00 4,735.78

0.00 L4,320.8018,893.14
1,376.62r,987.r3
2,794.7r

0.00 13,0(X).00
1,[email protected]
[email protected]
800.00

0.000.00

0.00 200.00

0.(D
s@.@
26,[email protected]
600.00
1,0m.00
8,800.00
900.00

50.00 100.00
2,800.00
3,000.00
400.00
100.001s0.00
1,000.00

0.00 &640.00
20,840.00
1,380.00
s00.00
2,000.00

0.00 13,000.00
1,[email protected]
900.002s0.00
800.00

0.000.000.oo
200.(x)

0.00 500.00
26,000.00
500.00
1,000.00
&800.00
900.00

50.00 100.00
2,800.00
3,000.(D
400.00
100.00150.00
10,000.00
2,000.00&700.00
21,000.00
1,/S00,001,500.00
6,000.001,200.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 0.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00
9,000.002,000.00

60.00 160.00

20.00 1,000.00
4,000.00
1,200.00

0.00 0.oo/"
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%

0.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.00%
900.oo%
o.oo%o.69%
o.77%

1.45%
200.oo%200.oo%
o.oo%
L7,373.90
1,498.50

0.00 5,406.95
s03.48

39.27 55.58
r,832.46
2,702.34
277.60
435.35

0.00 3,961.35
749.33
5,608.11
tr,698.24

0.00 1,846.17
3,647.r8

0.00 55,181.05 52036.81 78,2il.@ gt7(xr.(x, fl,44o.oo 22.28% Total Fund: 101 - GENERAL fUTOT - 11/05^3r5"OO
47,656.7t
:ra-r-ar- t/ - L/ Lv.:/_ 1. rrJ.+, rr'l Page 15 of 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
Fund: 102 - GENERAT RESERVE - SPECIAI PROJECTS
SubProgram: 502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance
107-502-5764 lmprovements
Total SubProgram:502 - Park and Facilities Maintenance:

Total Fund: 102 - GENERAL RESERVE - SPECIAL PROJECTS:

Fund: 103 - MAJOR ASSET REPTACEMENT AND REPAIR RESERVE
SubProgram:331 - Code Compliance
103-331-5767 Vehicle Purchase
Total SubProgram:331 - Code Compliance:

SubProgram: 501 - Parks and Recreation Administration
703-501,-5762 Vehicle Purchase
Total SubProgram: 501 - Park and Recreation Administration Total Fund: 103 - MAJOR ASSET REPTACEMENT AND REPAIR
Fund: 104 - MEASURE X FUND
SubProgram: 111 - City Administration
1,04 1,1,I-520I Professional Services
Total SubProgram: 111 - CitY Administration:

SubProgram: 121 - legal Services
IO4'721,-527O Legal Services
Total SubProgram: l2L' Legal Services:

SubProgram: 131 - Records Management
1O4-I3I-52O1 Professional Services
Total SubProgram: 131 - Records Manatement:

SubProgram: 151 - Communication and Community Promotions 104-1,61,-5201, Professional Services
Total SubProgram: 161 - Communication and Community Pro SubProgram: 153 - Community Services Support
104-163-5201 Professional Services
IO4 163-5279 SB County Branch Library
104 163-5601 Community Services Grants
Total SubProtram: 163 - Community Services Support:

SubProgram : L7 t - law Enforcement
LO4 177-5254 SB County Sheriff
Total SubProgra mz 17t - Law Enforcement:

SubProgram: 181 - Racial Equity
104-181'5100 Regular Wages

0.000.000.000.000.00
26,271.tO26,271.tO26,27t.LO

0.oo

0.00 29,980.0029,980.00 59,340.00 35,000.00 60,qr0.00 60,000.00

0.00 0.00 0.oo 77,850.N 77,85O.OO O.OO%

0.00 0.00 0.00 77,850.00 77,8so.oo o.oo%0.00 0.00 0.0o 77,850.q, 77,850.00 0.00%

0.oo 3,986.73 0.00 44,000.00 44,000.00 0.oo%

0.00 3,986.73 0.00 44,qr0.00 44,ooo.o0 o.oo%

0.00 0.00 76.fin.0O 76.(nO.00 0.00 0.oo%0.00 o.oo 76,txr0.0o 76,[email protected] 0.00 0.00%0.00 3,986.73 76,000.00 120,@0.00 44000.00 57.89%0.00 2t,o27.oo 63,600.@ 63,[email protected] 0.00 0.oo% 0.00 2t,o27.oo 63,600.00 63,6{D.(xl 0.00 0.00%

0.00 109,062.s0 3,s07.00 67,500.00 67,500.00 0.00 0.oo%0.00 109,062.50 3,507.00 62500.00 67,500.00 o.oo 0.00%

0.00 12,990.00 11,550.00 m.(no.00 18,000.00 0.00 0.oo%

0.00 12,990.00 11,550.00 18,qn.00 18,qn.00 0.00 0.oo%
s9.340.00 3s,000.00 60 000.00 60,000.00 0.00 0.oo%
Parent Budget
202r-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budeet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
2019-2020
Total Activity
2020-2021 2021-2022
Total Activity YTD Activity
Through Feb
o.oo 0.00%

0.00 20s,000.00
107,903.00
s,698.00
250,000.00

37.720.OO
3,541.50

0.00 65,6ss.00
10,400.00
250,000.@
75,000.00
10,400.00
250,m0.00
75,000.00

0.00 0.000.00
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
312,903.00 293,4t8,0O 69,196.50 335,496.96 335,400.00
300,000.00 465,000.00 3s0,000.00 600,[email protected] 600,000.00
300,000.00 465,000.00 350,000.00 600,m0.0o 6d),qr0.00

0.00 0.oo%

0.00 0.oo%0.00 0.oo%
3 / 22/ 207-2 i : 05 : 4C Plvl Palle 17 of 38

0.00 0.00 6,6ss.31 34,(x)0.00 34,000.00 0.00 0.oo%
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
104-181 5106104-181-5 120
1-04-1.8r-5121.ro4-I8r-5r22
104-181 5123104- 181-5 130104-L8r-51.32
104 181-5140104-181-5150104,18 1-5 15 1
104-181-5 152104-L8L 5440
104 181-5512
Other PayHealth lnsuranceDental lnsuranceLife lnsurance Disability lnsurancePERS CLASSIC Contribution
PERS Prepay UAALMedicare TaxFlexible Benefits Program
Fitness Benefit
Cell Phone Allowance
Utility - Communications/Teleg
Meetings & Travel
Total SubProgram: 181 - Racial Equity:

SubProgram: 221 - Management lnformation Services
L04 22f-536A Software Subscription/Maintet
Total SubProgra m: 221 - Management lnformation Services:

SubProgram: 302 - Advance Planning
104-302-510q RegularWages104-302-5106 Other pay
L04-302-53-20 Health lnsurancefO4-3O2 5121 Dental lnsurance1O4 302-5122 Life tnsurance1-04-302 5123 Disability tnsurance 104-302-5131 PERS pEpRA Contribution
104-302 5137 PERS prepay UAAL
1,o4-392514P Medicare Tax
104-302-5150 Flexible Benefits program104-302-5151 Fitness Benefit704-302-5152 Cell Phone Allowance

1.04-302-52Ot Professional Services
Total SubProgram: 302 - Advance planning:

SubProgram: 431 - Street Maintenance
1,04-43L'5302 Street Maintenance
Total SubProgram:431 - Street Maintenance:

SubProgram:502 - Park and Facilities Maintenance
104-502-5100 Regular Wa8es1O4 502-5L02 Part-time Wages
20L9-2020
Total Activity
2020-2021
Total Activity
Parent
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
lncrease
(Decrease)

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
%
o.oo%o.oo%

0.000.00

0.00 0.000.oo

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
L76.94
575.49

93.93 14.69

20.14 753.10
r,t62.68

98.17 53.52

0.00 48.75
2r.62

0.oo
13,449.68
344.s5
3,551.61
262.98

40.96 46.69
1,035.55

30.87 .
792.18158.07

0.00 91.00

0.00 2,100.005,000.00
150.@

50.00 100.00
3,600.00s,000.0o
500.00
300.00
100.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.(x)

0.000.00

0.000.00
180,000.00
2,100.005,000.00
150.00

50.00 100.00
3,500.005,000.00
500.00300.00100.001s0.00150.00
2,000.(n
20,000.00
600.00
6,@0.00
600.00
100.o0100.00
2,000.00
100.00
3(x).00
3(n.00

0.ff)
[email protected]
135,000.00
2,300.00 4.s2yo

0.00 0.oo%

0.00 0.oo%

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00
150.00
150.00
2,000.00
20,000.00
600.00
6,000.00
600.00
100.00
100.00
2,000.00
100.00
300.00300.00

0.00 200.00
-45,000.00
9,674.94 50,9qr.00 53,200.tx,3,343.72 6,@0.00 6,(X)O.003,343.72 6,000.00 6,(xt0.(x,

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 0.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
-2s.oo%

0.00 t9,2o4.t4 180,m0.0o 161300.00 -L4,7oo.oo -8.t7%0.00 0.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 0.00 0.00%

0.00 0.00 150,000.00 151r,000.00 0.00 0.oo%
94,97t.64
LO,064.t7
9L,400.7r

0.00 135,000.00

0.00 135,000.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 3/ 27/2127 i :C5:.iC Plvl Pagel8ol3S

0.00 0.00
Budget Comparison Report
Fund: 201 - TRAFFIC SAFETY FUND
SubProgram : l'l t - law Enforcement
2or-U7-5254 SB County Sheriff
Total SubProgram: 171 - Law Enforcement:

SubProgram: 331 - Code Compliance
201-331-5102 Part-time Wages201 331-5106 Other Pay201-331-5131 PERS PEPRA Contribution 201-331-5132 PERS Prepay UAAL201-331-5140 Medicare Tax201-331-5141 Unemployment lnsurance Total Fund: 104 - MEASURE x FUND: 642,883.00 L,166,957,56

0.00 227,!47.06 1s9,s14.81 262600.00 268,100.q1 soo.00 0.19% 682,Ot8.tt 1,799,qr0,q, 1,787,100.00 -11,900.00 -0.66%
Parent Budget
2021-2022
Ff 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
202L-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budeet
lncrease /
{Decrease)
%
20t9-2020 2020-202t
Total Activity Total Activity

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.00
8,484.94

15.00 0.000.00

71.88 303.00
29L.63
2,373.62
37,081.98
2,207.70
351.23307.08
L,570.72
6,303.472,605.74
1,565.33t,429.9r

0.00 526.50
203.76

0.000.00

45.00 27s.23

45.78 7,799.7t

41.34 33,559.47
23,526.Os
9,O71.37

0.00 165.86

4.87 131.51
2,42r.O0
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
380.80
3,3L6.47
47,903.97
2,652.99
375.06347.77
1,093.65
6,260.OO
L,875.49t,375.t31,770.79

0.00 500.50

0.00 139.00

0.000.00
404.99

45.78 3,146.92

26.68 2,498.7\

0.00 5oo.o0
3,800.00
64,000.00
4,000.00
600.00
500.00
1,500.00
6,700.003,500.00
1,s00.00
z7@.@
800.00s00.00400.00700.oo

0.00 50.00
300.00

50.00 s,400.00
1(X).00
1g(x)0.00
25,000.00
s00.00
3,800.00
54,000.00
4,000.@
600.00
500.00
1,500.(X}
6 700.@3,s00.00
1,500.00
2,7@.@
8(x).(X)[email protected]
24(X)O.00

50.00 8(n.00

50.00 s,400.00
100.00
10,000.(p
1,000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 0.000.000.00
24,000.00

0.00 s00.00

0.000.000.000.00
24,000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00
-s00.00
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo% t66.67%

0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
-96.OO%

0.00 0.oo%0.00 0.oo%
Account Number
IO4-5O2-51O4 Overtime Pay104-502-5106 Other Pay1.O4-5O2-5I2O Health lnsurance

1.04-502-51.21. Dental lnsurance

1.04-502-5122 Life lnsuranceIO4-5O2-5!23 Disability lnsurance 104-502 5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution
LO4-5O2-513I PERS PEPRA Contribution
104-502-5132 PERS Prepay UAAL104-502-5140 Medicare Tax
104 502-5150 Flexible Benefits Program104-502-5151 Fitness Benefit104-502-5152 Cell Phone AllowanceIO4-502-5I7I Uniform Allowance104-502-5180 lndividual Equipment/SafetyIO4-502-52OI Professional Services L04'502-5345 Equipment Repairs/Replaceme1O4-5O2-544O Utility - Communications/Teleg 104-502-5500 Printing & Advertising104-502-5536 Equipment/Office Rent & Leas,104-502-5560 Supplies & MaterialstO4-5O2 5763 Furniture & Fixtures IO4-5O2 5764 lmprovements
Total SubProgram: 502 - Park and Facilities Maintenance:
12,000.00 35,000.00
12,000.00 35,000.00

0.000.00
9,738.30

0.00 23r.83

6.94 14L.19

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.o0

0.00 16,[email protected]

0.00 s00.00
s0.00
2s0.00500.00
x6,000.00

0.00 s00.00

50.(n
250.00

0.00 o.oo%0.oo%

0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
-100.00%
3/22/2022 l:05:'10 PIY Page 19 of 38
Budget Comparison Report
20t9-2020
Total Activity
o.o0

0.00 0.00
2020-2021
Total Activity
386.42

0.000.00
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

0.oo

0.00 2,797.22
Parent Budget
202t-20.22
FY 2O22AB

0.00 0.00
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22MY

0.00 10,000.00
3,000.00
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budoat
lncrease /
(Decrease)
8,874.82 t2,t8t.o3 Lo,tt8.26 12300.00 16,8{n.00
20,874.82 47,t81.O3 10,118.25 17,[email protected] 16,800.00

0.00 0.oo%
-s00.00 -2.89%-500.00 -2.89yo
10,000.00

0.00 %o.00%
o.oo%
Account Number
201 331-5560 Supplies & Materials
Total Subprogram: 331 - Code Compliance:

Total Fund: 201 - TRAFFTC SAFETY FUND:

Fund:202 - IIBRARY FUND
SubProgram : 221 - Management lnformation Services
702 22I-520L Professional Services
242 221.-5565 Computer Hardware/ Replacer
Total SubProgra m: 221 - Management lnformation Services:

SubProgram: 501 - Parks and Recreation Administration
202-501-5100 Regular Wages
202 501-5106 Other pay202 5O1--512O Health lnsurance
202-50L 512f Dental lnsurance202-503.5122 Life lnsurance202-50L 5L23 Disability tnsurance 202-501-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution?02-5Oi--5I32 PERS prepay UAAL202-50L-5140 Medicare Tax 202 501-5150 Flexible Benefits program
202-501 5151 Fitness Benefit202-501 5152 Cell phone Allowance202 501--5440 Utility - Communications/Telel 2O2 5OI-551.2 Meetings & Travel
Total SubProgram: 501 - Parks and Recreation Administration SubProgram:550 - City tibrary
202-550-5100 Regular Wages
2O2 550-5702 part-time Wages202-550-5106 Other pay202-55O-5f20 Health lnsurance 202-550-51.21. Dental lnsurance2O2 550-51.22 Life lnsurance 202-550-5123 Disability tnsurance
202-550-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution202-550 5L32 PERS prepay UAAL 2O2-550-5L4O Medicare Tax202-550 5150 Flexible Benefits Program 202-550-5151 Fitness Benefit202-550-5152 Cell Phone Allowance

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 0.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00
2,797.22 3,qr0.00 13,000.txt 10,000.00 333.33%
7,743.20 31,5qt.0o 33,850.00 2,350.00 7.46%
5,324.r2
141.55
460.40

75.70 ]-r.62

16.o4
602.10
930.05

78.88 42.72

0.00 39.00

21.62 0.00
rr,405.28

0.00 769.r9

0.000.00

29.30 36.82
1,290.27r,992.5r
178.08107.00

0.00 97.50
20,000,00
1,000.(x)
3,000.00
100.00100.00
100.00
3,000.003,s00.00
400.00
250.00

50.00 0.000.000.q)
110,000.00
15,000.00
40@.(x)
11,000.00
850.@
500.00
100.0o
10,000.00
10 000.00
2,000.00
1,000,00
750.00

0.00 20,000.00
x,000.(x)
3,000.00
100.00
100.0010o.00
3,000.003,5(x).00
1100.00
250.00

50.00 200.00150.00
2,000.00
80,(x)0.00
16,0(D.00
3,000.009,000.00
600.(X)
400.00300.00
9,(x)0.00
10,(x)0.00
2,000.00
1,000.00
750.00
300.00

0.00 0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00
200.00
150.00
2,000.00
-30,000.00

0.00 -1,000.00
-2,000.00
-2s0.00-100.00
200.00
-1,000.00

0.00 0.000.000.00
300.00
o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.o0%
-27.27%
o.oo%
-2s.oo%
-18.L8%
-29.4L%
-20.oo%
200.oo%
-to.oo%
o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 0.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.00
3i 7),/ ? C22 1 : 05 :210 PP1 Page 20 oi 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
202 550 5201 Professional Services202-550-5510 Dues & Subscriptions202-550-5560 Supplies & Materials2O2-55O 5767 Major Equipment207-550-5763 Furniture & Fixtures Total SubProgram:550 - City library:

Total Fund: 202 - LIBRARY FUND:

Fund: 204 - PARK MAINTENANCE FUND
SubProgram: 501 - Parks and Recreation Administration
204-501-5100 Regular Wages204-501.-5102 Part-time Wages204-501-5104 Overtime Pay204-501--5106 Other Pay204-501,-5120 Health lnsurance204-5OI 51.2I Dental lnsurance204-501,-5122 Life lnsurance2O4-5O7-5I23 Disability lnsurance204-501-5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution 204 5O1.-5I32 PERS Prepay UAAL204-501 5140 MedicareTax204-501-5150 Flexible Benefits Program204-501'5151 Fitness Benefit204-501,-5752 Cell Phone Allowance Total SubProgram: 501 - Parks and Recreation Administration SubProgram:502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance
204-502-5100 Regular Wages2O4-5O2-5IO2 Part-time Wages2O4-5O2-51.O4 Overtime Pay204-502-5706 Other Pay204-502-5108 lnterpreter Pay204-502-51,20 Health Insurance204-502-5121, Dental lnsurance 2O4 502-5172 Life lnsurance
2O4 502-5123 Disability lnsurance
204 502-5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution
204-502-5131 PERS PEPRA Contribution
204-502-5732 PERS Prepay UAAL2O4-502-5I4O Medicare Tax
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

0.000.000.000.000.00
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB

0.000.00
5,(x)0.00
24,300.00

0.00 Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budset
lncrease /
(Decrease)
lo
20t9-2020 2020-202t
Total Activity Total Activity

0.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
47,450.43
33,780.69
2,749.24
2,968.77

76.50 t2,924.37
857.88
139.80t61.28
4,55I.52
300.77
3,369.00
r,253.66

0.000.000.000.00

0.00 38,836.94
1,091.89
303.56
2,227.58s,980.34
465.60

96.81 tt2.52
4,436.O7
6,836.68
6TL,49
425.20

0.00 L6.25
33,185.6s
8,6s3.61
1,550.88t,277.49

0.00 r2,3L2.s7
989.00

93.99 L22.96
3,551.08

0.00 s,2r5.4L
653.03
25,488.39
7,676.62

0.00 564.87
4,557.34
400.54

66.O7

80.32 2,884.O8
4,453.06
399.0224L.54

0.00 rt3.75
4,343.64
7,372.Or
374.62

0.000.00
r,755.64
207.49

16.18 22.45
458.27

0.00 67s.66
176.SO
41,000.(X)
2,[email protected]
.t00.00
1,500.006,900.00
600.00
100.00100.00
4,400.00
6,000.00
600.00
ss0.00
100.00

0.00 6,s00.00
9,800.00
1,600.00
250.00

0.00 2,300.00
250.(X)

50.00 50.00
750.00

0.00 1,[email protected]
250.00
41,000.(x)
2,[email protected]
'100,00
1,[email protected]
6,900.00
600.00
100.00100.00
4400.00
6,000.00
600.00
ss0,00
10o.00
300.00
6,s00.009,800.(X)
1,600.00
250.00

0.00 2,300.00
2s0.00

50.00 50.00
750.00

0.00 1,200.00
250.00

0.00%o.00%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.o0%0.00%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%

0.000.000.000.000.00
10,000.00
s,000.@5,000.00

0.00 1s,[email protected]
10,000.00
s,000.00

0.00 -24,300.OO
1s,000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.00
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
-100.00%
o.oo%

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00
300.00300.00 0.47%
o.oo 1s,90s.9s 195500.00 162350.00 -28,1s0.00 -t4.4o%0.00 26,446.37 23q(x)O.q' 214,200.q' -1s,800.00 -6.87%

0.00 61-,440.9t 40,92s.50 64.A50.00 64,750.00
3/22/2A22- 1:05:40 PM Page 21 cf 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
204-502-5150 Flexible Benefits program204-502 5157 Fitness Benefit2O4 5O2-517O Uniform Cleaning 204 502-517L Uniform Allowance
204-502-5180 Individual Equipment/Safety204-502'5301" Contractservices204-502-5345 Equipment Repairs/Replaceme 204-502-5350 Landscape Maintenance204-502-5356 Tree Maintenance704-502-5357 Tree Replacement204-502-5362 Janitorial Services 2O4-502-54OO Utility - Electric204-502-5420 Utility - Sewer204-502-5430 Utility - Water 204-502 5536 Equipment/Office Rent & Leas
204-502 5560 Supplies & Materials204-502-556I Janitorial Supplies204-502-5567 Landscaping Supply Repairs &
204-502 5581 Vehicle Operations & Mainten;204-502-5582 Fuel Expense204-502-5764 lmprovements Total SubProgram: 502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance:

SubProgram: 531 - Ocean Beach Services
204-531.-520L Professional Services
204-531-5301 Contract Services
Total SubProgram: 531 - Ocean Beach Services:

Total Fund: 204 - PARK MAINTENANCE FUND:

Fund:205 - cAS TAX FUND
SubProgram: 201 - Financial Management Services
205-201 5210 Annual Audit
Total SubProgram: 201 - Financial Management Services:

SubProgram:401 - Public Works Administration
205-401-5228 Engineering Services
Total SubProgram: 401 - Public Works Administration:

SubProgram : 431 - Street Maintenance
205 431-5100 RegularWages
205-431-5104 Overtime Pay
205-431 5106 Other Pav
398,76O.t2 36t,92t.72 2O4,5rO.57 333,100.@ 348pfit.(x, 15,7OO.OO 4.7!yo 2019-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
TotalActivity
Parent Budget
202l-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
FY 2O22M.Y
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budset
lncrease /
(Decrease)
440.24

0.00 803.13

0.00 0.00
14,309.99
3,61.6.84
r44,026.27
4,818.50

0.00 32,455.57
4,051.88
2,666.30
70,569.76

0.00 5,942.883,920.s0

0.00 436.37
r77.98

0.00 657.29

0.00 622.33173.20
338.s8
11,348.65
2,486.75
LOt,294.94
5,304.00

0.00 26,429.24
3,632.372,804.r7
106,550.2s
713.50
13,601.6s
2,938.3I
9,729.89
s66.40
293.32
4,73r.21
2071-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
118.36

0.00 382.34

0.00 0.00
638.00
437.23
65,183.00
7,490.OO

67.24 13,964.00
r,852.52
994.00
69,837.82

0.00 10,655.50
4,578.22
LL,327.49
7L2.68279.59
590.12
650.00

50.00 1,000.00
200.00
350.00
5,000.00
10,500.00
115,500.00
140m.00
1,000.00
29,1100.00
43s0.(n3,000.00
103,800.@
o.@
3,000.004,000.00
15,000.00
1,000.00
3@.@

0.00 650.@

50.00 1,000.(x)
200.00
350;(X)
5,(x)0.00
10,500.00
115,500.00
u,m0.00
1,0fi).00
29,400.00
43s0.003,000.00
103,800.00
1,q)0.00
15,000.00
6,000.00
15,000.ff)
1,000.00
1,000.00

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 1,000.00
12,000.00
2,000.00

0.00 0.00
700.00

0.00 o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.00%
o.oo%o.oo%
400.oo%

50.oo%
o.oo%0.oo%
233.33%
o.oo%
32,It6.AO 2t,t75.46 10,000.00 22,flt0.00 22,qp.0o 0.00 0.oo% 430,876.92 444,s38.L1 255,436.17 419,550.00 435,55{r.00 16,000.00 3.81r% 3,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.0o o.oo%
3,000.005,600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.oo%
5,600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00%

0.00 32,176.80
tL4,O51.79
8,951.19s,358.18
330.00
20,845.46
61,O23.63
I,670.69
3,39s.39

0.00 10,000.00
39,663.31
1,367.79
2,169.94

0.00 22,W.@
69,800.fi)
2,s00.(X)
4,7@.@

0.00 22,W.@
59,800.00
2,s00.00
4,700.00

0.000.oo

0.00 0.000.00
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
Ji?2i2J22 1:05:4C PM Paqe 22 ol'38
Budget Comparison Report
Parent Budget
202t-2022
N 2022AB
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budset
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
20\9-2020 2020-2021
Total Activity Total Activity
433.20
31,881.s0
4,803.86
874.80
913.36
6,567.42
L,O74.Lt
8,110.00
L,877.64
2,9rO.74

0.000.00
4,000.00
r,236.r5
130.36
463.03
-4,000.00
8,925.00
1,839.85

0.00 2,968.84
240.OO600.00
15,870.05
21,551.96
]-3,515.76]-2,628.O2

0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.00
117.00
13,426.49
L,532.69
2L6.54
220.so
5,4r5.62
1,079.33
8,L64.26
958.89
7,r30.28

0.00 16.25

0.00 996.51
1,993.93
689.16

0.00 3,987.877,994.39
626.98
2,420.O3

0.000.00
7,71388
2t,145.27
L2,693.8rL3,923.41

0.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.00 2021-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

76.50 8,5t4.84
1,059.58
132.O2L45.66
3,602.05
675.78
5,423.28
627.54833.74

0.00 1.73.75

0.oo
549.96
612.15

26.3L

0.000.00
6,457.98
447.98

0.00 0.00
423.OO
3,2L5.OO5,526.813,728.63
rr,925.99

0.00 2,L7I.69
r87.30

0.00 665.25

60.82 4.79

6.80 229.22
337.86
100.(x)
14200.(x)
1,700.00
250.0O250.00
6,300.00
1,200.00
8,000.00
1,100.001,250.00
400.00

0.000.00
1,600.00
2,500.00
900.00

0.00 0.00
85,4s0.00
750.00

0.00 1,000.001,000.00
3,m0.@
29,500.00
15,000.0013,000.00

0.00 3,300.00

0.00 150.00
1,100.00
100,00

50.0050.(x)

0.00 1,500.00
100.00
14200.00
1,700.0o
250.00250.00
6,300.00
1,200.00
8,000.00
1,100.001,2s0.00
400.00
300.00

0.00 1,600.00
2,500.q)
900.cx)

0.000.00
47,630.00
750.00
o.00
1,000.001,000.00
4 300.q)
29,600.00
15,000.0023,000.0026,520.@

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
300.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00
-37,820.OO

0.000.000.000.00
1,300.00

0.000.00
10,000.0026.s20.OO

0.00 400.00

0.000.000.000.000.00
s00.00

0.00 o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
-44.26%
o.00%0.00%o.oo%
o.oo%
4333%
o.oo%o.00%

76.92%
o.oo%

0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
Account Number
205 431 5108
205-431,-51.2020s-437-512r205-43r-5722205 43L 5L23
205-431-5130205-43 1-5131
205-43L 51-32205-431.-5L40
205-43 1-5150205-43 1-5151
205,43L-5752
205 431-5165
205-43L-5170205-43L-5L7L
205-431-5 180205 431,5199205-431-5302205 431-5345
205 431-5440205 431-5500205-43 1-5510205-43r,5512
205-43L 553620s 431 5560
205-431-558r205-43L-5587
205 431-5t61.
lnterpreter PayHealth lnsuranceDental lnsuranceLife lnsuranceDisability lnsurancePERS CLASSIC ContributionPERS PEPRA ContributionPERS Prepay UAAL Medicare TaxFlexible Benefits ProgramFitness Benefit
Cell Phone Allowance
Pension Trust
Uniform CleaningUniform AllowanceI ndividual Eq uipment/Safety Contra Account - Pension Trus:Street Maintenance
Equipment Repairs/ReplacemtUtility - Communications/TelelPrinting & AdvertisingDues & Subscriptions Meetings & TravelEquipment/Office Rent & Leas
Supplies & MaterialsVehicle Operations & Mainteni
Fuel ExpenseMajor Equipment
Total SubProgram:431 - Street Maintenance: 267,776.8t t72,546.AO 973tA.99 265,550.q' 255,850.q1 300.00 o.tt% SubProgram: 502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance
205-502 5100 RegularWages205-502 5104 Overtime Pay205-502 5106 Other Pay 205-502-5120 Health lnsurance205-502-51.2L Dental lnsurance 205-502-5122 Life lnsurance205-502-5123 Disability lnsurance205-502-5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution205-502-5132 PERS Prepay UAAL 3,300.00
400.ff)
150.00
1,100.00
10o.00
s0.0050.00
s00.00
1,500.00
3/2212022 1:05:40 Pivl Page 23 of 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
205-502-51.40 Medicare Tax
205-502-5150 Flexible Benefits program205-502 5151 Fitness Benefit Total SubProgram: 502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance:

Tota| Fund: 205 - GAS TAX FUND:

Fund: 205 - tOCAt TRANSPORTATTON FUND
SubProgram: 431 - Street Maintenance
206-431-5100 Regular Wages
206-43I-5104 Overtime Pay
206-431-5106 Other pay
206-431-5108 lnterpreter pay206-43|-5120 Health lnsurance206 43L-5I2L Dental lnsurance206-43L 5722 Life lnsurance 206-43L 51"23 Disability tnsurance
206-431-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution
206-431-51-31 PERS PEPRA Contribution206-431 5132 PERS prepay UAAL206-431 5140 Medicare Tax 206-431-5150 Flexible Benefits program206-431 5151 Fitness Benefit206'431- 51.52 Cell phone Allowance 206-431" 53OZ Street Maintenance206-431 5560 Supplies & Materials Total SubProgram:431 - Street Maintenance:

Tota| Fund: 206 - TOCAT TRANSPORTATIoN FUND:

Fund: 207 - TIDELANDS TRUST FUND
SubProgram: 501 - Park and Recreation Administation
207-501'5100 Regular Wages
207-501.-53.02 Part-time Wages2O7 5Ot-51O4 Overtime Pay207-501-5106 Other pay 207-50L-51.20 Health lnsurance201-50L'51,21- Dental lnsurance207-5Ot-5122 Life tnsurance207-501 5123 Disability lnsurance 207 501-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution207-501-5131 PERS PEPRA Contribution

0.00 0.00 3,752.41 6,350.00 2350.00
276,376.8L t72,546.80 101,071.80 271,9qr.00 27?,2@.@
20t9-2020
Total Activity
2020-2021
Total Activity
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

34.82 54.26

0.00 Parent Budget
202r-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22|I/IY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budpei
lncrease /
(Decrease)

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 50.00

0.00 50.00

50.00 100.00

50.00 0.00
100.00

0.00 o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
o.oo%

0.oo%o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.o0%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
1,000.00 ts.75%
1,300.00 0.4a%
168.75

0.00 34.r2

0.000.000.00

0.000.00
2L.60

0.00 0.003.037.71

0.000.00

0.000.00
36,375.09
1,055.91
2,782.59

78.00 6,844.88
870.87
r20.33rLs.22
3,588.49
396.59
5,308.56
574.30644.76

0.009.75
798.32

0.00 23,467.37
740.92
1,389.s3
s1.00
4,99s.94
668.82

82.rO

88.39 2,338.24
255.47
3,510.90
371.8r
502.19

0.00 68.25

0.000.00
37,600.00
1,000.(n
2,800.00
100.00
6,8q).001,000.00
100.00100.00
3,s00.00
tt00.00
5,000.00
600.00
700.00200.(D

0.00 4,000.00
1,m0.00
37,600.00
1,000.@
2,800.00
100.00
6,800.001,000.00
100.00100.00
3,s00.00
't00.00
5,000.00
6m.00
700.002(X).00200.00
4000.00

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 200.00

0.00 0.00
23s.2L s8,953.06 38,530.93 64,900.q' 65,1ql.OO
2?s.2t 58,963.05 38,530.93 64,900.00 61100.00
200.00 0.3Lv"
200.00 0.3191

0.00 0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.00 40,788.79
1,091.89
620.r3
L,9r7.58
6,939.78
492.97
113.65
111.59
3,6s0.06
66r.O2
27,869.9r
L,676.62
3s3.62
700.64
4,743.92
457.96

77.4288.50
2,752.64
27L.32
46,000.00
2,200.N
500.@
1,500.00
10,00o.00
800.002s0.002s0.00
4,200.00
1,000.00
46,000.00
2,[email protected]
s00.00
1,500.00
10,@o.00
800.002s0.00250.00
4200.00
1,000.(x)

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
3i7?-/2C22 1 :05:.+C PN'1 Page 24 of 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
207-501"-5132 PERS Prepay UAAL201-50L-5740 Medicare Tax207-501-5150 Flexible Benefits Program207 501'5151 Fitness Benefit207-501.-5152 Cell Phone Allowance Total subProgram: 501 - Park and Recreation Administration SubProgram: 502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance
2O1'5O2-51OO Regular Wages2O7-5O2-5LO2 Part-time Wages2O7-5O2-57O4 Overtime Pay201-502-5106 Other Pay2O1-5O2-Y.20 Health lnsurance207-502-51"21 Dental lnsurance 207'502-5122 Life lnsurance207'502-51,23 Disability lnsurance 20-7 5O2-5I30 PERS CLASSIC Contribution
7O7-502-5I3I PERS PEPRA Contribution207-502-5737 PERS Prepay UAAL 207-502-51,40 Medicare Tax
207-502-5150 Flexible Benefits Program207-502-5301. Contract Services 201-502-5345 Equipment Repairs/Replaceme
207-502-5350 Landscape Maintenance207-502-5362 Janitorial Services 2O7 502-5560 Supplies & Materials
707-502-5567 Janitorial Supplies
207-502-5567 Landscaping Supply Repairs &
Total SubProgram: 502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance:

SubProgram: 522 - Junior Lifeguards
207-522-5560 Supplies & Materials
Total SubProgram: 522 - Junior Lifeguards:

SubProgram: 531 - Ocean Beach Services
207-531-5100 Regular Wages
207-531-5102 Part-time Wages
2O7 531-5104 Overtime Pay
207-531-5106 Other Pay
207-531-5120 Health lnsurance201-53I-5L21 Dental lnsurance

0.00 63,2ao.2r 44,o7s.ts 74,1qt.00 7430o.0o
20t9-2020
Total Activity
2020-202L
Total Activity
202r-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
4,258.49
441..56
291.55

0.00 91.00
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
BudEet
lncrease /
(Decrease)

0.000.000.000.00

0.00 s,m0.@
1,000.00
1,(x)O.00
400.00

0.00 5,000.00
1,(x)0.001,000.00
400.00
2oo.oo

0.000.000.000.00
200.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.000.00
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%

0.oo%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.00%o.oo%0.00%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%

0.oo%0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
r40.oo%
o.oo%
%
o.oo%
o.oo%0.00%o.oo%o.oo%

0.oo%
5,645.45
643.34
590.86

0.00 13.00
3,32L.54
4,326.82
t56.O7
322.85
L,176.93

92.88 8.24

10.85 355.49
t2.82
s22.O2
118.40
6!.2965.00
577.2r
9,063.7L
14,885.03

86.85 2,938.37

0.00 0.00
37,991.03
1,310.99

0.00 876.92105.46
200.00 0.27%

0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.00 65.00
2r7.29
15,904.68
9,304.70
545.65
2,832.86

0.00 72,564.55
45,206.r1
3,872.393,754.43
L2,827.O8
684.41

0.00 3,686.O7

0.00 r2r.56

64.55 9.79
t.o2t.23

0.00 7.37
o.2r

55.16 o.970.00
307.94
t4,420.OO
7,576.00
2I.97
4,437.71

0.00 74.O5
39,Or2.76
720.84

0.00 0.000.00
3,300.00
4,500.00
[email protected]

50.0050.00s0.00s0.00s0.00s0.00s0.0050.00
s0.00s0.@
2,000.00
7,mo.00
24,750.@
16,200.00
3,000.002,[email protected]

0.00 3,300.004,500.00
500.00

[email protected].@
s0.00

50.00 50.00s0.0050.00s0.00
2,000.007,000.00
24,750.0016,200.00
3,000.006,@O.00
500.(D

0.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.00
3,500.00
s00.00
2a,87}.t8 38,102.37 30,710.9s 64,250.00 68,250.@ 4,000'00 6-23% 783.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.oo%783.9s o.oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.oo%

0.(D
70,000.00
1,000.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 70 000.q)
1,000,00

0.000.00

0.00 J/2?/2022 l- :05:40 Pivl Page 25 cl' 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
207-531.'5122 Life lnsurance207 531.-51.23 Disability tnsurance 207 531-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution207-531-5131 PERS pEpRA Contribution207-537-5132 PERS prepay UML201-533.-5L40 Medicare Tax 207 533.-5L4I Unemployment lnsurance
2O7 53L-51.50 Flexible Benefits program207 531,-515L Fitness Benefit 207-53L-5171. Uniform Allowance207 531-5301 Contractservices 2O7 531--5345 Equipment Repairs/Replaceme207 531-5350 Landscape Maintenance201-53L-5420 Utility - Sewer 2O7 531-5440 Utility - Communications/Teleg207 531-5500 printing & Advertisin8 207-531 5510 Dues & Subscriptions207-531 5536 Equipment/Office Rent & Leas207-531 5560 Supplies & Materials207-531 5567 Landscaping Supply Repairs &
207 531-5581 Vehicle Operations & Mainteni207-531-5582 Fuel Expense Total SubProgram: 531 - Ocean Beach Services:

Total Fund: 207 - TIDEIANDS TRUST FUND:

Fund:208 - STREET tlcHT|NG FUND
SubProgram:411 - Transportation, Parking and Lighting
208-411 5100 Regular Wages208-4L1.5IO4 Overtime Pay
208-411-5106 Other Pay2OB 41.1.-5120 Health lnsurance2A8-41.1--5121 Dental lnsurance208-41L 5122 Life lnsurance208-417'5L23 Disability lnsurance 208-411 5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution208 4L1.-5132 PERS prepay UAAL208-41L-5740 Medicare Tax 208 411-5150 Flexible Benefits program208 411-5151 Fitness Benefit 208-4LL-51.52 Cell Phone Allowance
199,030.07 10s,093.9s 7A3O2.7t L24ASO.O0 122050.q'
22A,6a4.2O 206,476.53 153,088.81 262,Sqr.00 269,600.q'
20t9-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
Parent
202L-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
202I-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
lncrease
(Decrease)
%
226.99226.54
6,239.37L,r44.4t
5,152.00
1,813.59
2,465.97
520.58

0.00 988.96
1,955.76
340.00
78,132.07
766.45
3,451.70

0.00 13,000.00

0.00 3,s39.13

0.00 r27.74

29.84 22.50

0.004.55

0.000.000.00

0.00 2.87

0.00 0.40

1.03 0.000.00

30.93 26.53

0.00 0.000.00
570.03
5,354.76

66.04 0.000.00
7,790.OO
72,332.76
5,!72.55
608.89
3,2r8.84
269.20
25,000.00
280.50
2,IO4.37L,984.75

0.000.oo
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.00
s77.35
2,295.O0

0.00 0.000.00
1,255.00

0.00 4,270.O0
366.28
2,349.30

0.00 25,350.00

0.00 2,O32.t3

0.000.00

0.00 3,O49.43
158.09L42.25
355.11

46.38 9.499.85
360.115s4.83

48.62 46.!2

0.00 18.20

0.oo0.00

0.000.(X)

0.00 1,000.00
s,200.00
250.00200.00
1,000.00
&000.005,000.00

0.00 700.oo
3,600.(n

0.00 2s,000.00

0.00 3,s00.00

0.000.000.00
4,800.00
300.00400.00
400.00
100.00

50.0050.00
5s0.00
500.00
100.(X)

50.0050.00

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 1,[email protected]
5,200.00

0.000.00
1,000.00
8,000.00&000.00
o.00
750.00
3,600.00

0.00 25,000.00

0.00 3,50O.00

0.(X)

0.000.00
4,800.00
3(x).00
1100.00
400.00
100.00
s0.00s0.00
s50.00
500.00
100.(x)

50.0050,00
100.00

0.00 0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 -2s0.00-200.00

0.000.00
3,000.00

0.00 50.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00
100.00
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%

0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
-100.00%
-LOO.00%
o.oo%o.00%

60.oo%
o.oo%7.14%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.00%
2,600.00 2.o9%
5,800.00 2.59%
4,733.63
10s.39
400.83
412.52

68.37 14.7413.87
536.0s830.19

75.67 47.86

0.00 2.60
3/22-/2A22- 1 : 05:.+0 PN1 Page 25 of 3B
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
208-411-5301 Contract Services
208-411-5400 Utility - Electric208 411-5560 Supplies & Materials Total SubProgram: 411 - Transportation, Parking and tighting:
subProgram: 502 - Park and Facilities Maintenance
208 502'5100 Regular Wages2O8-5O2-5LO4 Overtime Pay208-502-5106 Other Pay208-502-5120 Health lnsurance208-502-5721. Dental lnsurance208-502-5122 Life lnsurance208-502 5123 Disability lnsurance208-502-5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution 208-502 5132 PERS Prepay UAAL
208-502-5140 Medicare Tax
208-502 5150 Flexible Benefits Program
208-502-5151 Fitness Benefit208-502-5345 Equipment Repairs/Replacemt Total SubProgram:502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance:

Fund:209 - RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINTENANCE DISTRICT FUND
SubProgram: 441 - Right of Way Maintenance
209-44L-5L00 Regular Wages
209-441-5102 Part-time Wages2O9-441-5IO4 Overtime Pay2O9-44'J,-51O6 Other Pay209-441.-5708 lnterpreter Pay209-441,-5120 Health lnsurance 209-441 5121 Dental lnsurance
209-441-51,22 Life lnsurance
209-441-5123 Disability lnsurance209-447-5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution 209-441--513I PERS PEPRA Contribution2O9 44I-5732 PERS Prepay UAAL2O9-44t 5140 Medicare Tax209-441-5150 Flexible Benefits Program 7O9-441-'5I5I Fitness Benefit209-441-5157 Cell Phone Allowance t?s,2o9.o7 113,882.84 69,s34.67 116,150.00 116,250.00
2019-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

0.00 63,s43.77
1,r92.42
Parent Budget
2021-2022
FY 2022 AB

0.00 103,800.00
5,000.00
13,100.00
s00.00500.00
4,4(X).00
450.00

50.0050.00
1,4m.001,000.00
200.00150.00
100.00
800.00
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison I
to Parent
Budeet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
30,s86.1196,678.98
7,9L2.63

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.00 103,800.00
s,000.00
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
2,909.24
to2,22r.82
1,510.06
6,643.20
3r2.LL255.50
2,280.98
181.54

15.1620.31
7r!.o9
r,o43.o4
105.s3
122.69

0.000.00
54,740.9s
16,985.2s
2,248.772,893.43
LL7.OO
12,764.58
L,5r7.87
195.29
200.49
s,447.56
s94.77
8,188.32
1,110.31t,ot1.33

0.00 13.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 0.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
200.00
8,686.83
749.25

0.00 2,74r.92
260.03

20.3228.66
915.10
1,349.32
r38.7t
206.84

0.000.00

0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%

0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.00%o.oo%o.oo%
13,100.00
500.(x)500.00
4,400.00
450.00

50.0050.00
1,400.001,000.00
200.00
150.00100.00
[email protected]
57,400.(X)
19,700.00
3,000.00
4,000.00
100.00
11,[email protected]
1,s00.00
200.00200.00
s,400.00
600.00
7,0(X).00
1,100.001,000.00
300.00
200.(D
100.00 0.o9%

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.00 0.oo%
1OO.OO O.O7YI
11,691.15 15,096.98 22,70,J.N 22,70,J,.OO
Total Fund: 208 - STREET LIGHTING FUND: t3s,2O9.O7 t25,s7t.99 84,631.65 13&850.00 138950.00 107,355.4s
t4,9L7.82
5,682.s8s,330.34
L63.20
2s,o29.O5
3,328.78
t79.O4
456.99
6,r48.64
1,040.05
7,624.00
r,950.42
975.85

0.000.00
35,863.28
12,239.56
1,s32.84r,831.70

76.50 7,962.L4
1,018.03
LL6.66L30.42
3,612.62
383.10
s,430.15
746.54732.27

0.00 91.00
57,400.(x)
19,700.00
3,000.00
4,000.00
100.00
11,30O.00
1,500.00
200.00200.00
5,400.00
600.00
7,000.00
1,100.001,000.00
300.00

0.00 o.oo%o.00%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
i/22/2A22 1:05:/+0 P!1 Page 27 af 3B
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
249-441.-5165 pension Trust209'441.-5170 Uniform Cleaning 2O9 44L-5171. Uniform Allowance
209-441-5180 tndividual Equipment/Safety209-441-5t99 Contra Account - Pension Trus.209-44L 5301, Contract Services209-441 5345 Equipment Repairs/Replaceme 209-44L-5350 Landscape Maintenance209-441 5356 Tree Maintenance 209-441.-5362 Janitorial Services209-44L-5400 Utility - Electric 2Og 44I-5420 Utility - Sewer
209-441.-5430 Utility - Water
209-44L-5440 Utility - Communications/Telel
209-441.-5536 Equipment/Office Rent & Leas209-443--5560 Supplies & Materials209-44L-5561. Janitorial Supplies209-44L 5567 Landscaping Supply Repairs &
Total SubProgrami 441- Right of Way Maintenance:

SubProgram:502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance
209 502 5100 RegularWages209-502-5104 Overtime Pay209-502-5720 Health tnsurance 209-5O2-5I2I Dental lnsurance
209-502-51-22 Life lnsurance
209-502-5123 Disability lnsurance
209-502-5130 PERS CLASSTC Contribution
209-502 5132 PERS prepay UAAL
209-502-5140 Medicare Tax
209-502-5150 Flexible Benefits program209 502-5151 Fitness Benefit Total SubProgram: 502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance:
31s,350.92 235,494.sa 167,723.76 271,2@.@ 287,150.00 15,950.00 5.88% 20t]9-2020
Total Activity
2020-2021
Total Activity
Parent
202r-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison I
Budget
2021-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
lncrease
(Decrease)
2,150.002,r75.O2
25r.93
544.80
-2,150.00
2,390.001,744.60
s0,075.03

0.00 19,011.19
7,096.342,2s3.O4
24,660.50
t,720.29
2,11s.00
L7,77L.7I
3,369.26

0.00 0.00
r,464.8r
2,s31.3s
754.28

0.00 63s.98
632.86
33,139.30

0.00 27,325.06
9,739.403,287.r9
31,039.80
775.OO

0.00 10,885.12
4,319.50
930.01

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 -2.28

0.00 0.000.000.00

0.oo
2,[email protected],750.00
900.00

0.00 s,000.002,500.@
53,2s0.00

0.00 25,(X)0.0010,000.00
3,'m0.00
31,200.00
1,000.00

0.00 15,000.00
5,000.00

0.oo
3,200.00

0.00 1,100.00
1(x).@
s0.0050.00
3s0.00500.00

50.00 0.00
s0.00

0.00 2,m.003,7s0.00
900.(n

0.00 [email protected]
2,500.00
5&000.0o
3,000.00
25,000.0010,000.00
3,300.00
34,000.00
1,000.00

0.00 1s,000.00
5,000.00
10,0q).@

0.000.00

0.000.000.00
-4,700.oo

0.00 4,750.OO3,000.00

0.000.00
-100.00
2,800.00

0.00 0.000.00

0.00 10,000.00

0.00 300.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00
100.00

0.00 o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
-94.OO%
o.oo%8.92%0.00%
o.oo%o.00%
-2.94%

8.97%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
%
o.oo%o.00%o.oo%
202L-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

0.00 904.27933.89325.4L

0.00 235.00927.74
3r,444.OO
2,940.OO
11,911.00
6,573.35r,648.02
17,969.9L
339.49

0.00 7,684.923,426.938,693.O2

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 2,171.69
187.30
665.2s

60.82 4.79

6.80 229.22
337.86

34.82 s4.26

0.00 2,614.4r
358.14
28r.23
3,200.00
300.00
1,100.00
[email protected]

50.0050.00
[email protected]

50.00 100.00

50.00 0.00

0.000.00

0.00 -2.24
3,998.50
264.29
451.95
4,200.00

0.00 450.00
4,200.oo
600.(D
450.00

0.00 600.00

0.00 3,752.8t s4s0.(X, 5,850.0O 400.00 7.34%
TotalFund:209-RlGHT-oF-WAYMAlNTENANcEDlsTRlcTFU315.36o92 Fund:210 - PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRTCT FUND SubProgram: 161 - Communication and Community Promotions 210-161 5100 Regular Wages210 161-5106 Other Pay
210-161--5120 Health lnsurance
3/72/2427- 1:05:40 PN4 Paele .:/8 cF 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
2T0-16I-512I Dental lnsurance
210-L61-5122 Life lnsurance
21-O-L61-5L23 Disability lnsurance210-3.6L-5131 PERS PEPRA Contribution 2L0-76L-51-32 PERS Prepay UAAL2L0-16L-5L40 Medicare Tax 210-161-5150 Flexible Benefits Program210-161-5151 Fitness Benefit2IO-1,6t-5152 Cell Phone Allowance210-161-5301 Contract Services210-161 5500 Printing & Advertising210-161 5510 Dues & Subscriptions210-161-5536 Equipment/Office Rent & Leas210-161-5560 Supplies & Materials Total SubProgram: 161 - Communication and Community Pro SubProgram: 431 - Street Maintenance
210-431.-5302 Street Maintenance
Total SubProgram:431 - Street Maintenance:

Total Fund:210 - PARKING AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT Dl
Fund: 211 - AB 939 SOLID WASTE FUND
SubProgram:421 - Solid Waste
211,-421,-5100 Regular Wages271.-421-5104 Overtime Pay21,1,-421 5106 Other Pay2LI-421-5108 lnterpreter Pay2I144j12n Health lnsurance21,I-427-5121, Dental lnsurance 211,-421,-5122 Life lnsurance21,1-421,-5723 Disability Insurance 2LL-421--5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution
2U"'42L-5737 PERS PEPRA Contribution7LL 421.-5]'.32 PERS Prepay UAAL 21f-421-574O Medicare Tax
21-L-47L-5150 Flexible Benefits Program

21.L-42I-5f5L Fitness Benefit
2LL-42L-5]-52 Cell Phone Allowance2LL-42L-520I Professional Services 21L-42!-5362 Janitorial Services
4,4L8.52 L4,262.57 7,t9O.73 12,600.00 13,300.00
13,436.00 4,950.00 2,550.00 s,700.00 5,[email protected],436.00 4,950.00 2,550.00 5,71xr.00 5,7U1.00 L7,854.52 19,2L2.57 9,740.73 18,[email protected] 19,fl10.fl1
20t9-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
BudEet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

84.69 2,855.18
t,278.OO

0.00 200.65

26.4316.0913.2L
313.61

9.34 62.30s9.7t

0.00 3.25

87.5t
3,591.52
380.50
4,236.67
747.29
202r-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

19.99It.73LO.26
201.42

5.98 43.00

42.L6

0.00 22.75
1,800.00
504.98
625.00

0.oo
649.68
63,194.65
r,709.82
7,283.34
102.00
15,152.57
1,585.10
227.O72s2.34
s,833.36
1,293.84
8,808.17
L,O42.L4L,486.64

0.00 204.75
2L,385.37

0.00 s0.00s0.00s0.00
300.00

50.00s0.00s0.00

50.00 0.00
4,100.00
1,000.001,500.00
o.00
700.00

50.0050.0050.00
300.00

50.00s0.00s0.0050.00
100.00
4,100.00
1,000.001,s00.00

0.00 700.o0
110,100.00
2,000.006,600.00
200.00
24,L50.00
2,750.@
3s0.00350.(x)
8,300.002,600.00
14000.00
1,700.00a000.00
600.00600.00
85,s00.00
7,500.00

0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
100.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.00
600.00
-26,000.00
-7,500.00

0.oo%o.oo%0.oo%

0.oo%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%o.oo%
700.00 5.56%

0.00 0.oo%0.00 0.oo%
700.00 3.a3%
52,059.46
839.99
3,4rO.36

25.50 8,265.58
694.76177.82180.67
4,649.44
774.67
3,696.00
801.16506.43

0.000.00
23,477.53
4,883.60
87,399.60
2,108.64
11,165.00
1s6.00
20,570.77
2,OO2.91
3!1.27
3L3.49
9,046.63
1,143.99
13,651.70
1,44r.99
L,508.77

93.60 29.25
7r,o8L.43
890.00
110,100.00
2,m0.006,500.00
200.00
241s0.00
2,750.00
3s0.003s0.00
8,300.(x)
2,600.(n
14(x)O,00
1,700.002,000.00
600.(n

0.00 111,500.00
15,0(D.00

0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%

0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.00%o.oo%0.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%
-23.32%
-50.oo%
3/27/2C22 i:05:zio Pl4 Page 29 oi 38
Budget Comparison Report
Printing & Advertising
Employee/Public Relations
Supplies & Materials
Total SubProgram:421 - Solid Waste:

SubProgram : 431 - Street Maintenance
21L-437 5259 Streetsweeping21-1-431-5430 Utility - Water Total SubProgram: 431 - Street Maintenance:

SubProgram: 502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance
2LL 5O2-57OO Regular Wages
2LL-502-5106 Other pay2L1- 502-5720 Health lnsurance
2LL 502-512L Dental lnsurance
2LL-502-5122 Life lnsurance
2L15O2-5I23 Disability tnsurance
2LI-502-5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution
21-1- 502-5132 PERS Prepay UAAL211-502-5L40 Medicare Tax2L1 502-51.50 Flexible Benefits program2LL-502-5L51 Fitness Benefit Total SubProgram: 502 - Parks and Facilities Maintenance:

Total Fund: 211 - AB 939 SOIID WASTE FUND:
ttt,654.97 2?3,652.74 131,909.48 326,350.00 293,450.00 -32,900.00 _10.08% 2019-2020
Total Activity
2020-202L
Total Activity
2021-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
2,278.OO

70.32 0.00
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
61s0.00
s00.00
17,500.00
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
F\ 2O22MY
6,150.00
500.00
59,400.00
5,000.m
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budeet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
Account Number
2Lr-42r-55002LL 42I-5531.27L-42L-5560
4,957.OO

0.00 2,255.OO
78,696.6I
2,051.80
ao,74a.4t
7,688.00
487.68
2,562.O2

0.00 0.000.00
o.oo
320.00
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%6.84%
17,500.00
59,400.00
4,295.O4
34,6s0.00 59,400.@
2,887.92 4,680.00
63,695.04 37,5?7.92 64,090.00 64,/t{r0.oo 320.00 0.50%
-2.28 3,466.02 6,570.00 6,7qr.qt
192,403.38 297,345.50 r72,9t3.42 397,m0.00 364,550.00 -32,4s0.00 -8.r7% Fund: 212 - MEASURE D TRANSPORTATION TMPROVEMENT FUND
SubProgram: 431 - Street Maintenance
272-431.5302 Street Maintenance 17,095.67 O.0O 0.00 O.OO 0.OO O.0O O.OO/o TotalsubProtram:431-streetMaintenance:L7,og5.67
TotalFund:212-MEAsUREDTRANsPoRTATloNlMPRoVEM1?^o,5"6MoJ0- Fund: 213 - RECREATION SERVICES FUND
SubProgram: 503 - Vets Hall/Seaside
213-503-5100 Regular Wages213-503-5102 part-time Wages
213-503 5104 Overtime Pay213-503-5106 Other pay213-503-5120 Health tnsurance2L3-503-512L Dental lnsurance2I3 503-51.22 Life tnsurance213-503-51.23 Disability lnsurance

0.00 0.00
7,262.45

0.00 0.000.000.000.000.00
ro,847.62
5,4r8.47
615.67
255.50
3,133.59
235.r4
3L.26

40.77 r324.r2
5,362.54

0.00 0.00
547.Ot

42.O4

8.69 LL.72

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00
-2.28

0.00 0.000.000.00
2,L7L.69

0.00 615.60

57.I7

4.50 5.40
211..92
3L2.39

32.O954.26

0.00 3,300.@
150.00
2,000.00
100.00

50.0050.00
350.00
500.00
s0.00

0.00 20.00
6,300.(n
7,[email protected]
600.002s0.00
950.00

50.00s0.00
s0.00
3,300.00
150.00
2,000.00
100.00

50.0050.00
350.00
500.00

50.00 [email protected]

50.0o

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00
100.00

30.00 0.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.00
o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%O.OOlo
150.00%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.o0%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
130.00 Lga%
6300.q)
7,2@.@
600.00250.00
950.(x)

50.0050.00

50.00 3/22/20??- 1:05:.+C PM Page 30 of 3E
Budget Comparison Report
Parent Budget
2021-2022
FY 2022 AB
700.00
2,000.@
200.00250.00

50.00 3,000.002,000.(x)
7,900.00

0.00 15,750.00
4,450.00
1,800.00
3,550.002,[email protected]
1,750.00
s00.00
600.00

0.00 Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
BudEet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
20L9-2020 2020-2021
Total Activity Total Activity

0.000.00
105.31

0.000.00
364.35

69.44 9,4s0.80

0.00 14,375.OO
3,932.57
855.72
3,430.582,320.25
r,662.361,394.9s
316.68

0.00 1,220.75r,828.t6
249.87246.64

0.00 839.90

0.00 5,881.48
996.00
L4,572.55
4,370.63
r,r99.7L
3,433.46
2,tr8.92
L,63r.28
2,780.77
194.O4

0.00 84,151.38
172,674.42
3,2L9.tO2,956.87
20,772.72
L,336.77
34r.752t8.75
2,780.834,46r.794,474.763,829.O4
t6,o42.26
2,OOL.46

0.00 458.25

0.00 0.oo0.00
2021-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
149.80
23r.37

96.95 32.67

0.00 230.80353.12
4,690.20

0.00 6,366.002,t99.O5
959.46
r,743.36r,374.391,087.52
683.88

0.00 249.97
63,2r5.54
t34,830.24
5,753.r72,756.t8
to,32r.33
1,305.25
2OI,2L208.73
4,856.47
r,537.68
7,499.352,997.76
7,728.OO
981.34

0.00 22.75

0.000.000.00
7(x).00
2,000.00
200.002s0.@
s0.00
3,000.002,000.007,900.00

0.00 10,000.(x)
4,450.@
2,000.(a
3,500.(x)3,000.0o
2,m0.(x)3,000.00
1,200.00
2,000.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.000.00
-5,750.00

0.00 200.00
-50.00
800.00250.00
2,500.00
600.00
2,000.00
445.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00
-700.00

0.00 0.000.00
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
o.oo%
-36.5t%

0.oo%
II.LL%
-\.4t%

36.36%
]'4.29%
500.00%
100.00%
o.oo%
Account Number
213-503-5130
213-503-51"32
213-503-5140213-503-51502 13-503-5 15 1213-503-5301213-503-5345213-503-5350213 503-5357213-503-5362213,s!3:54QQ 213 503 5410213-503,5420
213 503-5430213-503-5440213-503-5560213-503-5561
213-503-5567
PERS CLASSIC ContributionPERS Prepay UAALMedicare TaxFlexible Benefits ProgramFitness Benefit Contract Services
Equipment Repairs/ReplacemeLandscape Maintenance
Tree ReplacementJanitorial Services
Utility - Electric
Utility - Natural Gas
Utility - SewerUtility - WaterUtility - Communications/Teleg Supplies & Materials
Janitorial Supplies
Landscaping Supply Repairs &
Total SubProgram: 503 - Vets Hall/Seaside:

SubProgram:521 - Community Pool Services
213-52t'51OO Regular Wages
273-521 5102 Part-time Wages
213-521 5104 Overtime Pay213-521,-5106 Other Pay
273-521,5120 Health lnsurance
273-52t-5I2! Dental lnsurance
213'527-5722 Life lnsurance213-521,-5123 Disability lnsurance 2I3-52r-573O PERS CLASSIC Contribution21-3-521--5131 PERS PEPRA Contribution213 52I-5732 PERS Prepay UAAL 2!3-521 5140 Medicare Tax
7!3-521-51,41, Unemployment lnsurance
213-521-5150 Flexible Benefits Program
2L3-52!-515I Fitness Benefit213-521-5152 Cell Phone Allowance 213-521-5165 Pension Trust213-52I-5I7I Uniform Allowance213'521-5199 Contra Account - Pension Trus' 45,540.46 62,136.t2 27,744.66 6a$0.00 62,7@.@ 550.00 o.aa% 97,889.41
143,497.16
6,450.80
983.43
18,751.95
1,359.54
463.03
434.L6
3,167.553,748.12
6,950.003,6t7.63
1L,792.L9
866.9s

0.00 0.oo
2,250.OO
r,299.96
-2,2SO.OO
120,055.00200,500.(n
2,0m.002,300.00
29,200.00
1,400.00
450.00
s00.00
3,200.00
2,300.00
5,000.004400.00
6000.002,200.@
650.00800.00

0.00 1,100.00

0.00 120,500.00200,500.00
2,000.002,300.00
29,200.(x)
1,rt00.00
4s0.00
s00.00
3,200.00
2,300.00s,000.00
4400.00
6,000.00
2,2@.@
6s0.00
100.00

0.00 1,100.00

0.00 o37%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.00%o.oo%o.oo%
-87.50%

0.00%
o.oo%o.oo%
3/22/2022 1:05:4C Ptl Page 31 of 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
2t3 52L-5221, Employee Training2L3-527-5236 Banking & Credit Card Fees 2I3-521--53OI Contract Services213-52L 5345 Equipment Repairs/Replaceme

21.3-523.5350 Landscape Maintenance213-521 5360 Software Subscription/Mainter273-52L 5362 Janitorial Services2L3-521- 54OO Utility - Electric 213-52L 5410 Utility- Natural Gas213 527-5420 Utility - Sewer 2I3 52L-5430 Utility - Water21-3-52L 5440 Utility - Communications/Teley 213-521-5500 printing & Advertising213-521-5510 Dues & Subscriptions213-52L 551,2 Meetings & Travel 213-521-5545 Purchases for lnventory213-527-5546 Cash (Over)/Short 213-521 5550 Supplies for Resale2L3-521.-5560 Supplies & Materials2L3-52t-5561- Janitorial Supplies 2L3 52L-5562 Chemicals2L3-52L-5567 Landscaping Supply Repairs &
2L3-521.-5761- Major Equipment
2I3 521.-5763 Furniture & Fixtures
Total SubProgram: 521 - Community pool Services:

SubProgram: 522 - Junior Lifeguards
2L3 522-5100 Regular Wages2L3-522-5702 Part-time Wages
213-522 51"04 Overtime Pay2L3-522-51-06 Other pay213 522-5120 Health lnsurance

21.3-522-5121, Dental lnsurance2L3-522-5L22 Life lnsurance21-3-522 5L23 Disability lnsurance 2L3-522 5I3O PERS CLASSTC Contribution2L3 522-5131. PERS pEpRA Contribution2L3-522-5132 PERS prepay UAAL 213-522-5UA Medicare Tax21.3-522 5I5O Flexible Benefits program 474,518.28 352,026.80 561,105.00 628,650.00 67,74s.OO r2.O7% 20t9-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
x2022MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budpet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
627.OO
3,582.96
3,756.505,L47.77
4,480.00
1,130.85

1.,r25.OO
L2,450.77
2L,357.4L
8,980.81
L4,124.33
2,L90.O9

91.56 0.00
228.48
444.39
-77.53
I,718.I31,968.41
837.2L
27,880.35
478.OO

0.00 t,289.3L
16,951.s0r8,770.54
2,771.34
689.52
3,07s.05
245.48

56.3456.52
490.29
973.5r786.32
558.96
r87.47
%

0.000.00
t2,667.80
r,378.23
3,53r.t4
764.90

0.00 18,619.81
20,45\.7012,552.9220,724.52
2,716.8L
254.OO240.OO
484.20
-2,254.50

91.15 2,8L7.34
L9,544.35
17L32
45,383.52

0.000.000.00

0.00 68,422.rr
1,616.90

0.00 0.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00
r,ot3.r2

0.00 3,360.00

0.00 7,292.252,256.216,197.30
851.66

0.00 20,532.93
27,O75.r2
t5,006.74L7,804.98
3,294.40

0.00 s9.99
737.23
1,205.52

1.00 642.35
3,6L2.5O
727.43
44,740.52

0.00 0.000.00
23,t52.5829,527.tO
1,638.69
847.49
5,O48.32
271.28

81.61 63.46
254.72
t,653.L7
44t.12
807.74
645.24
2,500.0o

0.(D
10,000.00
3,000.007,7@.@
1,000.@

0.00 22,2W.00
34,800.0O
15,500.00
19,200.00
3,s00.00
250.00250.00
550.00
1,s00.00

0.00 3,(nO.00
12,[email protected]
2,(x)0.00
40,(x)0.00

0.000.000.00
28,7@.@
40,000.(D
1,ofi).00
850.00
6,400.0o
300.00
100.q)100.00
350.00
1,8s0.00
[email protected]
2,500.00
s,500.00
10,(x)0.00
23,000.00
7,70p,N
20 000.00
5,[email protected]
22,200.N
35,000.(x)
18,000.00
22,W.00
3,s00.00
250.00250.(x)
650.00
1,500.(x)

0.00 3,000.00
12,000.00
2,000.00
/m0m.00
1,m0.00
12,000.00

0.00 0.00
5,s00.00

0.00 20,000.00

0.00 19,000.00
5,000.00

0.00 200.00
2,s00.002,800.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00
1,000.00
12,000.00

0.00 0.oo%
o.oo%o.00%
666.67%
o.00%
r,900.oo%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.57%
L6.r3%].458%
o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%

0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
46t,41t.o9
28,[email protected]
40,000.00
1,m0.00
8s0.00
6,400.00
300.00
100.oo100.00
350.0O
1,850.00
500.00650.00650.00

0.00 0.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.00 3i22/7022 1 :05:40 Pl,1 Page j2 of 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
213-s22-sr5r
213-522 517L2r3,522-53452r3-522-54402r3-522-55122131?2j5482r3-522-5560 SubProgram
213 523,5100273-523-51022L3-523-5L04213,523-51062L3-523 5120 213,523-5].2r2L3-523-5L222r3-523-51232r3-523-51.302r3 523-5132213-523 5140213-523-5150 2t3-523-5r5r2r3-523-5360213-523-55102r3-523-55L2213-523-5548213 523-5s60 SubProgram
213-531-5 100213-531 5102213-53 1-5104213-53 1-s106

21.3-531-5720273-531-5L2L
213-531 51222L3 53r-st23213 531-51302r3-53r-5r32
Fitness BenefitUniform AllowanceEquipment Repairs/ReplacemeUtility - Communications/Tele1Meetings & TravelField Trips Supplies & Materials
Total SubProgram: 522 - Junior Lifeguards:
523 - Swim Team Aquatics
Regular WagesPart-time Wages
Overtime PayOther Pay
Health lnsurance
Dental lnsuranceLife lnsuranceDisability lnsurancePERS CLASSIC ContributionPERS Prepay UAALMedicare Tax Flexible Benefits ProgramFitness Benefit
Softwa re Subscriptions/Maintt
Dues & SubscriPtionsMeetings & TravelField Trips
Supplies & Materials
Total SubProgram: 523 - Swim Team Aquatics:
531 - Ocean Beach Services
Regular WagesPart-time Wages
Overtime PayOther Pay
Health lnsuranceDental lnsuranceLife lnsurance
Disability lnsurancePERS CLASSIC ContributionPERS Prepay UAAL 91-,347.69 70,681.28 45,622.84 99,700.00 99,700.00
200.00
800.00
3,000.00
250.00
2,000.00

0.00 12.(nO.00
662.06
14,722.93

47.99 0.00
230.99
L2.44

3.664.96

75.03 115.65223.77

15.36 0.000.00
676.00

68.00 0.00

45.78 t7,972.29 116,904.52 31,250.00 31,450.fi)
20L9-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
662.06
838.33

0.000.00
191.83

9.95 2.93

4.O4

15.O3
115.65
Parent Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22AB
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budset
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%

0.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.00 0.oo%

0.000.00
-0.06
354.88
2,399.673,863.0s
13,678.O2

0.000.00
2,45r.42
193.20

10.00 0.00
3,554.L4
200.@
800.00
3,000.00
250.OO
2,000.@

0.00 12,000.00
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%

0.00 16,915.66
233.87

0.00 0.000.000.000.000.000.00
248.68

0.000.000.00
470.00
223.25
1,378.00t,499.80
20,969.26

0.00 ]-9,oss.74
732.33

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.00 2,099.Lr
12,847.49
Lsr.73

0.00 426.2s

26.80 7.99

10.39 254.72
392.s8
2L9.2L
6r.92

0.00 62\.30
316.00

88.2s

0.00 448.55
2,O99.LL
t,527.05
157.38

0.00 426.25

26.80 7.99

10.39 254.72392.58
3,150.00
20,000.00
350.00
1s0.00
450.00
s0.0050.00s0.00
3s0.00500.00
300.00
s0.0050.00

0.00 500.(x)
250.(F

0.00 5,000.00
3,150.0O
1,100,00
300.00
150.00
450.00
50,0050.00s0.00
350.00
s00.00
3,150,00
20,[email protected]
350.OO
150.00
450.@

50.(n50.(x)50.00
350.00
[email protected])300.00

50.00s0.00

0.00 700.00
2s0.00

0.00 5,000.@
3,150.00
1,100.00
300.00
1s0.00
450.00

50.0050.0050.(n
350.00
s00.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.00
200.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.00
o.oo%o.oo%o.00%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.00%o.o0%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%

40.oo%
o.oo%o.00%0.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.00%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%0.00%
o.oo%0.00%o.oo%
200.00 0.64%
3/22/2072, 1:05:40 PM Pag. 33 oi 38
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
213-531-5140 Medicare Tax
213-531-5150 Flexible Benefits program213-531-5151 Fitness Benefit213 531-5440 Utility - Communications/Teleg 213-531 5560 Supplies & Materials
Total SubProgram: 531 - Ocean Beach Services:

SubProgram: 532 - Beach Store
213 532-5100 Regular Wages7t3-532 5!O2 part-time Wages
273-532-5104 Overtime pay213-532 51.06 Other pay
213-532-51,20 Health tnsurance2L3-532 512L Dental lnsurance2L3 532-5722 Life tnsurance 2L3 532-5123 Disability lnsurance
213 532-5130 pERS CLASSTC Contribution273-532 5L32 PERS prepay UAAL2L3-532'5L40 Medicare Tax 213-532-5150 Flexible Benefits program21.3-532-515I Fitness Benefit 213-532 5350 Landscape Maintenance273 532-5440 Utility - Communications/Telel 213 532-5545 purchases for lnventory
2L3-532-5s46 Cash (Over)/Short
213-532-5560 Supplies & Materials
Total Subprogram: 532 - Beach Store:

SubProgram: 541 - Special Events
213-541-5360 Software Subscription/Mainter213-541 5560 Supplles & Materials Total SubProgram: 541 - Special Events:

SubProgram: 542 - Community Garden
273-542 5IO2 Part-time Wages2L3 547-51.04 Overtime Pay
2L3-542 51,40 Medicare Tax
2L3 542-5301. Contract Services
213-542-5360 Software Subscription/Mainter21-3-542 5362 Janitorial Services2L3-542 5420 Utility - Sewer 20L9-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
202t-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb

27.7615.36

0.00 0.000.00
t,936.94
Parent Budget
202r-2022
FY 2O22AB
Comparison 1
Budget
202t-2022
FY 2O22MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Budpet
lncrease /
(Decrease)
286.92

0.00 0.000.00
294.4t
20,369.40
3L,140.21

83.70 46]..54
s45.24
L5,982.76

18.67 232.O2
7,490.3r
239.88
2,273.26
677.35

55.186L.92

0.000.000.00
5,019.37

50.0050.00

50.00 250.00

0.00 50.00

50.0050,00
2s0.00

0.00 6,550.00
%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.o0%

0.00 0.oo%

0.00 16,366.13
L3.21

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00
237.49

0.000.00
592.00
2,7L2.57
LO,880.74

20.34 3r7.73
2,099.25
545.92
151.81

0.00 425.78

26.62 8.319.77
254.26
392.26

40.23 62.O3

0.00 0.00
r,992.06

18.72 -L9.20

0.00 661.98
838.14

0.00 0.00
230.88
!2.40

3.s9

4.94 74.33
115.49
2I.6L

15.36 0.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00
3,150.@
1,150.00
10o.00150.00
450.00
s0.0050.00

50.00 350.00500.00

50.0050.0050.00

0.00 [email protected]
6,000.00

0.00 500.00
3,150.q)
1,150.00
100.00150.00
450.00

50.0050.00

50.00 3s0.00
500.00

[email protected]

0.oo
400.00
6,000.00

0.00 500.00

0.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.o0%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%0.oo%
o.oo%o.o0%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%

0.oo%o.00%
6,550,00

0.00 0.000.00

0.000.00

0.00 0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.000.00

0.000.00

0.000.00
6,007.a2

0.00 0.000.00
1,978.72 13,050.00 13,050.00 0.00 0.oo%

0.00 76.29

76.29 t3,357.r5

0.00 193.69

0.00 0.00
844.00356.28

0.00 0.00
2400o.00
400.00
350.@
3,000.00

0.00 1,700.00
750.00

0.00 100.00
24,mO.00
/+00.00
350.00
3,000.00

0.00 1,700.00
750.00

0.00 100.00

0.00 0.000.000.000.00

0.000.00
o.oo%
o.oo%

0.00 100.00 100.00 0.oo%
22,319.23
r49.33
32s.84
1,4s0.00

0.00 7,537.67
704.4t
o.00%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%
3/?2/2A22 1:05:40 Pivl Pa!_re 34 of 3E
Budget Comparison Report
Account Number
7f3-542-544O Utility - Communications/Telep
213-542 55OO Printing &Advertising213-542-5512 Meetings & Travel213-542-5560 Supplies & Materials Total SubProgram:542 - Community Garden:

Total Fund:213 - RECREATION SERVICES FUND:

Fund:214- HOUSING FUND
SubProgram: 311 - Housing
274-31L 520L

21.4-311-5560
30,103.83 2A343.66 16,005.75 32,750.00 32,950.fi' 200.00 0.6L% 7OL,427.t8 664,67A.A2 462,296.63 806,555.00 875,350.1X1 68,795.00 A.53% 20t9-2020
Total Activity
2020-202t
Total Activity
2021-2022
YTD Activity
Through Feb
739.26

45.78 0.00
459.60
15,877.OO

0.00 LO,298.72

0.00 Parent Budget
202t-2022
F\ 2022 AB
Comparison 1
Budget
2021-2022
F.( 2022MY
Comparison 1
to Parent
Rrrdcat
lncrease /
(Decrease)
%
Professional Services
Supplies & Materials
Total SubProgram: 311 - Housing:
1,122.6t

0.00 158.61
1,908.36
30,635.00

55.00 0.00

0.00 1,040.00

0.000.00
817.18
30,724.OO

0.00 9,238.929,917.88
1,050.00

0.000.00
1,s00.00
36,725.@

0.(x)
40,500.00
11,0(p.00
1,200.00

50.00 0.00
1,s00.00
36,8{n.00

0.00 rO,Sfl);00

0.00 1s0.00

50.00 0.000.00

75.00 0.00

0.00 -11,000.00
7s.00 0.20%
L4.29%
o.o0%0.00%o.oo%o.20yo.oo%
o.oo%
-LOO.OO%
30,690.00 3o,724.OO LS,877.OO 36,725.@ 36,8m.0O
Total Fund: 214 - HOUSING FUND: 30,690.00 30,724.OO t5,877.OO 36,725.00 36,8{Xt.00 7s.00 0.20% Fund: 215 - MEASURE A FUND
SubProgram: 163 - Community Services Support 215-163-5601 Community Services Grants O.OO 5,430.00 5,429.00 0.00 5,500.00 5,500.00 0.00% Total subprogram: 163 - Community Services support: o.oo 5,430.00 s,429.OO 0.00 5,500.00 5,500.00 o-oo% SubProgram: 221 - Management lnformation Services
275-22!-5360 Software Subscription/Mainter
2L5-22I-5565 Computer Hardware/Replacen
Total SubProgra m: 221 - Management lnformation Services:

SubProgram: 411 - Transportation, Parking and tighting
215-411-5100 Regular Wages275-4It-51O4 Overtime Pay
275-4LI-5L06 Other Pay
215-411-5108 lnterpreter Pay2I5-4I1-5I2O Health lnsurance 275-4LL-5727 Dental lnsurance215-4I!-5722 Life lnsurance21-5-411--5L23 Disability lnsurance 215-41-1--5130 PERS CLASSIC Contribution2L5-4L1 5I3I PERS PEPRA Contribution215-4t1--5132 PERS Prepay UAAL 21-5-4IL-5L40 Medicare Tax
2!5411j15O Flexible Benefits Program
215-411-5151 Fitness Benefit
2]-5-4!!-5752 Cell Phone Allowance215-4II-52O4 Transit- Senior/ADA Transport

0.00 19,156.80 10,298.72 51,500.00 4o,5qt.00 -11,000.00 -21.36% 47,043.45
977.92
2,344.22

25.50 7,422.59
633.00
143.69
154.95
3,788.01
916.8s
3,339.26
7r7.34459.55

0.000.00
L7,429.OO
82,LOr.99
2,636.r93,73s.60
195.00
19,077.LL
2,LOO.54
262.84
270.7r
7,48L.27
L,304.64
]-t,204.06
r,277.87r,496.O9

0.00 L6.25
12,000.00
s7,L46.r3
L,872.OO
2,829.73
r27.50
13,479.65
r,62t.8r
183.7t
208.73
4,963.08
1,113.6s
7,447.36
897.88
r,328.62

0.00 rr3.75
8,000.00
106,500.00
4100.00
6,950.00
200.00
26,000.00
2,800.00
350.00350.@
9,150.002,100.00
14,000.00
1,700.00
2,000.00
600.(p

0.00 17,500.00
106,500.00
4,100.00
6,950.00
200:00
26,000.00
2,800.00
3s0.003s0.00
9,1s0.00
2,1(x),00
14,m0.00
1,700.00
2,000.00
600.00300.00
12,000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.00

0.000.000.000.000.00

0.00 300.00
o.00%o.oo%0.00%
o.oo%o.00%0.00%o.oo%

0.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
o.oo%o.oo%o.oo%
-3L.43%