Carpinteria City Council
May 15, 2023

City of Carpinteria
Special City Council
Meeting Agenda
Monday, May 15, 2023
Council Chamber, 5775 Carpinteria Avenue, Carpinteria, CA 93013 5:30 p.m. Special Meeting
In-Person and Virtual Participation Options
Attendance/Viewing Options:
• Attend the in-person meeting in City Council Chambers at City Hall (5775 Carpinteria Ave.).
• View the meeting live through the City’s website (https://carpinteria.ca.us/cityhall/agendas-meetings) on your computer, tablet or smartphone. • View the meeting on Government Access Television Channel 21 (broadcast live and rebroadcast on the Wednesday and the Saturday following the meeting at 8:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m., respectively).
• Call 669-900-9128 (and enter Webinar ID 849 5178 9727) to listen to the meeting on your phone.
• Join the City’s Zoom webinar from your computer, tablet, or smartphone by CLICKING HERE. Alternatively, you can join the Zoom webinar by logging on to www.zoom.us, downloading the application, selecting "Join Meeting", and entering Webinar ID 849 5178 9727.

Public Comments
• Provide a live public comment during the in-person meeting in City Council Chambers at City Hall (5775 Carpinteria Ave.). Please note the City has the discretion to limit both the overall and individual speaker time for any meeting or agenda matter. Typically, the Council’s practice has been to limit each speaker to three minutes. • Provide a live comment through the City’s Zoom webinar platform (through the link provided above). To make public comments through this platform please use the “raise your hand” feature to notify staff that you would like to make a public comment during designated public comment times. Once it is your turn to provide a public comment, staff will unmute your microphone and you will be given a designated amount of time to provide your comment (typically, the practice has been up to 3 minutes per speaker on each item). At the end of your comment, staff will once again mute your microphone.
• Submit a written comment (as either a general public comment or on a specific agenda item) to be distributed to Council Members by 12:00 P.M. on the day of the meeting by either submitting your comment via (1) email to [email protected], or (2) the eComment link on the City's agenda website https://carpinteriaca.gov/city- Special City Council Meeting Agenda
May 15, 2023

hall/agendas-meetings/). Please reference the agenda item to which your comment pertains.

Please note that the City will make every effort to make the meeting accessible virtually; however, if one of the above virtual attendance/viewing or public comment options is unavailable due to technological issues, you are invited to take advantage of one of the other participation options outlined above (including attending and providing public comment inperson in the City Council Chambers). Additional options may be made available at the meeting.

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC HEARING:

The City Council will meet to consider the following item:

1. Receive an update on the status of the Rincon Multi-Use Trail project, including stakeholder outreach efforts and consideration of alternative trail alignments, and selection of a preferred project alternative for further evaluation.

Recommendation: Receive an update on the status of the Rincon Multi-Use Trail project and select a preferred project alternative for further evaluation.

PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE HEARD CONCERNING ONLY THE AGENDIZED ITEM FOR

THIS SPECIAL MEETING

ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held May 22, 2023 at 5:30 p.m.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (805) 755-4403 or the California Relay Service at (866) 735-2929. Notification two business days prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements for accessibility to this meeting.

Materials related to an agenda item submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public review at the City Clerk's Office, located at 5775 Carpinteria Avenue, Carpinteria, CA 93013 or by going to the City’s website at https://carpinteriaca.gov/city-hall/agendas-meetings/.

This agenda was posted on Wednesday, May 10, 2023, in the City Clerk's Office, on the City Hall Public Notices Window, and on the Internet.

City of Carpinteria
Specrll Crrv Gour.rcn- AceruoR Srnrr RepoRr
May 15,2023

ITEM FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Receive an update on the status of the Rincon Multi-Use Trail project, including stakeholder outreach efforts and consideration of alternative trail alignments, and selection of a preferred project alternative for further evaluation.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Receive an update on the status of the Rincon Multi-Use Trail project and select a preferred project alternative for further evaluation.

Sample Motion: I move to receive an update on the status of the Rincon Multi-Use Trail project and to direct staff to pursue Alternative _ for further evaluation as the preferred project alternative.

BACKGROUND
Proiect Description
The Rincon Multi-Use Trail project would establish a public multi-use trail that would connect the eastern end of the City of Carpinteria ("City") to Rincon Beach County Park located in unincorporated Santa Barbara County near the Ventura County line. The contemplated trail would originate from Carpinteria Avenue in the City of Carpinteria, just east of the intersection with State Route ('SR") 150, and proceed southeasterly, approximately parallel to U.S. Highway 101 along one of several possible alignments, ultimately terminating in Rincon Beach County Park ("County Park") or at the intersection of Bates Road, immediately adjacent to the entrance to the County Park.

The contemplated trailwould include a new dedicated overcrossing (i.e., pedestrian bridge) of the Union Pacific Railroad (.UPRR') corridor along one of several contemplated alignments. The contemplated trail would be finished in a concrete pavement and feature a usable width of approximately twelve (12) to sixteen (16) feet in width. Total trail length would range from approximately 2,800 linear feet to 3,800 linear feet, depending upon which trail alignment is selected. Total earthwork quantities would range from approximately 50,000 cubic yards ("cy") to 105,000 cy of export, again, depending upon which alignment is selected.

Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 1 5,2023

The purpose of the Rincon Multi-Use Trail project is to close an existing critical gap in the California Coastal Trail ('CCT") between the Carpinteria Bluffs and the Pacific Coast Bikeway (i.e., bike path from Bates Road to just south of Mussel Shoals along U.S.

Highway 101), that would serve to enhance opportunities for public coastal access and recreation, and support alternative means of transportation. The Rincon Multi-Use Trail project also is intended to provide a safe, convenient, scenic and attractive alternate route for lateral and vertical beach access to the existing unsanctioned, informal use trails connecting the Carpinteria Bluffs to Rincon Beach County Park, which trespass through UPRR property, and reduce the use of the unprotected U.S. Highway 101 shoulder between SR 150 and Bates Road by cyclists. With the recent acquisition by the City of Carpinteria of the majority of the Bluffs lll area for the new Rincon Bluffs Preserve, the proposed trail would also function as a critical connection between existing public recreational amenities in the area.

The adopted Project Objectives for the Rincon Multi-Use Trail that have been used to help guide the design of the project and evaluate the project alternatives are as follows a
lmprove pedestrian and bicyclist safety, as well as vehicular safety, by significantly reducing unsafe and/or illegal use of the railway corridor and the U.S. Highway 101 shoulder;
Enhance regional mobility for cyclists and pedestrians, while enhancing support for regional initiatives to promote alternative transportation modes between Carpinteria, Santa Barbara County and Ventura County, by providing a continuous bike and pedestrian path connecting Santa Barbara County to Ventura County;
Reduce air pollution from vehicle-related air quality emissions and traffic congestion on local and regional transportation systems by promoting pedestrian and bicycle access to coastal resources and recreation opportunities via a scenic multi-use trail, as an alternative to use of motorized vehicles to access and experience such coastal resources;
lmprove the coastal bluff environment through improved water quality of surface water run-off through stabilization of the bluff slope faces that are currently eroding into the Pacific Ocean, and enhancement of sensitive coastal bluff scrub habitats in the project atea. Also, avoid deposits of petroleum fuels or lubricants associated with typical motor vehicle use for transportation in close proximity to the ocean, preventing such pollutants from stormwater run-off entering the adjacent marine environment;
Complete a critical missing link in the California Coastal Trail consistent with the goals of Senate Bill 908, including provision of a continuous trail as close to the ocean as possible, with connections to the shoreline at appropriate intervals and sufficient access to encourage public use. The California Coastal Trail is intended to offer scenic coastal vistas, wildlife viewing areas, recreational or interpretive facilities, and other points of interest, and is recognized in regions throughout the state as a key resource or opportunity for these coastal-oriented experiences; a
a
a
N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)l'2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 1 5,2023

Provide a coastal-oriented pathway that supports the broadest use by the public through a design that complies with standards established via the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"); and
Provide new scenic coastal access and coastal tourism opportunities in the City of Carpinteria, Santa Barbara County and Ventura County.

Completion of the Rincon Multi-Use Trail is also a condition of approval for the City's granting of a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the Linden Avenue and Casitas Pass lnterchanges and Via Real Extension Project (No. 09-1522- CUP/CDP) and Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCP-4-CPN-15-0018-1), which was required as a balancing provision to offset unavoidable wetland impacts through completion of two regionally important alternative transportation projects to increase access to coastal resources for the public.

Project History
The Rincon Multi-Use Trail project was most recently considered by the City Council at their March 28,2022 meeting following the filing of three separate appeals of the Planning Commission's January 18, 2022 decision to approve and certify the Environmental lmpact Report ('ElR") prepared for the project and to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the portion of the project located in the City's jurisdiction. Copies of the City Council's March 28th staff report and the Planning Commission's January 18th staff report are available on the City's website and are herein incorporated by reference.l
The EIR prepared for the project evaluated the (at the time) proposed project alignment along with four project alternatives: 1.) Alternative 1, the "no project / no build" alternative; 2.) Alternative 2, the "maximize existing benchwork / topography" alternative, which largely followed the alignment and design of an earlier version of the project; 3.) Alternative 3, the "steeper slopes / reduced earthwork" alternative, which was a refinement of the proposed project alignment intended to further reduce overall earthwork quantities; and 4.) Alternative 4, the "freeway adjacent trail avoiding bluff face" alternative, which followed an alignment parallel and immediately adjacent to the U.S. Highway 101 corridor on the inland side of the Bates Ridge formation south of the UPRR corridor. The EIR determined that, with mitigation measures, the proposed project and the Alternatives would have less than a significant impact on the environment. The EIR further concluded that Alternative 3 was both the preferred and environmentally superior alternative as it best met the stated project objectives while overall matching or (slightly) minimizing the potential environmental effects of the project as compared to the proposed project and other project alternatives. 1 See March 28,2022 City Councilstaff report here:
https://carpinteria.qranicus.com/GeneratedAqendaViewer.php?view id=2&clip id=1000 See January 18,2022 Planning Commission staff report here:
https://carpinteria.qranicus.com/GeneratedAqendaViewer.php?view id=2&clip id=946 N:\Project Files\2O19 (1955- 2029)\2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx a
a
Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

The appellants, comprised of individuals Karl Cameron and Helen O'Neill, and Stan Barankiewicz of Orbach Huff & Henderson LLP on behalf of the Santa Barbara Soaring Association ("SBSA") raised a number of objections to the certification of the EIR and selection of "Alternative 3" as the preferred and environmentally superior alternative.

Their collective objections to the certification of the EIR by the Planning Commission included charges that the severity of certain potential environmental effects related to aesthetics, biological resources, geological resources and water quality had been mischaracterized and/or insufficiently mitigated. They also disagreed with the City Traffic Engineer's assessment that the design of the trail connection to the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot would not create significant safety risks. Perhaps most significantly, they objected to the characterization of the use of the project area for soaring activities as being unsanctioned, thought that the analysis of wind flow impacts in the EIR was incomplete and erroneous, and that because of these shortcomings, the conclusions with respect to the finding of a less-than-significant recreational impact to soaring activities was incorrect. Finally, the appellants expressed a general preference for "Alternative 4," which they, at the time, believed to have fewer or reduced environmental effects as compared to the other project alternatives, particularly with respect to recreational impacts to soaring activities within the County and safety considerations with the trail terminating in the County Park parking lot.

Following a lengthy public hearing during which a number of members of the soaring community spoke out against the proposed project, the Council ultimately adopted a motion on a split 4-1 vote (Lee dissenting) to conditionally grant the appeals and direct staff to return to a future meeting with additional information on the feasibility of "Alternatives 2 and 4." As part of the Council's deliberations, the Council also encouraged staff to work with project stakeholders to explore and consider other project alternatives that could potentially mitigate the raised concerns.

A copy of the adopted Minutes from the March 28,2022 meeting is included as Attachment E.

DISCUSSION
Over the past approximately 15 months since the March 28,2022 City Council meeting, staff has further studied project alternatives 2 and 4 as directed by the Council, held a series of meetings with project stakeholders to identify, discuss and evaluate project alternatives and, based on input received during those project stakeholder meetings, further developed and evaluated the potential merits of several new project alternatives.

A more detailed discussion of these actions is provided below.

Ultimately, staff is seeking direction from the Council on which project alternative(s) to evaluate further. Once a project alternative has been selected, the project design team can proceed with further development of preliminary plans, updating necessary technical studies, re-engaging with Caltrans, UPRR, and the CPUC, where relevant, concerning acquisition of (additional) right-of-way and/or revised easements, and N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)U015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-1s\FinalCC Rincon TrailSpecial Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

consultation with affected regulatory agencies. Depending upon which project alternative is selected, revisions to the ElR, which could trigger recirculation of the revised EIR may be required to account for changes to the project description and the evaluation and mitigation of potential environmental effects. Once the updated environmental analysis has been completed, the project would return to the City Council for final resolution of the pending appeals, certification of the updated ElR, and granting of the necessary CUP and CDP approvals for the portion of the trail project within the City's jurisdiction. Additional considerations related to timing and funding that could affect progress towards completion of the project are discussed below in the Financial Considerations and Options sections of this report.

Stakeholder Outreach
Following direction received from the City Council, city staff and members of the project design team organized and attended a number of stakeholder meetings over the remainder of 2022 and into early 2023 to hear from project stakeholders, discuss project alternatives and brainstorm other alternative trail alignments to further explore. The stakeholder meetings allowed an opportunity for a less formal back-and-forth discussion between members of the project team and interested stakeholders. While the stakeholder meetings failed to identify a project alternative that all parties can fully support, staff believes the stakeholder meetings were valuable in allowing all parties to come away with a more nuanced understanding of the various constraints, challenges and concerns surrounding the project.
ln total, six stakeholder meetings were held with the following individuals on the following dates:
. July 8,2022: Karl Cameron (appellant);
. July 26,2022: SBSA representatives (appellant);
. August9,2022: Helen O'Neill (appellant), Friends of Bates Beach, and Santa Barbara Trails Council representatives;
. September 16,2022: Caltrans;
o October 18,2022: SBSA representatives, Caltrans, and Carpinteria Sanitary District; and
o March 23,2023: MOVE Santa Barbara County and Carpinteria Valley Association representatives.

The discussions held over the course of the above-listed stakeholder meetings helped to inform the identification and study of the project alternatives summarized below.

Eval u ation of Project Alternatives
As directed by the Council, staff has further evaluated project alternatives, and worked extensively with the various project stakeholders to identify and evaluate the merits of additional new project alternatives. ln total, the number of considered project N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)\2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussron 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May '15,2023

alternatives, inclusive of those previously evaluated in the EIR has increased from four (4) to ten (10) different options.

Alternatives 1 through 4 continue to reflect the four original alternatives described and analyzed in the ElR, although in some cases, as discussed below, additional analysis has been completed as part of this more recent evaluation effort. Alternatives 4R and 5 are the result of further study of the original Alternative 4 as directed by the City Council as part of their motion from the March 28,2022 appeal hearing. Alternatives 6 through 10 reflect additional alternatives requested for consideration by stakeholders during the stakeholder outreach meetings. Finally, Alternative 11 represents a concept for an "addon" spur walking trail that could potentially be included as part of one of the other identified project alignment alternatives. A graphical depiction of the various trail alignments that have been studied overlaid onto an aerial photograph of the project area is included as Attachment A. Attachment C provides staff's assessment of the consistency of each of the Alternatives with the stated project objectives; and Attachment D summarizes some of the key differences in the designs of the project Alternatives that are discussed below.

Some of the newly considered alternative alignments (i.e., Alternatives 6 through 9) were quickly dismissed as infeasible following a cursory evaluation and/or found to not sufficiently meet the stated project objectives. Nevertheless, in the interest of full disclosure and to demonstrate the lengths that the project team has gone to in order to respond to the Council's directives and make a good faith effort to work with project stakeholders, they have been included in this discussion and evaluation of project alternatives. On the other hand, those alternatives that were found to be reasonably feasible have been further developed and evaluated at a (very) preliminary level as project budget and timing has allowed. Enough preliminary work has been completed to provide a general "high level" understanding of some of the key benefits and drawbacks of these new alternatives compared to those already evaluated in the project ElR, however, further analysis of these alternatives would be required if selected for further consideration.

What follows is a more detailed discussion of the various project alternatives, including insights into the respective feasibility, ability to meet project objectives, environmental impact considerations, project cosUtiming, and benefits and drawbacks of each:

Alternative 1 ("No Project / No Build" Alternative from project EIR) The "no project / no build" alternative would simply maintain the status quo (i.e., no new trail would be built). This alternative is evaluated in the EIR to provide a "baseline" against which the other alternatives can then be analyzed. ln this alternative, pedestrians and cyclists traveling between the City and Rincon Beach County Park would continue to utilize the illicit social trail(s) through the UPRR corridor right-of-way and/or the unprotected shoulder of U.S. Highway 101 . No improvements to pedestrian/cyclist safety or trail user experience would result from N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)12015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

this alternative. The "no project / no build" alternative likely would further require amendments to the conditions of approval for the Linden Avenue and Casitas Pass lnterchanges and Via Real Extension Project (No. 09-1522-CUPICDP) and Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCP-4-CPN-15-0018-1), which require the construction of the trail to offset unavoidable wetland impacts for these projects.

Alternative 2 ("Maximize Existing Benchwork / Topography" Alternative from project EtR)
Alternative 2 represents a previous version of the trail alignment that was originally approved by the City's Planning Commission in 2015. This alternative approximately follows the same alignment as the other alternatives discussed below from Carpinteria Avenue southeast to the UPRR rail corridor, but then turns back to run parallel to the railroad tracks and crosses the rail corridor at a more southwesterly location than the other alternatives. South of the tracks, the trail continues to the southwest, descending the westernmost lowest edge of the Bates Ridge formation before switching back onto the existing historic abandoned railroad bench and then following this bench due east to the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot.

At the time of project approval back in 2015, only very preliminary design work had been completed on the trail layout itself and detailed technical studies of the underlying geological conditions had not yet been undertaken. Following the 2015 project approval, further study of the trail alignment and the underlying geological conditions revealed this was not a favorable design for a variety of reasons having to do with ability to meet design standards, constructability of the trail, the trail users' experience, and long-term maintenance considerations. Ultimately, the problems with this trail alignment were the initial impetus for exploring other design options that eventually lead to the study of the proposed project alignment along with Alternatives 3 and 4, discussed below.

Despite this history, the Council asked staff to further analyze Alternatives 2 and 4 as part of the outcome of the March 28th appeal hearing. While Alternative 4 was further explored, ultimately resulting in multiple new alternatives under consideration as variations thereof (discussed below), the project design team felt strongly that the shortcomings already identified with Alternative 2 precluded it from warranting further study. A summary of the reasons why the project team believes Alternative 2 does not merit further consideration is provided below:

The layout and alignment of Alternative 2 does not conform to any of the typical design standards for this type of multi-use path. The radii of the turns along the trail, including but not limited to the large switchback south of the rail crossing are too tight, creating an awkward trail for cyclists to navigate and would pose a safety hazard for trail users. Based on a preliminary review of the alignment by the project design team, it is not apparent that the trail could be designed to meet accessibility N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)U015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May '15,2023

requirements either and would likely require granting of one or more design exceptions.

The location for the bridge crossing and the trail approaches on either end, again including the large switchback feature, would be located entirely within UPRR's rightof-way, and would require completing a new easemenUright-of-way acquisition and bridge design review and approval process with both UPRR and the CPUC, which is expected to be a multi-year endeavor. The project team has also learned that UPRR does not generally support trail alignments within their right-of-way that run parallel to the railroad tracks, which may further hinder the City's ability to gain approval for this particular trail alignment. Finally, this alternative requires acquisition of more right-of-way from UPRR as compared to most of the other alternatives (excepting Alternatives 6 and 7, discussed below), significantly increasing the costs of an easement or fee simple land acquisition.

Due to the topography of the area around the large switchback feature, the trail would necessitate construction of approximately 1,000 linear feet of retaining walls, up to 14 feet in height, in order to safely descend the ridge from the bridge landing down onto the historic abandoned rail bench. Not only would being confined to a narrow trail corridor by tall retaining walls create an unpleasant user experience, but at least a portion of the walls would need to be built atop major existing storm drain infrastructure associated with U.S. Highway 101and in an area found to be geologically unstable. While these constructability challenges can conceivably be overcome, they would considerably add to design and construction costs, including the construction of numerous deep caissons in an attempt to stabilize the trail improvements, and ongoing longterm maintenance considerations.

Ultimately, it is the project design team's opinion that these myriad challenges are significant enough to dismiss this alternative as infeasible, especially in light of other alternatives that pose fewer challenges.

Alternative 3 ('Sfeeper S/opes / Reduced Earthwork" Alternative from project EIR) Alternative 3 was identified in the project EIR as both the preferred and environmentally superior alternative. lt reflects a slightly modified version of the original project alignment, modestly steepening and narrowing the trail profile south of the UPRR crossing so as to slightly further reduce the amount of earthwork needed to build the new trail across the oceanfront face of Bates Ridge. While Alternative 3 was found by staff to best meet the project objectives, particularly with respect to providing a coastal-oriented trail, and was found by the EIR to have nominally less severe environmental effects, overall, as compared to the other alternatives, the Alternative 3 design was not supported by the soaring community who believed it to most significantly impair their use of the area for free flight activities out of the alternatives considered. The City Council, in their consideration of the appeal, were sympathetic to the concerns of the soaring community and also N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)U015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

expressed reservations over the amount of earthwork required of this Alternative (estimated at 52,800 cy of cut for the ocean-facing side of Bates Ridge alone) and the safety considerations of delivering cyclists and pedestrians into the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot.

Staff still believes Alternative 3 best meets all of the project objectives but concedes that some of the other Alternatives considered may better avoid or reduce the potentialfor impacts to soaring activities (despite the EIR finding the potential recreational impacts to soaring activities to be less-than-significant in the first place) and provide an alternate route to access Bates Road, avoiding the connection to the County Park parking lot. Alternative 3 is the most fully developed and studied of all of the alternatives; it is also the only alternative for which any grant funding remains at this time to complete design work and deliver a "construction-ready" project.

Perspective renderings of Alternative 3 taken from various vantages around the project area are included in Attachment B.

Alternative 4 ("Freeway Adjacent Trail Avoiding Bluff Face" Alternative from project EtR)
Alternative 4 was developed early on during the environmental review process in order to provide a possible trail alignment that (further) limited alteration of the ocean-facing side of Bates Ridge and delivered trail users to Bates Road rather than terminating in the County Park parking lot. Alternative 4 utilizes the same alignment as Alternative 3, up until and including the eastern bridge landing and coastal overlook area, but then dips behind Bates Ridge to descend across the highwayfacing side of the Ridge rather than across the ocean-facing side. Alternative 4 would maintain the same ocean facing views from the bridge crossing and landings as Alternative 3, after which the trail would dip behind the ridge overlooking the highway instead.

Because Alternative 4 utilizes the same trail alignment and design starting from Carpinteria Avenue, and up to and including the bridge crossing, much of the design and permitting work completed for Alternative 3 could be re-purposed and used for Alternative 4 as well. The Alternative 4 alignment also avoids previously-raised safety concerns about terminating the trail in the County Park parking lot, and instead provides an ADA-compliant pathway all the way to Bates Road, but could provide a pedestrian connection into the County Park, located somewhere due east of the sewer lift station, for trail users wishing to visit the Park.

Alternative 4 was originally preferred by the soaring community under the impression that, compared to Alternative 3, it would have less overall landform alteration to Bates Ridge since it would not require laying back the entire ocean-facing slope of the Ridge. However, since learning that Alternative 4 would still require the significant "notching" of the western end of the Bates Ridge ridgetop to provide a N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)\2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (2564179'1.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 1 5,2023

landing for the bridge, the soaring community has withdrawn their support for this alternative. ln terms of overall project earthwork quantities, Alternative 4 is expected to require approximately 10,000 cy more earthwork compared to Alternative 3, largely due to the increased overall trail length (approximately 3,800 feet compared to Alternative 3's approximately 2,700-foot length) and the need to cut a new trail bench all the way down to Bates Road. The new trail bench would also necessitate the construction of two retaining walls, each up to 500 feet in length and up to eight feet in height, as the trail approaches Bates Road.

Pursuit of Alternative 4 would require acquisition of additional right-of-way from Caltrans, and could trigger Caltrans to take over design and construction of the project. At this preliminary stage, it appears Alternative 4 would remain clear of the Carpinteria Sanitary District's ("CSD") force main but additional study would be required to confirm this.

Alternative 4R / Alternative 5 (Refinements to Alternative 4) Alternatives 4R and 5 represent two subtly different refinements to the original Alternative 4 design, discussed above, and reflect some of the efforts that resulted from the Council's direction to further study Alternative 4. While the soaring community initially expressed support for Alternative 4 as their preferred alternative during the March 28th appeal hearing, over the course of the stakeholder meetings that followed, they came to better understand that the original design of Alternative 4 still resulted in substantial alteration to the westernmost portion of the prominent Bates Ridge ridgetop. Alternatives 4R and 5 represent efforts to further reduce the extent of this impact by re-profiling the bridge crossing of the UPRR corridor to land higher up on the shoulder of Bates Ridge as compared to the original bridge design and thereby require less "notching" of the ridgetop.

Whereas the bridge profile in Alternatives 3 and 4 was designed to trend downhill from west to east, Alternatives 4R and 5 instead consider profiling the bridge to lead slightly uphill to the east while otherwise maintaining the same bridge alignment and crossing location. Through much studying, the project design team found that the elevated bridge profile could substantially lessen, but not quite entirely eliminate, having to notch the westernmost edge of the ridgetop compared to the original Alternative 4. Unfortunately, the ridge line is so narrow and constrained in this location that it cannot be entirely avoided while still providing sufficient room for a bridge landing and usable pathway width.

From this revised bridge landing, the trail would then descend all the way to Bates Road, remaining on the highway side of Bates Ridge. However, because Alternative 4R would start from a higher elevation on the ridge as compared to the original Alternative 4, a portion of the trail profile as it approaches Bates Road would need to be at a steeper slope (i.e.,7o/o maximum slope) than the originalAlternative 4, which complied with the maximum-allowed slope under accessibility standards (e.9., 5% N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)\2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-1s\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

maximum slope). lnterestingly, this steeper trail profile for Alternative 4R as compared to the original Alternative 4 avoids the need for any of the retaining walls called for in the original Alternative 4, while still allowing for a spur connection into the County Park somewhere just downhill of the sewer lift station.

Caltrans, however, has indicated that any trail located within their right-of-way, such as any of the highway-adjacent alternatives (i.e., Alternatives 4, 4R, 5, 8, 9 and 10), must be designed to meet accessibility standards unless Caltrans agrees to the granting of a design exception. Accordingly, Alternative 5 re-profiles the pathway from the bridge crossing to its terminus at Bates Road so as to not exceed the 5% maximum slope allowed for under accessibility standards. Unfortunately, in order to design such a compliant pathway profile, the Alternative 5 alignment requires a section of trail parallel to the Bates Road off-ramp to be located below the adjacent road grade and hemmed in by approximately 500 linear feet of retaining walls, up to 11 feet in height in places. lt would also preclude the inclusion of a pedestrian connection into the County Park due to the extreme grade differences between the trail and County Park parking lot, requiring trail users wishing to visit the County Beach Park to continue down to Bates Road and then circle back up into the Park through the parking lot, negating efforts to avoid use of the County Park parking lot by cyclists.
ln terms of anticipated earthwork quantities, Alternative 4R would further reduce the overall amount of earthwork required south of the railroad crossing to approximately 40,500 cy (as compared to the 52,800 cy figure for Alternative 3 or the 6',l,800 cy estimate for the original Alternative 4). Alternative 5, for reference, would net a slightly lesser reduction in earthwork, requiring approximately 48,100 cy of earthwork for this same length of trail (due to increased grading to conform to a maximum 5% slope).

Besides the uncomfortable user experience for Alternative 5 as the trail approaches Bates Road, the other primary design drawbacks to Alternatives 4R and 5 relate to the revised bridge design and profile. Significant redesign of the bridge will be required to conform to the new profile, and likely necessitate a do-over to some degree with UPRR and CPUC for approval of the revised bridge design and easement. Stormwater upgrades to existing Caltrans facilities to accommodate either of these alternatives are also likely, but have not been studied as of this time.

Like for Alternative 4, Alternative 4R appears to avoid the CSD force main, although Alternative 5, with its larger earthwork requirements, would come into closer proximity to CSD facilities and at this point remains uncertain as to the potentialfor impacts to this important infrastructure. Also, like for Alternative 4, either of these Alternatives would also require new right-of-way acquisition work with Caltrans and may ultimately result in Caltrans taking over design and construction of the project since it would mostly be located within Caltrans right-of-way.

N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)\2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-1s\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (256417 91 ,4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2Q23

Perspective renderings for Alternative 5 are included in Attachment B. Perspective renderings were not developed at this time for Alternative 4R due to Caltrans' position that any new trail within their right-of-way should be designed to comply with accessibility standards, however, the overall general alignment would be similar to that shown for Alternative 5.

Alternative 6 / Alternative 7 (lnland of Highway Corridor Alternatives) Alternatives 6 and 7 study two concepts for a trail alignment that could be located on the inland or north side of the U.S. Highway 101 corridor. These two alignments would utilize the shoulder of the northbound U.S. Highway 101 off-ramp at SR 150 and/or one of the existing benches on the terraced hillside above U.S. Highway 101 and the UPRR corridor to traverse from SR 150 towards Bates Road. Alternative 6 contemplates utilizing the highway shoulder to reach and then traverse the "lower" bench on the hillside; whereas Alternative 7 would start from SR 150 to gain access to the "upper" bench on the same hillside and then follow this bench due east towards Bates Road. At the west end of the trail, both alignments would require trail users to cross U.S. Highway 101on the SR 150 overpass to reach the respective trailhead of each alternative, located somewhere near the U.S. Highway 101 / SR 150 intersection. At the east end of the trail, trail users would need to cross under U.S. Highway 101 on Bates Road to reach the continuation of the coastal bike route or to reach public recreational areas.

The further study of these alternatives came at the request of some of the representatives of the SBSA who saw such a route as advantageous in that it avoided the need for a new bridge crossing between the highway and ocean, potentially reduced earthwork needed to establish a trail bench and most importantly, avoided the need for any earthwork on Bates Ridge.

However, in further studying these alternatives, they were quickly dismissed as infeasible by the project design team due to a number of faults: ln the case of Alternative 6, Caltrans has indicated that there is not sufficient room on the shoulder of the SR 150 off-ramp to accommodate a separated multi-use path. Further, in the case of both alternatives, both respective trails would transition from being located within Caltrans right-of-way to UPRR right-of-way at about the halfiruay point across the terraced hillside. UPRR has stated in writing to the City that they do not typically support or allow trails within their right-of-way that are oriented to run parallel to the railroad tracks, thus likely relegating both of these alignments as infeasible. Both alternatives also face challenges in descending from their respective terraced benches down to Bates Road, both due to the very steep topography of the area (which would negate an ADA-compliant trail) and potential conflicts with private property.

Most significantly, both of these alternatives move the trail farthest inland, away from the coast, necessitating trail users to cross over or under U.S. Highway 101 at each N:\Project Files\2O19 (1955- 2029)\2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-1s\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791 .4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 1 5,2023

end of the trail to re-gain access to the continuation of the coastal bicycle routes, and to coastal recreational areas (e.9., Rincon State Beach; Rincon Beach County Park, Rincon Bluffs Preserve, etc.). These alternative alignments inland of U.S.

Highway 101 trade the safety considerations of a trail terminating in the relatively low intensity and slow travel speed Rincon Beach County Park parking lot for requiring trail users to instead travel along the unprotected shoulder of SR 150 or Bates Road and cross busy highway interchanges at each trail end. As such, these Alternatives likely would require further safety analysis and potential mitigation measures. The inland routing of these trail alignments lacks any meaningful connection to the coast and functions, at best, more like a utilitarian bicycle path rather than a recreational amenity. For these reasons, the trail users' experience and usability are expected to be severely compromised, and these alternatives are considered to be among the least desirable and least convenient of all considered, and likely fail to meet many of the project objectives.

Alternative 8 / Alternative 9 (Utilize Existing Highway lnfrastructure Alternatives) Alternatives 8 and 9 represent two variations on a suggestion made by members of the soaring community to utilize or modify existing Caltrans facilities (i.e., the "Wave Overhead" overcrossing highway bridge over the UPRR corridor) to accommodate the trail alignment. In these scenarios, the crossing of the UPRR corridor would be achieved by either constructing a barrier on the shoulder of the existing overcrossing and highway shoulder to establish a separated multi-use path (Alternative 8) or by constructing a new multi-use path attached to, or immediately adjacent to, the existing overcrossing structure (Alternative g). At either end of the UPRR overcrossing, either of these alternatives would generally follow one of the alignments of the other freeway-adjacent alternatives under consideration (i.e., Alternatives 4,4R, 5 and 10).

On paper, both of these alternatives seem deceptively simple to achieve and would be understandably attractive because of this perceived simplicity. However, upon digging further into these ideas with the project design team and Caltrans representatives, both became increasingly complex or infeasible due to the limitations of the existing Caltrans infrastructure to be modified. Specifically, with respect to Alternative 8, there is not sufficient width within the existing UPRR overcrossing structure or within the paved highway shoulder to accommodate a new multi-use path, retain a vehicle emergency lane along the side of the highway and meet design geometries for the safe functioning of the southbound U.S. Highway 101 on-ramp at SR 150 and the southbound Bates Road off-ramp.

Likewise, the Wave Overhead overcrossing is an aging structure and is not able to be further modified or appended onto without triggering the need for a major retrofit or replacement of the structure; a scenario that is far outside of the scope and budget of the contemplated trail project. Constructing a separate multi-use path directly adjacent to the UPRR overcrossing would be similarly challenging, both due N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)!2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 1 5,2023

to potential constructability challenges in close proximity to the existing structure, as well as the challenges inherent in spanning an approximately 300-foot crossing of the UPRR corridor at this location and alignment. At this distance, much like the Wave Overhead overcrossing itself, a new multi-use path bridge would require intermediate supports to be built within the UPRR corridor or a Iarge overhead superstructure, either of which is expected to be both a costly and complicated endeavor to achieve the necessary permissions and approvals from UPRR and the CPUC. The same trail profile challenges faced by Alternatives 4, 4R and 5, discussed above, as the trail approaches Bates Road would apply to these alternatives as well.

Perhaps just as importantly, as the trail alignment moves farther away from the ocean, and closer in proximity to the highway travel lanes, the ability of the trail to achieve all of the project objectives begins to be further compromised. For example, a highway-adjacent trail alignment may be convenient to cyclists wishing to continue on past Rincon Point along the continuation of the coast route bicycle path, however, such a trail is not likely to be as attractive to other recreational users seeking a coastal-oriented path and/or access to the County beach park.

Alternative 10 (Refinement of Alternative 4 + New Bridge Alignment) Alternative 10 is similar in overall concept and alignment to Alternatives 4, 4R and 5, with the exception that the alignment and location of the bridge overcrossing of the UPRR corridor has been adjusted in an effort to entirely avoid affecting the ridgetop and ocean-side face of Bates Ridge. Rather than crossing the rail corridor at the shortest distance (i.e., perpendicular to the tracks) like Alternatives 2,3,4,4R, and 5, the Alternative 10 bridge alignment is set askew, allowing the east end of the bridge to land on the backside or freeway-facing side of Bates Ridge. This alternative was the outcome of ongoing discussions between project staff and representatives from the SBSA. The SBSA representatives favored this alignment in concept both due to its avoidance of alterations to the ocean-facing side of Bates Ridge as well as its placement of the bridge closer to the highway and thus farther from the primary flight path of the soaring pilots.

The realignment of the bridge location and the angle at which it crosses the tracks have major design implications: Crossing the rail corridor at an angle like this creates a much longer span to have to clear over the rail corridor. The resultant bridge is nearly double in length compared to the bridges included in the other project alternatives (e.9., approximately 322 feet compared to 160 - 180 feet) and is at the upper limits of what can be accomplished with a prefabricated clear span bridge (i.e., no permanent intermediate supports).

The project design team believes it would generally be preferable to pursue a clear span bridge over the rail corridor in order to simplify design, permitting, acquisition of easements, and construction (and ultimately therefore, cost) as compared to a tripleN:\Prqect Files\2019 (1955- 2029)U015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-1s\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (256417 91.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

span bridge, for example, which would place two rows of intermediate supports within the UPRR right-of-way, one set on each side of the tracks. However, for such a large clear span bridge, the resultant superstructure of the bridge itself must substantially increase in size compared to the relatively small pedestrian-scaled bridges shown for the other alternatives. The project design team believes it would require something akin to the cable arch-style bridge used for the Eighth Street Pedestrian Bridge over Carpinteria Creek, but at a much larger scale (approximately 40 feet in height), to clear the railroad corridor as shown in this Alternative. Even construction of this clear span bridge may still require temporary supports within the rail corridor and would thus trigger heightened review and coordination with UPRR, adding significantly to both project cost and timelines.

Given the size and complexity of the contemplated bridge for this Alternative, it is expected to be more expensive to construct than the other alternatives under consideration despite its anticipated reduced earthwork compared to the other Alternatives. The new bridge location and design would also trigger a need to restart the easement acquisition and bridge crossing approval processes with both UPRR and the CPUC. Based on the amount of time it took to acquire the approvals for the current proposed bridge crossing from UPRR and the CPUC, approval of this alignment is expected to take multiple years. Perhaps just as importantly, it is not known at this time how others, including both motorists on U.S. Highway 101 and the soaring community, would react to the contemplated larger, more visually prominent bridge structure. As for some of the other highway-adjacent alternatives, as the trail is located closer to the highway and farther from the coastline, the ability to fully meet all project objectives is also diminished.

Like for some of the other alternatives discussed above, considerations related to the scope and extent of upgrading Caltrans stormwater infrastructure to accept additional runoff from the trail alignment, the need for construction of retaining walls along portions of the trail (currently estimated at -500 linear feet and up to 1 1 feet in height for Alternative 10), and ADA compliance considerations (the final approach to Bates Road would exceed the 5% maximum allowance and require approval of a design exception from Caltrans), all remain to be more fully studied and could therefore pose additional challenges or constraints not yet fully understood. And again, as for the other highway-adjacent alternatives, construction of this Alternative would require additional acquisition of right-of-way from Caltrans and/or may be taken over as a Caltrans project given the majority of the project would occur within Caltra ns rig ht-of-way.

Representative perspective renderings for Alternative 10 are included as part of Attachment B.

N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)lo}15 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 1 5,2023

Alternative 11 ("Walking Spur Add-on")
Alternative 1 1 was conceived as a possible "add-on" to one of the other trail alignments that would run along the freeway-facing side of the ocean-front ridge (i.e., Alternatives 4,4R,5, 8, I and 10) in order to offer a pedestrian-only walking spur on the ocean-facing side of Bates Ridge that could make use of the historic abandoned railway bench to reach the western terminus of the Rincon Beach County Park parking lot. The concept calls for a walking path more akin to an "unimproved" or "primitive" hiking trail that would not meet accessibility standards or other design standards typical of an improved bicycle or multi-use path. The Alternative 11 walking spur would provide a secondary means of access to the County Park for (some) trail users, branching off from the main trail just after crossing to the south side of the UPRR corridor, descending the steep western terminus of the Bates Ridge and switching back onto the abandoned historic rail bench, similar in concept but at a smaller, simpler scale to what is described in Alternative 2. Most of the Alternative 11 walking spur would be located within UPRR right-of-way, necessitating acquisition of an easement or title to the strip of land necessary for the trail alignment.

The primary benefits of the walking spur add-on would be to offer trail users the option of a more scenic ocean-facing trail route into the County Park. Such an alignment may be more attractive to individuals who presently utilize the UPRR corridor to access the County Park from the City or for trail users desiring a more naturalized experience. The primary challenges or drawbacks to this Alternative relate to added cost and complexity in completing the project. Physical construction of a primitive dirt hiking trail is not anticipated to be terribly costly, however, acquisition of the necessary right-of-way for the trail alignment from the property owner, UPRR, is expected to be both time-consuming and costly. lf Alternative 11 were to be pursued, staff would suggest that it be phased as part of a later separate phase of the larger Rincon Multi-Use Trail project so as to not unnecessarily hold up the main trail project.

Ultimately, the further study of project alternatives failed to identify a design option that can fully satisfy all interests and avoid or fully reduce some of the key concerns discussed over past deliberations. lt must also be acknowledged that for many of these alternatives under consideration, further study and design work needs to be completed before feasibility, potential impacts, policy consistency and project delivery/cost can be more fully understood. Staff is seeking direction from the Council on the selection of a preferred project alternative. Based on the Council's selection, staff will prepare further materials and conduct additional analysis, as appropriate, prior to bringing back the preferred project alternative for the Council's consideration.

N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)\2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

POLICY CONSISTENCY
The following city, county and state policies are relevant to the completion of the Rincon Multi-Use Trail project.

Carpinteria General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan
Completion of the Rincon Multi-Use Trail project achieves several key Circulation Element and Open Space/Recreation/Conservation Element objectives and policies of the City's General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan that specifically call for improvement of alternative transportation infrastructure and enhanced public trail and coastal access opportunities, including specific references to a public trail connection between the City of Carpinteria and Ventura County. Relevant objectives and policies include, but are not limited to:

Objective C-6: Provide adequate safe railroad crossings and to effectuate community design of buffers that will aftenuate rail-related noise.

Policy C-8a: lntegrate the development of bicycle routes and pedestrian pathways in additional areas of the city, and encourage the utilization of such routes for commuting as well as recreational purposes.

Policy G-8h: Encourage a bike trail link from Carpinteria to Summerland along the railroad right of way and a coastal link to Ventura paralleling U.S. 101.

Policy OSG-14a: lncrease coastal and recreationalaccess for all segments of the population, including the disabled and elderly, while protecting natural resources, p a rti c u I a rly e nv i ro n m e nta I ly sensifrye h a b itat a re a s.

Objective OSC-15: Maintain the existing trailsysfem and provide additional recreation and access opportunities by expanding the trailsysfem.

OSC-1S-lmplementation Policy 70: Continue the development of a coastline trail to extend from Carpinteria City Beach to Rincon Beach Park with vertical access points placed as frequently as possrb/e to encourage public access.

Carpinteria Municipal Code ("CMC"| Transportation Corridor Wetland Overlay District Completion of the Rincon Multi-Use Trail project would achieve one of the required development standards of the City's Transportation Corridor Wetland Overlay ("TCWO") District (CMC chapter 14.45), which was adopted specifically to accommodate the projects associated with the US Highway 101 widening and interchanges reconfiguration projects currently underway. Completion of two regionally important alternative transportation projects (Rincon Trail; and Santa Claus Lane Trail) are required as a "balancing" provision to offset unavoidable coastal resource impacts to N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)\2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx a
a
a
a
a
a
Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

wetlands and prime agricultural soils resulting from the US Highway l0l widening projects in the Carpinteria area.

Completion of the Rincon Multi-Use Trail project also is a condition of approval for the City's granting of the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the Linden Avenue and Casitas Pass lnterchanges and Via Real Extension Project (No. 09- 1522-CUPICDP) and Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCP-4-CPN-15-0018-1), which was required as a balancing provision to offset unavoidable wetland impacts through completion of two regionally important alternative transportation projects to increase access to coastal resources for the public. The Linden Avenue and Casitas Pass lnterchanges and Via Real Extension Project was conditioned to require completion of the Rincon Trail prior to completion of the interchanges reconfiguration work. While the timing requirement will not be met due to unforeseen delays resulting from project redesign, the intent of the required condition would be achieved by completion of the Rincon Trail project.

Countv of Santa Barbara Coastal Land Use Plan
The County of Santa Barbara's Coastal Land Use Plan includes policies that promote the enhancement of non-vehicle public access to the coast through the development of additional coastal trails and coastal access points including the following:

Policy 7-8: lncreased opportunities for beach access shall be provided in the Carpinteria planning area.
lmplementing Action (b): Dedication of a veftical access easement and construction of a trailto the beach shall be required of any development on the easterly end of the Carpinteria bluffs (refer to Section 4.2.3).

Section 4.2.3, Carpinteria Bluffs: This section calls for the development of a Specific Plan for the unincorporated portions of the Carpinteria Bluffs, and requires the Specific Plan conform to the following (relevant) criteria:
1) Dedication of the following lands for public use shall be required:
a. A corridor, minimum 20 feet in width, north of the Southem Pacific Railroad right-of-way, for a hiking/biking trail. To minimize alterations to naturaltopography and vegetation and to take advantage of scenic vista points, the exact location and width of the trail shall be determined by the County and City. Ihe cosfs of improving the trail shall be borne by the applicant(s), not the County or City.
b. A minimum of one public access corridor connecting Carpinteria Avenue with the proposed trail.
c. All lands south of the Southern Pacific Railroad and north of the mean high tide line which are not currently in public ownership.

N:\Prolect Files\2019 (1955- 2029)\2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx a
a
O
Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

4) A safe, public access to the dry sandy beach from the proposed development shall be provided, if feasible (e.9., a trail to the beach with a railroad overcrossing for pedesfn'ans would be one alternative).

Completion of the Rincon Multi-Use Trail is also included in the County's adopted 1999 Bicycle Master Plan and the recently adopted 2023 County Active Transportation Plan ("ATP"). The trail is also part of Santa Barbara County Association of Government's ("SBCAG") 2015 Regional ATP as well as the "Connected 2050 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy" Plan ("RTP-SCS').

California Coastal Trail
The California Coastal Trail ("CCT") is "an interconnected public trail system being developed along the California coastline that will span over 1,230 miles from Oregon to Mexico." The CCT is "desrglned to make the coast more accessib/e, foster appreciation and stewardship of the scenic and natural resources of the coasf, provide recreational opportunities, and encourage non-motorized transportation. The CCT is developed as c/ose to the ocean as possrb/e, and where feasible, within sight, sound, and smell of the ocean.'2
ln Carpinteria, portions of the primary CCT route are in place through the Carpinteria Bluffs area and again from Rincon Beach County Park to points south. The proposed Rincon Multi-Use Trail project (along with the separate Rincon Bluffs Preserve trail network project currently in the planning stage) would fill in a critical missing gap in the local segment of the CCT. Any of the contemplated trail alignments could be found generally consistent with the vision for the CCT as articulated in Senate Bill 908, although the trail alignments that are located in closer physical and visual proximity to the ocean (Alternative 3, for example) are better suited to achieve the described intent of the CCT to encourage non-motorized transportation as close to the ocean as possible.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Total cost to deliver the project, including design, permitting and construction, was last estimated for Alternative 3 at approximately $14 million. Detailed cost estimates have not been developed to date for the other project alternatives; however it is assumed that the alternative alignments would have comparable or even higher total costs due to their respective longer overall trail lengths, comparable earthwork quantities, and/or larger bridge structures, among other variables.

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments ("SBCAG"), acting on behalf of Caltrans, had previously received several grants, including most significantly, an Active Transportation Program ("ATP") grant for approximately $6.83 million to help cover 2 California Coastal Conservancy (2022) California Coastal lrafi. Retrieved March 22,2022 from www. scc. ca. qov/projects/Ca I iforn ia-coastaltra i l/ N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)\2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791 .4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

design, permitting and construction costs for the Rincon Multi-Use Trail project. Of the $6.83 million ATP grant, approximately $800,000 of the funds were allocated to design and permitting expenses, and the balance was authorized for construction costs.

Approximately 70 percent of the design and permitting funds have been expended to date for work completed in the preparation of the Alternative 3 design, leaving approximately $240,000 remaining to complete the design work for this specific alternative.

Following the March 28th decision by the Council to conditionally uphold the appeals and direct staff to study other project alternatives, the SBCAG Board of Directors voted in April 2022 to not authorize any additional funding for the project, including the use of the remaining ATP design funds or other remaining grant funds, until a project alignment is more firmly settled upon. The SBCAG Board did not dismiss the possibility of redirecting funds towards development of another alternative, however, specific authorization would need to be granted by the SBCAG Board to allow remaining design and permitting funds to be put towards work on pursuing any of the other project alternatives under consideration. Additional funding beyond the remaining ATP dollars would likely need to be secured to cover the costs in developing the plans, completing the necessary technical studies, and updating or redoing the required permitting and environmental clearances for any of the other project alternatives.

With respect to the construction funding, following the Council's March 2022 decision to uphold the appeal of the certification of the project EIR and project approvals, and direct staff to restudy other project alternatives, the ATP funds allocated to the project construction costs were forfeited by SBCAG when the project team failed to deliver a "shovel-ready" project by the grant deadline of summer 2022 and no further extensions to the grant funding were available. Accordingly, there is not currently any funding specifically authorized or set aside for project construction.

Going fonruard, Caltrans and/or SBCAG will need to pursue and secure new funding to complete any of the trail alignments under consideration. Depending upon the timing and availability of such funding, further delays in delivery of the project could be encountered.

LEGAL AND RISK MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Project opponents have made previous verbal and written threats of appeals and/or legal challenges if the City moves forward with certification of an EIR and approval of the CUP/CDP for a project alternative that they do not support. An appeal or legal challenge of the City's future actions on the project would follow one, or more, of the following processes:

N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)U015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-1s\FinalCC Rincon TrailSpecial Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

Coastal Aooeals ('CA") Overlav District
The subject property is located in the appeals jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission ("CCC") as shown on the CCC's "Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction" Map, and is therefore subject to the requirements of CMC S 14.48, CA Coastal Appeals Overlay District, and the appeals procedures outlined in CMC 514.78.050, Appeals to the Coastal Commission. For projects located in the CCC's appeals jurisdiction, the City's final local action shall be appealable to the CCC. Appeals may be filed by the applicant, an "aggrieved person," as defined in CMC $ 14.08.020, or by any two members of the CCC. Appeals must be filed within the 10-working day appeal period, which commences following receipt by the CCC of notification of the City's final local action. The grounds of appeal for any development appealable under this section shall be limited to findings that the development is not in conformity with the City's certified Local Coastal Program (.LCP'). There is no required filing fee for appealing a final local action to the CCC.
lf the project were appealed to, or by, the CCC, the City's final local action would be held in abeyance until the pending appeal has been resolved with the CCC. The CCC could find that the project raises no substantial issues, in which case, the appeal would not be heard at a public hearing, and the City's final local action would stand. lf, on the other hand, the CCC found there to be one or more substantive issues, based on inconsistencies with the City's certified LCP, the appeal would be scheduled for a future public hearing in front of the CCC. An action taken by the CCC as part of such an appeal hearing would supersede the City's final local action. ln such a scenario, the CCC could require further changes to the proposed project description and/or mitigation measures that are found to be necessary in order to ensure consistency with the City's certified LCP and the California Coastal Act.

Environmental I mpact Report Ce rtification
Based on Council's direction, staff will bring back a subsequent action for the City Council to make written findings with respect to the appeals and consider certification of the ElR. Depending on the Council's direction, staff may conduct additional analysis of the Alternative(s) and may be required to recirculate the revised EIR for additional public review.

Following certification of the ElR, the City must file a Notice of Determination ("NOD') with the County Clerk of the Board, accompanied by the required filing fees, within five days of project approval. The County Clerk must then publicly post the NOD within twenty-four hours of receipt. Posting the NOD starts a thirty-day statute of limitations period for parties intending to challenge the City's decision under CEQA.

N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)\2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (256417 91.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

Countv of Santa Barbara Permitting
Following certification of the ElR, the County of Santa Barbara, acting as a Responsible Agency under CEQA, likely will rely upon the certified EIR in the consideration of the required Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, and Coastal Development Permit for the portion of the trail located in the County of Santa Barbara's jurisdiction. Similar to the City's permit process, a decision of the County Planning Commission on the subject project can be appealed to the County Board of Supervisors. Likewise, the final local action by the County can be appealed to the CCC.

OPTIONS
The Council should provide direction to staff on which, if any, project alternative(s) to further develop, analyze and ultimately proceed fonruard with for environmental clearances and permitting. Depending upon which alternative(s) are selected, additional funding will need to be secured to cover staff and consultant time to complete design work, update necessary technical studies and prepare an updated ElR. As noted above in the Financial Considerations section, above, sufficient funds do not remain to complete the necessary work to finalize any of the project alternatives (with the possible exception of Alternative 3). Likewise, no construction funding is currently programmed for this project.

Project timing is also highly dependent upon which alternative(s) the Council decides to pursue. Project alternatives such as Alternative 10, which require a more substantial redesign of the trail alignment, trail profiles, bridge crossing and the related project clearances from affected governmental agencies and property owners will require substantially more time to develop and complete as compared to moving fonrvard with Alternative 3, which was nearly fully studied and designed when the project was previously put on hold. For comparison purposes, the time needed to complete the design and permitting to deliver a "construction-ready" Alternative 3 project is estimated at six (6) to twelve (12) months, not accounting for any funding delays; whereas the time needed for an alternative alignment that requires a more thorough redesign and coordination with other affected agencies (such as Alternative 10), is estimated to put the project back five (5) years or more, again not accounting for funding delays.

Alternatively, if the Council does not find any of the identified project alternatives to be supportable, the Council may direct staff to research or consider other as-yet unidentified project alternatives, or the Council could opt to not pursue any of the alternatives. Failure to deliver a completed Rincon Trail project would, however, result in Caltrans being in violation of its project conditions of approval for the Linden-Casitas lnterchanges and Via Real Extension project and the City's certified LCP, and could trigger the need to revisit the City's certified LCP and project conditions of approval with the Coastal Commission and Caltrans to identify and implement some other beneficial public access project to balance and offset the coastal resource impacts that resulted from the reconfiguration of the Via Real extension and Casitas Pass Road interchange.

N:\Project FilesV019 (1955- 2029)t€015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-15\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (256417 91.4).docx Rincon Multi-Use Trail Alternatives
May 15,2023

PRINCIPAL PARTIES EXPECTED AT MEETING
Santa Barbara Soaring Association members
Friends of Bates Beach representatives
Prospective trail users
Representatives from MOVE, Santa Barbara County
Matt Roberts, Parks and Recreation Director, applicant
John llasin, Public Works Director, project manager
Jonathan Leech, Dudek, project environmental consultant Fred Luna, SBCAG
David Emerson, Caltrans District 5
Jeffrey Lindgren, Santa Barbara County Parks Division

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A.

Attachment B.

Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Project Alternatives Alignment Comparison Layout
Project Alternatives Perspective Renderings
Summary Table of Project Alternatives Consistency with Project Objectives
Summary Table of Project Alternatives Design Details
March 28,2022 City Council Meeting Minutes
Staff contact: Nick Bobroff, Principal Planner
(805) 7 55-4407 / [email protected]
Reviewed by: Steve Goggia, Community Development Director (805) 7 55-441 4 / [email protected]
Signature
Reviewed by: Dave Durflinger, City Manager
(805) 7 55-4400 / daved @ca rpinteriaca. qov
N:\Project Files\2019 (1955- 2029)\2015 Rincon Trail\CC Review\CC Update & Alternatives Discussion 2023-05-1s\Final CC Rincon Trail Special Meeting SR 2023-05-15 (25641791.4).docx Attachment A.

Project Alternatives Alig nment
Comparison Layout
Rincon Multi-Use Trail Project, 19-2015-CUP/CDP
May 15,2023 City Council Special Meeting

PACIFIC OCEAN
UPRR

PROPERTY
UPRR
COUNTY

CITY R/W

STATE R/W

STATE R/W

STATE R/W

CITY COUNTY

CITY COUNTY CITY COUNTY

CITY COUNTY

CITY R/W

RINCON BEACH PARK

UPRR R/W

UPRR R/W

UPRR R/W

UPRR R/W

UPRR R/W

UPRR R/W

STATE R/W

UPRR R/W
101 SB ON-RAMP
101 NB 101 SB
UPRR
UPRR

BATES ROAD

CARPINTERIA
AVENUE
RINCON ROAD (HWY 150)
UPRR

PROPERTY
STATE

PROPERTY

CITY RIGHT OF WAY

STATE RIGHT OF WAY

RAILROAD RIGHT OF WAY

PROPERTY LINE

CITY R/W

STATE R/W

UPRR R/W

PROPERTY LINE

CITY/COUNTY LIMITS

CENTERLINE
CITY
COUNTY
NORTH 0 75' 150'
SCALE 1"=150' H

THE CITY OF

CARPINTERIA

PUBLIC WORKS

DEPARTMENT
ENGINEERING DIVISION Approved: Design Drawn Chk'd
UPRR PROJECT. NO.

DATE SHT. DES.

UPRR MILE POST CARPINTERIA RINCON MULTI USE TRAIL
441148Y SOSO

SANTA BARBARA SUB,
MP 380.49
02/10/22 FOR REDUCED PLANS ORIGINAL SCALE IS IN INCHES0 1 2 LAYOUT
(3)
f:\bengal\rincon trail - documents\cad\production drawings\exhibit\_carp-rincon-alts comparison (2022)_v5.dwg BY: Michael Bandich Matt Roberts, Project Manager 360 S. Hope Ave, C-110,Santa Barbara, CA 93105 MB 04/04/23
NORTH 0 75' 150'
SCALE 1"=150' H

CARP-RINCON

MULTI-USE TRAIL PROJECT

ALTERNATIVES
ALT. 1
ALT. 2
ALT. 3
ALT. 4
ALT. 4R / ALT. 5
ALT. 6
ALT. 7
ALT. 8
ALT. 9
ALT. 10

WALKING
SPUR 123456789
10 1 2 3 4 5 67 8 9
11 11
10 PARK ACCESS
Attachment B.

Project Alternatives Perspective
Renderings
Rincon Multi-Use Trail Project, 19-201 s-CUP/CDP
May 15,2023 City Council Special Meeting
Rincon Trail Alt 3
Rincon Trail Alt 5
Rincon Trail Alt 10
Rincon Trail Alt 3
Rincon Trail Alt 5
Rincon Trail Alt 10
Rincon Trail Alt 3
Rincon Trail Alt 5
Rincon Trail Alt 10
Rincon Trail Alt 3
Rincon Trail Alt 5
Rincon Trail Alt 10
Rincon Trail Alt 3
Rincon Trail Alt 5
Rincon Trail Alt 10
Rincon Trail Alt 3
Rincon Trail Alt 5
Rincon Trail Alt 10
Attachment C.

Summary Table of Project Alternatives'
Consistency with Project Objectives
Rincon Multi-Use Trail Project, 19-2015-CUP/CDP
May 15,2023 City Council Special Meeting
o
Objective
No improvement No improvement No improvement No improvement No improvement No improvement No improvementAlignment not compliant w/ safety design standards. Trail terminates in County Park parking lot (however, public has raised safety concerns for cyclists) Provides dedicated & direct route to coastal resources
Improves options for alternative transportation
Limited bluff stabilization; moderate amount of paving; limited storm drain repairs Ocean‐facing route Portion of trail not  ADA‐compliant Ocean‐facing route Trail terminates in County Park parking lot (however, public has raised safety concerns for cyclists) Provides dedicated & direct route to coastal resources
Improves options for alternative transportation
Stablizes coastal bluff; least amount of paving; repairs storm drains Ocean‐facing route Portion of trail not  ADA‐compliant Ocean‐facing route Trail terminates at Bates Road
Provides dedicated & direct route to coastal resources
Improves options for alternative transportation
Limited bluff stabilization; most amount of paving; limited storm drain repairs Highway‐adjacent route ADA‐compliant Highway‐adjacent  route Trail terminates at Bates Road
Provides dedicated & direct route to coastal resources
Improves options for alternative transportation
Limited bluff stabilization; most amount of paving; limited storm drain repairs Highway‐adjacent route
Portion of trail not ADA‐compliant
Highway‐adjacent route
Trail terminates at Bates Road
Provides dedicated & direct route to coastal resources
Improves options for alternative transportation
Limited bluff stabilization; most amount of paving; limited storm drain repairs Highway‐adjacent route ADA‐compliant Highway‐adjacent  route Requires use of SR 150 & Bates Rd
Provides inconvenient and indirect route to coastal resources Improves options for alternative transportation
No bluff stabilization; most amount of paving; limited storm drain repairs Inland of U.S. 101 Not ADA‐compliant Inland of U.S. 101 Requires use of SR 150 & Bates Rd
Provides inconvenient and indirect route to coastal resources Improves options for alternative transportation
No bluff stabilization; most amount of paving; limited storm drain repairs Inland of U.S. 101 Not ADA‐compliant Inland of U.S. 101 Trail terminates at Bates Road
Provides dedicated & direct route to coastal resources
Improves options for alternative transportation
No bluff stabilization; most amount of paving; limited storm drain repairs Highway‐adjacent route ADA‐compliant** Highway‐adjacent  route Trail terminates at Bates Road
Provides dedicated &
direct route to coastal resources
Improves options for alternative transportation
No bluff stabilization; most amount of paving; limited storm drain repairs Highway‐adjacent route ADA‐compliant** Highway‐adjacent  route Trail terminates at Bates Road
Provides dedicated & direct route to coastal resources
Improves options for alternative transportation
No bluff stabilization; most amount of paving; limited storm drain repairs Highway‐adjacent route
Portion of trail not ADA‐compliant
Highway‐adjacent route
Walking trail terminates at County Park parking lot
Provides dedicated & direct route to coastal resources
Improves options for alternative transportation
Limited bluff stabilization; least amount of paving; limited storm drain repairs Ocean‐facing route Not ADA‐compliant Ocean‐facing route *Alternative 11 would be completed in conjuction with other Project Alternative** ADA compliance assumed feasible Legend:    Most compliant with Project Objective
Moderately compliant with Project ObjectiveLeast compliant with Project Objective Note: See "Background" section of staff report for full text of Project Objectives & "Discussion" section for description of Project Alternatives 11 (Walking Spur Add‐On)*1 (No Build / No Project)2 (Maximize (E) Benchwork / Topography)3 (Steeper Slopes / Reduced Earthwork)4 (Freeway Adjacent Trail Avoiding Bluff Face)4R (Refinement to Alternative 4)5 (ADA‐Compliant Refinment to Alternative 4)6 (Inland of Highway "Lower Bench")7 (Inland of Highway "Upper Bench")8 (Utilize (E) Highway Infrastructure 1)9 (Utilize (E) Highway Infrastructure 2)10 (Alternative 4 Refinment + (N) Bridge Alignment) Alternative

7. Provide New Scenic Coastal Access & Tourism Opportunities

6. Provide Coastal Trail for Broadest Use by Public

5. Complete Critical Missing Link in CA Coastal Trail

4. Improve Coastal Bluff Environment & Water Quality

3. Reduce Air Pollution Emissions & Vehicle Congestion

2. Enhance Regional Mobility for Cyclists & Pedestrians

1. Improve Pedestrian & Cyclist Safety
Attachment D.

Summary Table of Project Alternatives
Design Details
Rincon Multi-Use Trail Project, 19-2015-CUP/CDP
May 15,2023 City Council Special Meeting
Design Details
Bridge Length Bridge Redesign Earthwork
Quantities North of UPRR Crossing (cy)
Impacts to Bates Ridge
N/A N/A N/A (E) illicit social trails  in UPRR corridor N/A N/A N/A N/A County Park parking  lot No Yes, from (E) illicit  social trails ~3,500 ft 165 ft Yes, new location Ocean‐facing ~45,000 cy cut             ~500 cy fill ~1,000 cy cut              ~10,000 cy fill None anticipated ~1,000 liinear ft                       Up to 14 ft high County Park parking  lot Not likely Yes, from bridge &  trail~2,710 ft 160 ft No Ocean‐facing ~43,500 cy cut              ~600 cy fill ~52,800 cy cut          ~10,000 cy fill Ocean‐facing side for bridge  landing, new trail bench &  stabilize slope. None County Park parking  lot Partial. Portion of  trail at 6% max.  slope Yes, from bridge &  trail~3,750 ft 160 ft No Highway‐facing ~43,500 cy cut              ~600 cy fill ~61,800 cy cut           ~110 cy fill (not incl.  any slope repair) Ocean‐facing side for bridge  landing. Highway‐facing  side for new trail bench. 2 walls, ~500‐foot length   Up  to 8 ft high Bates Road Yes Partial, from bridge  & bridge landing~3,750 ft ~180 ft Partial, new profile &  length Highway‐facing ~43,500 cy cut              ~600 cy fill ~40,500 cy cut            ~12 cy fill (not incl.  any slope repair) Slight notching of ocean‐ facing ridge for bridge  landing. Highway‐facing  side for new trail bench. None Bates Road Partial. Portion of  trail at 7% max.  slope Partial, from bridge  only ~3,750 ft ~180 ft Partial, new profile &  length Highway‐facing ~43,500 cy cut              ~600 cy fill ~48,100 cy cut             ~4 cy fill (not incl.  any slope repair) Slight notching of ocean‐ facing ridge for bridge  landing. Highway‐facing  side for new trail bench. ~500 linear feet                      Up to 11 ft high Bates Road Yes Partial, from bridge  only ~3,200 ft N/A N/A Inland of Highway Unknown Unknown None Unknown Bates Road, north of  U.S. 101 No None ~3,400 ft N/A N/A Inland of Highway Unknown Unknown None Unknown Bates Road, north of  U.S. 101 No None ~3,750 ft ~300+ ft Yes, full redesign & new  location Highway‐facing Unknown Unknown Highway‐facing side only  for new trail bench Likely. Details unknown. Bates Road Yes** Partial, from bridge  only ~3,750 ft ~300+ ft Yes, full redesign & new  location Highway‐facing Unknown Unknown Highway‐facing side only  for new trail bench Likely. Details unknown. Bates Road Yes** Partial, from bridge  only ~3,750 ft ~322 ft Yes, full redesign & new  location Highway‐facing ~44,000 cy cut            ~700 cy fill ~28,250 cy cut            ~3 cy fill (not incl.  any slope repair) Highway‐facing side only  for new trail bench ~500 linear feet                      Up to 11 ft high Bates Road Partial. Portion of  trail at 6.5% max.  slope Partial, from bridge  only ~1,900 ft N/A N/A Ocean‐facing N/A Unknown None anticipated Unknown County Park parking  lot No Yes, from trail *Alternative 11 would be completed in conjuction with other Project Alternative **ADA compliance assumed feasibleNote: See "Discussion" section of staff report for description of Project Alternatives11 (Walking Spur Add‐On)*1 (No Build / No Project)2 (Maximize (E) Benchwork / Topography)3 (Steeper Slopes / Reduced Earthwork)4 (Freeway Adjacent Trail Avoiding Bluff Face)4R (Refinement to Alternative 4)5 (ADA‐Compliant Refinment to Alternative 4)6 (Inland of Highway "Lower Bench")7 (Inland of Highway "Upper Bench")8 (Utilize (E) Highway Infrastructure 1)9 (Utilize (E) Highway Infrastructure 2)10 (Alternative 4 Refinment + (N) Bridge Alignment) Alternative
Earthwork  Retaining Walls Termination of Trail ADA Compliance Coastal OverlookQuantities South of UPRR Crossing (cy) Trail Location South of UPRR Crossing
Trail Length
Attachment E.

March 28,2022 City Council Meeting
Minutes
Rincon Multi-Use Trail Project, 19-201 s-CUP/CDP
May 15,2023 City Council Special Meeting
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 28,2022

Mayor Nomura recessed to a break at 8:10 pm and reconvened the meeting at g:1g pm. 17' Pursuant to Carpinteria Municipal Code ("CMC') S 14.78.040, the City Council willhold a public hearing to consider appeals of'thie Planning'Commission's decision to accept.and certify an Environmental lmpact nep6rt (',ElR,) and grant approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Developheni permit for Project 19-201s-CylrcDP, a proposalto construct the 850-foot long portion of the approximately 2,800-foot long multi-use Rincon Trail project fibi by: (1) Karl Cameron; (2) Stan Barankiewicz of Orbach Huff & Henderson LLp, on behalf of the Santa Barbara Soaring Association ("SBSA"); and (3) Helen O"lrleill. The qroject location spans from the eastern terminus of Caipinteria Avenue in the City of Carpinteria to the western terminus of the Rincon Beach County park parking lot, located in_unincorporated Santa Barbara County, and involves City and Caltrans rights-of-way and Assessor's Parcel Nos. OO1"-i20-032, -0g2, -100 and -101.

Recommendation: Consider the filed appeals in a public hearing, and deny the appeals, thereb.y upholding the planning commission's accepta-nce and certification of the ElRand approval of a Conditional Use peimit (,,CUp") and Coastal Development Permit ("CDP") for the Rincon Trail project itrrougtr Resolution No. 6111 (Attachment A).

All councilmembers disclosed that they had no ex parte communications.

Principal Planner Bobroff and Legal CounselAcos and Carlson presented the staff report and presentation.

The Appellants Helen O'Neil, Karl Cameron, and Stan Barankiewicz presented.

The Applicant's presentation included Parks, Recreation and Public Facilities Director Roberts, Public Wo{s Director llasin, Fred Luna with Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SC BCAG), David Emerson with Californ ia Depa rtment of iiansportation (caltrans), and Jeff Lindgren with the county of santa Barbara parks.

Mayor Nomura opened the public hearing at 9:b4 pm.

Emails distributed: David Shelton, Chris Collins, Robert Sporrer, Gary Mussell, Lynda Thompson, Sonia Sandomer, Linda Chaloupsky, John Darling, Thomas LivingstonejKen Bolton, Peter Munk, Kate Faulkner, Richard anO Alena Heat-h', Jay plaehn, farry Abeb, Michael Steinbaum, Betty Winholtz, Zak Penwell, Mike Hilberath, Lee Eisler, Jennifer Lauritzen, Brian Kaiserauer, paur suding, conrad Kutsch, ognjen Grujic, Randall McCormick, Jamie.Bishop, Trgy [ronp, Alana Pfister, Dave 'PaGrson,
Ottis Gillespie, pecky Higbee, Wolfgang Daniel, Myles Connolly, Amanda Winther Schorsch, patrick switzer, Andrew craig, Larry Daugherty, peter Gamache, Matt Etter, Lucas Longo, City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
March 28,2022

Elizabeth Engle, EckehartZimmerman, Lena Lander, Mike Harrington, lan Higgins, Dylan Laughlin, Gever Tulley, Julie Spiegler, Cherry Stockton, Tammie Kim, Jon Blake, Aaron LaPlante, Shawn Hasse, Leslie Ogden, Mike Perrin, Logan Walters, Christian Koepenick, Kayla Gibried, Stefani Henderson, Rachael Hendricks, John Kloer, John Greynald, Jeffrey Longcor, George Jimenez, and Lindsay King
Speakers in-person: Kathleen Reddington, George Jimenez, Tom Truax, Logan Walters, Thomas Livingstone (did not speak), Grant Foad (did not speak), Mike Perrin, Jay Plaehn, and Tammie Kim
Speakers via Zoom: James Acres, Barry Remis, Jon Blake, Patrick Switzer, John Callender, James Murphy, Jamie Ormond, Jeff Longcor, Janica Chewbaca Mayor Nomura closed the public hearing at 10:45 pm.

Councilmember Lee made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 6111 to deny the appeals, and accept and certify the EIR and approve the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the portion of the Rincon Trail project located in the City of Carpinteria.

The motion died due to a lack of a second
Further discussion ensued amongst the Council.

Councilmember Lee again made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 6111 to deny the appeals, and accept and certify the EIR and approve the Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit for the portion of the Rincon Trail project located in the City of Carpinteria.

The motion died again due to a lack of a second.

Motion by Vice Mayor Clark, seconded by Councilmember Carty, to conditionally grant the appeals and direct staff to come back to a future Council meeting with additional information on the feasibility of Alternatives 2 and 4. The roll call vote was as follows:

AYES: Councilmember Alarcon, Councilmember Carty, Vice Mayor Clark, and Mayor Nomura NOES: Councilmember Lee
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried
OTHER BUSINESS: