10. Diesel Exhaust Measures: The State of California considers particulate matter emitted by diesel engines carcinogenic. Therefore, during project grading, construction, and hauling, construction contracts must specify that contractors shall adhere to the requirements listed in Attachment B to reduce emissions of particulate matter (as well as of ozone precursors) from diesel equipment. Recommended measures should be implemented to the maximum extent feasible.
If you or the project applicant have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me at (805) 979-8337 or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Carly Barham,
Planning Division
Attachments: Fugitive Dust Control Measures
Diesel Particulate and NOx Emission Measures
cc: Planning Chron File
Permitted Sources File SSID 00027 FID 00027
ATTACHMENT A
FUGITIVE DUST CONTROL MEASURES
Projects involving earthmoving activities are expected to manage fugitive dust emissions such that emissions do not exceed APCD’s visible emissions limit (APCD Rule 302), create a public nuisance (APCD Rule 303), and are in compliance with the APCD’s requirements and standards for visible dust (APCD Rule 345). The following measures should be implemented to reduce fugitive dust emissions and impacts.
During construction, use water trucks, sprinkler systems, or dust suppressants in all areas of vehicle movement to prevent dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. When using water, this includes wetting down areas as needed but at least once in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. Increased watering frequency should be required when sustained wind speed exceeds 15 mph. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. However, reclaimed water should not be used in or around crops for human consumption.
Onsite vehicle speeds shall be no greater than 15 miles per hour when traveling on unpaved surfaces.
Install and operate a track-out prevention device where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets.
The track-out prevention device can include any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out of dirt such as gravel pads, pipe-grid track-out control devices, rumble strips, or wheel-washing systems.
If importation, exportation, and stockpiling of fill material is involved, soil stockpiled for more than one day shall be covered, kept moist, or treated with soil binders to prevent dust generation. Trucks transporting fill material to and from the site shall be tarped from the point of origin. The amount of excavated material or waste materials stored at the site should be minimized.
Minimize the amount of disturbed area. After clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation is completed, or if previously graded areas remain inactive for more than 10 calendar days, treat the disturbed area by watering, OR using roll-compaction, OR revegetating or hydroseeding, OR by applying non-toxic soil binders until the area is paved or otherwise developed so that dust generation will not occur. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks etc. proposed to be paved should be completed as soon as possible.
Schedule clearing, grading, earthmoving, and excavation activities during periods of low wind speed to the extent feasible. During periods of high winds (>25 mph) clearing, grading, earthmoving, and excavation operations shall be minimized to prevent fugitive dust created by onsite operations from becoming a nuisance or hazard.
The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor and document the dust control program requirements to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as necessary to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
All measures required by the Lead Agency shall be shown on grading and building plans and/or as a separate information sheet listing the conditions of approval to be recorded with the map prior to grading/building permit issuance and/or map recordation. Conditions shall be adhered to throughout all grading and construction periods. The name and telephone number of a dust control contact shall be provided to the APCD prior to grading/building permit issuance and/or map clearance. The Lead Agency shall ensure measures are on project plans and/or recorded with maps. The Lead Agency staff shall ensure compliance onsite. APCD inspectors will respond to nuisance complaints.
ATTACHMENT B
CONSTRUCTION DIESEL PARTICULATE AND NOX EMISSION REDUCTION MEASURES Particulate emissions from diesel exhaust are classified as carcinogenic by the state of California. The following is a list of regulatory requirements and control strategies that should be implemented to the maximum extent feasible.
The following measures are required by state law:
Portable Engines: All portable diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 brake horsepower (bhp) shall be registered with the state’s portable equipment registration program (PERP)1 OR shall obtain an APCD permit.
Off-Road Equipment: Fleet owners of diesel-fueled mobile construction equipment greater than 25 hp are subject to the California Air Resource Board (CARB) In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation2. All off-road vehicles subject to this regulation must use renewable diesel fuel, with some limited exceptions.
Diesel Trucks: Fleet owners of on-road diesel-fueled heavy-duty trucks and buses are subject to CARB’s Heavy-Duty (Tractor-Trailer) Greenhouse Gas Regulation, Periodic Smoke Inspection Program (PSIP), the Statewide Truck and Bus Regulation, and the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation to reduce emissions from trucks and buses.3 Idling: Drivers of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles are subject to the Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.4Idling restrictions for off-road equipment are set forth in CARB’s InUse Off-road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation.
The following measures are recommended:
At a minimum, off-road diesel equipment should be equipped with engines compliant with, or certified to meet or exceed, CARB Tier 4 emission standards. Where available, off-road construction equipment should be zero-emission.
Alternative/renewable fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), or propane should be utilized to the maximum extent feasible when zero-emission is not available. Electric auxiliary power units should be used. The Lead Agency should require commitments to Tier 4 and/or zero-emission equipment in applicable bid documents, purchase orders, and contracts; successful contractors should demonstrate the ability to supply the compliant construction equipment for use prior to any ground-disturbing and construction activities.
On-road heavy-duty equipment with model year 2014 or newer engines, or powered by zero- or near zero-emission technology, should be used whenever feasible.
All portable generators should be powered by a source other than diesel or gasoline (i.e., battery, natural gas, propane, etc.)
All construction equipment should be maintained in tune per the manufacturer’s specifications.
The number of construction equipment operating simultaneously should be minimized through efficient management practices to ensure that the smallest practical number is operating at any one time.
Proposed truck routes should minimize impacts to residential communities and sensitive receptors.
Construction staging areas should be located away from sensitive receptors such that exhaust and other construction emissions do not enter the fresh air intakes to buildings, air conditioners, and windows. Construction activity schedules and hours should be planned and adjusted as feasible to maximize distance from existing sensitive receptors and minimize exposure to air pollution.
Prior to grading/building permit issuance and/or map recordation, all measures required by the Lead Agency shall be shown as conditions of approval on grading/building plans, and/or on a separate sheet to be recorded with the map.
Conditions shall be adhered to throughout grading and construction periods. The contractor shall retain onsite the Certificate of Compliance for CARB’s In-Use Regulation for Off-Road Diesel Vehicles and have it available for inspection.
The Lead Agency shall ensure measures are on project plans and/or recorded with maps and ensure compliance onsite.
APCD inspectors will respond to nuisance complaints. 1
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/portable-equipment-registration-program-perp 2 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/use-road-diesel-fueled-fleets-regulation 3 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/truckstop-resources/truckstop 4 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/atcm-to-limit-vehicle-idling/about
From: Public Comment
To: Nick Bobroff
Subject: Fw: The SBCTAC supports certifying the draft FEIR for the Chevron Processing Facility Date: Thursday, May 1, 2025 12:49:19 PM
From:
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2025 9:49 AM
To: Public Comment
Cc: Mark Korte-Nahabedian
Subject: The SBCTAC supports certifying the draft FEIR for the Chevron Processing Facility **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.
Santa Barbara County Taxpayer Advocacy Center
2151 S. College Dr., Suite 101
Santa Maria, CA 93455
(805) 708-9100
www.sbctac.org
"The SBCTAC...Fighting for the Taxpayer and Helping our Business Members Succeed!"
Honorable Members of the Carpinteria Planning Commission, On behalf of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayer Advocacy Center (SBCTAC) and our over 300 members, we strongly support the Planning Commission certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Decommissioning and Remediation of the Chevron Carpinteria Oil & Gas Processing Facility Project.
I have read and reviewed the entire Report. As a former Santa Barbara County Supervisor for 8 years and a Land Use attorney for over 30 years, I am very familiar with CEQA. There is no question that this document, pursuant to CEQA guidelines, should be certified so that the next step in the decommissioning and remediation can take place. To do otherwise will further delay finally remediating Chevron's Carpinteria Oil & Gas Processing Facility.
The SBCTAC urges your Commission to certify the proposed FEIR.
Sincerely,
Mike Stoker
President & CEO, SBCTAC
From: Marysol Smith
To: Lorena Esparza
Cc: Nick Bobroff
Subject: Public Comment for PC FW: New eComment for Planning Commission Date: Friday, May 2, 2025 4:26:56 PM
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 11:43 AM
To: Marysol Smith <[email protected]>
Subject: New eComment for Planning Commission
City of Carpinteria, CA
New eComment for Planning Commission
Guest User submitted a new eComment.
Meeting: Planning Commission
Item: PUBLIC COMMENT
eComment: INCOMPLETE EIR OF HARBOR SEALS: Summary: - Harbor seals are barely mentioned in the entire EIR, raising the question of whether this was a deliberate attempt to downplay the responsibility of Chevron. -Importantly harbor seals are biologically REQUIRED to spend 50% of their time on the beach for daily thermoregulation, digesting food, sleeping and other physiological processes. The harbor seals forage for food in the water. This dual habitat requirement means the EIR must account for protective measures both on land and in the water.
At present the EIR makes no mention of harbor seals living in both aquatic and terrestrial environments. How can you protect the seals if you don €™t know where they live? Harbor seals exhibit site fidelity, which means that harbor seals stay where they are born.. This affects the plans for how to remove pipes that are immediately under the rookery, adjacent to the pier.
Specifically, if pipes east of the pier are to be removed the work should performed when the maximal number of seals are feeding and are not on the beach. -The EIR states that acute injury of mammals is important to monitor and report and that cumulative effects are unlikely to be important. However, research on harbor seals is most consistent with the conclusion that cumulative stress promotes a general decline in health -Sound: Harbor seals are acutely sensitive to sounds aThus no explosives should be allowed for demolition of the oil infrastructure.
View and Analyze eComments
This email was sent from https://carpinteria.granicusideas.com.
Unsubscribe from future mailings
From: C Kathleen Lord
To: Nick Bobroff
Subject: Re: Proposed Final EIR for the Decommissioning and Remediation of the Chevron Carpinteria Oil & Gas Processing Facility Project
Date: Friday, May 2, 2025 12:34:13 PM
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.
Dear Nick ~
Thank you for your response to the comments I submitted.
Please share the following comments & the link to the supportive data to the Planning Commissioners.
In the Pinniped Haul-Outs section paragraph 4 states:
Since the beach is open to the public during the molting season, this rookery is largely abandoned in the summer and fall, which will correspond to when the proposed beach and offshore Project activities will occur.
However the EIR provides no data to support this conclusion.
This statement is not true and should be corrected.
This rookery is often temporarily abandoned during the daytime hours. Daily, often in the morning, the seals go into the water on their own volition or are disturbed by beach walkers, sonic booms, or assorted other reasons. However data collected every morning by trained Seal Watch volunteers shows the rookery is well used at night.
Please see link below:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J2pJCrxFiqnRf1zhVA0WDxAAJqlp9WRRLPZ1K2 Ycz0g/edit?usp=sharing
The June data was collected at various times of day.
The July through December data was collected at or near dawn.
The night time usage of this rookery June through December is vital to the health of the colony.
In the HS Monitoring and Protection Plan
https://carpinteriaca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/web-Appendix-A-all-C_Chevron-proposed-FEIR.pdf
6.0 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES
AMM 4. Harbor Seal Monitoring and Protection Plan. The Project Harbor Seal Monitoring and Protection Plan (Appendix C5) will be implemented during decommissioning activities on the bluff/beach and surf zone areas to reduce disturbances to harbor seals in the area. The Plan will include scheduling bluff/beach and surf zone project activities outside of the harbor seal breeding season and beach closure period from December 1 through May 31.
The EIR must delineate or regulate the summer and fall work hours to allow the harbor seals to continue to use the rookery area at night under the conditions they are used to. They need the dark night sky with minimal noise. Work hours should be limited to 7 am to 7 pm. The lights on the pier should continue to shine down only by the pier. No lights should shine on the remainder of the rookery area. The seals are accustomed to the existing pier lighting and workers walking quietly in and out to the boats at the end of the pier.
4.0 AVOIDANCE AND PROTECTION MEASURES
- 4-2 -
C-251
Place a Screen Between the Work Area and Seal Rookery Area: Due to its close proximity to the harbor seal rookery, Chevron would erect a temporary visual screen between the Gail and Grace pipeline bundle work area and seal rookery area to further reduce the potential for behavioral changes of nearby harbor seals.
Installation of the visual screen would be considered if determined to be necessary during pupping season to mitigate visual impacts and conducted in coordination with Carpinteria Seal Watch and a qualified Marine Wildlife Observer. The screen would be approximately 8-feet high by 30-feet wide, would be maintained taut to avoid flapping or excessive movement due to wind or wave action, and would be positioned to screen the immediate Project area from view of the rookery area. The screen would be placed, maintained, and removed in a manner and at times that avoid disturbance to seal present on the beach; for example, placing it before first light on the first day of work and removing it after last light on the final day of work.
The visual screen is problematic all year long because of the changing dynamics of the waves, surge, sand levels & tides. Work should not be performed during pupping season.
There is another problem. The seals are in greatest abundance in the night hours June through December. They are accustomed to being disturbed after the “first light” of the day. For the health of the colony, screening related activities should be scheduled after “first light” and before dark.
Thank you,
Kathleen Lord
On Apr 21, 2025, at 5:31 PM, Nick Bobroff <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Interested Party:
This email is being provided to you in response to comments submitted by you or your agency on the City of Carpinteria Decommissioning and Remediation of the Chevron Carpinteria Oil & Gas Processing Facility Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, Community Development Department is providing you with the EIR Response to Comments which may be accessed, along with the proposed Final EIR, on our project website at: https://carpinteriaca.gov/cityhall/community-development/oil-gas-information/oil-processing-facilitydecommissioning/ The Carpinteria Planning Commission will hold a hearing on Monday, May 5 th at 5:30 PM to consider approval of Chevron Oil & Gas Processing Facility Decommissioning Project and certification of the Final EIR.
Attached to this email is a copy of the public notice for the Planning Commission Hearing which will be published later this week and provides additional details on the purpose of the hearing, options for participation, and options for providing public comments.
Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions regarding this notification.
<image001.jpg> Nick Bobroff
Director, Community Development Department
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Ave, Carpinteria, CA 93013
Direct Line: (805) 755-4407 | [email protected]
CarpinteriaCA.gov
<05-05-25.pdf>
Walid Masri
Program Director
West Coast Decommissioning Program
Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company (a Chevron U.S.A. Inc. division)
3916 State Street, Suite 200, Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Tel 805 979 3507
[email protected]
May 1, 2025
RE: Decommissioning and Remediation of the Carpinteria Oil and Gas Processing Facilities:
Proposed Final Environmental Impact Report
Dear City of Carpinteria Planning Commission,
On behalf of Chevron, I would like to thank the City of Carpinteria, the Planning Commission, dedicated staff at the City, and the many agencies, scientists, engineers, and members of our community for their contributions to the development of the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Decommissioning and Remediation of the Carpinteria Oil & Gas Processing Facility. We support the certification of the Final EIR as proposed.
This collaborative effort, in process for more than four years, has been instrumental in ensuring the proposed project is implemented in a manner that minimizes and appropriately mitigates potential environmental impacts. We appreciate the time, expertise, and perspective that each participant has contributed to this significant endeavor, and we are grateful for the efforts to strengthen the EIR, develop effective mitigations, and respond to feedback to ensure the work is done responsibly.
Certifying the Final EIR on May 5th represents a significant milestone for the project, and for our community. Together, we can take a crucial step towards the responsible decommissioning and remediation of the Carpinteria Oil and Gas Processing Facilities, and we look forward to continuing to partner with our community in the safe execution of this important work.
Thank you once again for your support and partnership.
Sincerely,
Walid Masri
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
320 West 4th Street, Suite 500, Los Angeles, CA 90013
May 5, 2025 ENVR 20250400007
Nick Bobroff
Director, Community Development Department
City of Carpinteria
5775 Carpinteria Ave. Carpinteria, CA 93013
Re: Decommissioning and Remediation of the Carpinteria Oil and Gas Processing Facilities SCH 2022080026 – Dear Nick Bobroff,
The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission/CPUC) has jurisdiction over rail crossings (crossings) in California. CPUC ensures that crossings are safely designed, constructed, and maintained. The Commission’s Rail Crossings Engineering Branch (RCEB) is in receipt of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Decommissioning and Remediation of the Carpinteria Oil and Gas Processing Facilities (Project). The City of Carpinteria (City) is the lead agency.
According to the FEIR, the Project's purpose is to demolish and remove surface and subsurface facilities and subsequent remediation of any impacted soils at the onshore Carpinteria Oil and Gas Processing Facility to accommodate the site's potential future redevelopment. The Project is adjacent to a private at-grade crossing, identified as Dump Road/Chevron U.S.A. with CPUC No. 001E378.93-X and DOT No. 745634F, which provides north-south access to an employee parking lot. The Santa Barbara Subdivision railroad line, on which the private rail crossing is situated, is owned, maintained and operated on by Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR).
Upon review of the report, it was noted that portions of the pipeline will be removed under the railroad right-of-way (ROW). Additionally, pipelines along the bluffs south of the tracks are proposed to be decommissioned. Any construction activities within the railroad ROW and utilizing the private crossing needs to be coordinated with UPRR.
The Project mentions remediation of the site for possible future redevelopment but does not state what it would or could be. Section 4.1.9 of the FEIR mentions that the employee parking lot south of the private crossing to be maintained to support a future use of the existing pier, but does not specify public or private use. There is no discussion of what will be done with the private crossing, but based on possible use of the pier, at a minimum, the property owners should review and discuss the crossing agreement with UPRR and update any conditional uses to reflect what is planned for the area/crossing. In addition, there is a public trail on the south side of the tracks (Carpenteria Bluffs Trail). Should the parking lot become a future public parking lot that utilizes the private crossing, or if future development allows public access across the private crossing, it will need to be converted to a public crossing via a Formal Application with the CPUC. Additional improvements to the roadway and crossing warning system may be required.
Nick Bobroff
ENVR 20250400007
May 5, 2025
RCEB staff is available to discuss any potential safety impacts or concerns at the crossings and address any questions from the City, and recommends the City communicate with RCEB during its planning process to help mitigate any safety concerns.
If you have any questions, please contact Oliver Garcia via email at [email protected]. Sincerely, Anh Truong
Senior Utilities Engineer (Supervisor)
Rail Crossings Engineering Branch
Rail Safety Division
CC: State Clearinghouse, [email protected] Kenneth Tom, Union Pacific Railroad, [email protected]
From: Public Comment
To: Nick Bobroff
Subject: Fw: May 6, 2025, Agenda Item 2
Date: Monday, May 5, 2025 11:03:34 AM
From: Amrita Salm
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 10:33 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: May 6, 2025, Agenda Item 2
**EXTERNAL EMAIL**
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the City of Carpinteria. DO NOT OPEN attachments or CLICK on links unless you are sure they are safe. Remember, reputable vendors, banks, etc. will not ask you to disclose passwords or other sensitive information.
Public Comments, May 5, 2025, Agenda Item # 2
From: Amrita M. Salm
I have the following concerns regarding the Decommissioning of the Chevron Property:
1. Accidental Spills, which is a Class I impact.
2. Number of daily vehicle trips (62 listed in report) for how long, how many days, weeks, months or years. Needs to be specific.
3. There needs to be safe passage for people (residents or tourists) who use Dump Road to get to the seal rookery, beach, bluffs, etc.
4. Disturbances to the residential neighborhood: noise, pollution, road damage. Let’s be good neighbors.
5. Describe what “most stringent cleanup” means?
6. Disturbances to the seals.
7. When will the project begin and when will the pipes be removed? From: Public Comment
To: Nick Bobroff
Subject: Fw: To Planning Commission for Chevron Decommissioning EIR Date: Monday, May 5, 2025 11:53:27 AM
Attachments: Comments for PC on Chevron EIR Decommissioning.docx From: Susan Mailheau
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 11:30 AM
To: Public Comment
Subject: To Planning Commission for Chevron Decommissioning EIR **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.
I am resubmitting a comment I submitted to City Council, 1/30/24. The current “Final EIR” is severely lacking in consideration for the ESH, notably harbor seals.
What is new:
The oversight in the EIR is even greater than it was for the DEIR.
To prepare my comments I have consulted with a group of marine mammal experts at The Marine Mammal Center (TMMC). This Center covers over 600 miles; it is among the largest centers for marine mammal rescue, rehabilitation, and research in the world; and was key to the identification of Domoic Acid (DA) toxicity plaguing marine mammals.
Experts ar TMMC all agree that harbor seals are vastly different from other pinnipeds and cannot be managed with the same criteria.
NOAA and its Marine Mammals Stranding Network has determined the harbor seal is greatly threatened throughout California, in large part due to climate change. To date, harbor seals have been spared DA and the rookery at Carpinteria is among the last strongholds for harbor seals up and down the coast of Carpinteria.
To jeopardize this with premature and under-evaluated planning will be still another black mark against Chevron in the oil industry’s reputation for environmental damage.
I ask that you consult with true harbor seal experts before you tinker in their home ground to remediate the harm done by the oil industry.
Susan Mailheau, DVM
Member, former Harbor Seal Advisory Committee
Volunteer, CIMWI
Volunteer Carpinteria Seal Watch
1 Comments for Chevron DEIR on Decommissioning
Susan Mailheau, DVM
Member, Harbor Seal Advisory Committee
mainland rookery that is currently
compromised. I offer these comments to demonstrate that the DEIR does not adequately understand and mitigate for the indigenous harbor seal colony – a species that is federally protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. My request is that Chevron fully decommissions its facilities excluding the area that is protected by the City for the harbor seals, and merely caps Gail and Grace Pipeline Bundles until such a time as the City and the Harbor Seal Advisory Committee can secure and stabilize this colony or make provision for establishing it as a Marine Protected Area.
The report states that:
Project Timing: It will be a priority of the Project to schedule activities outside of the pupping season. However, there is the potential the proposed decommissioning Project activities will occur for a short period during the period that the beach is closed to the public. Project activities adjacent to the rookery during pupping season (December 1 through May 31)* will be minimized to the maximum extent feasible to conduct pipeline decommissioning activities.
Screen: The screen will be placed, maintained, and removed in a manner and at times that avoid disturbance to seal present on the beach; for example, placing it before first light on the first day of work and removing it after last light on the final day of work. Seals have an acute sense of smell, vision, and hearing. It is highly unlikely that this screen will avoid disturbing the seals.
Additionally, it was stated in the Padre report: During previous repair and construction work around the rookery, harbor seals have been exposed to disturbances including vehicle and boat sounds, machinery, hammering or grinding on the pier, vibratory pile driving and crane activities, and concrete demolition.
I made counts and observations during recent repair work that did show disturbances that were not documented.
Any presence or work during the pupping period will cause a Level B and possibly Level A disturbance. The seals will abandon their pups. Outside of the pupping season the work being done either on land or underwater will alarm them into abandoning their natal site temporarily if not permanently. In either case, the failure of Chevron to fully account for the rookery that predates them will not earn the goodwill of the public. 2 Seal facts and requirements that were not addressed in the DEIR (references available):
Sensory perception
Hearing – the report focuses on the maximum decibels (loudness) but does not address pitch. Seals are sensitive to, and depend on, frequencies that are far above the upper threshold of humans. This means that sounds of machinery can mask those they need to hear (a pup’s call or mating songs) or can even be harmful. (The proposed machinery for removal of the concrete armoring alone will require concrete saws and/or jack hammers.). Sound carries for miles underwater regardless of the loudness of the sound.
Vision -
Animals that evolved to see in very little light in the ocean’s depth will be alerted to and will therefore leave the rookery area before its own presence is known.
Touch – The hydrodynamic sense**. Their vibrissae can detect and follow hydrodynamic waves which they depend on for foraging, navigating, and predator evasion. Mechanical equipment will disrupt the wakes
speculate seals follow almost 200 yards.
Smell – the scents left by seals provides them with a form of social media whereby each seal is aware of the species, sex, individual identity, reproductive status, age, stress level, and nutritional status of the others. Conversely, workers on land and in water will leave scents of predators.
Life History
Mating – occurs after weaning of pups. I
dominant males and most experienced females the reproductive cycle for the entire next year is compromised.
Pupping “season” is more variable in this colony than is indicated in the Padre report. Some recent years have had births through May. These pups are not likely to be weaned by the planned start of Chevron work.
Molting – a process that takes place after mating and is often the time when the seals depend most heavily on the beach. Their blood supply is diverted to the Storing nutrients to sustain gestation and prepare for the birth of pups the next season takes place from late summer through parturition. This requires mother seals to feed then haul-out to digest food. Failure to adequately prepare for the pup’s development is thought to be one of the causes of mortality in pups (70% of mortality in pups is estimated to be due to undernourishment). Again, strong site beach disturbances are constant and severe.
Pups must survive to reproductive age (4-7 years old) to maintain the equilibrium of a stable population. But our colony is declining for reasons we (HSAC) are currently challenge the population of one and all.
3 They are a federally protected sentinel species for the Channel Islands ecosystem They serve as a draw for thousands of visitors, and add to our City’s economic base industry nationPlease modify your plans to take these oversights into account.
Dr. Susan Mailheau
1/30/24,
Edited 5/5/25 * I have logs dating over five years that prove the seals depend on this rookery year-round. **Whiskers of harbor seals have an undulating surface to reduce the effect they have on the wake they follow. This evolutionary adaptation – unique to harbor seals - is evidence of their importance to the seals’ mode of life and consequently, anthropogenic alterations of the targets’ wakes will leave the seals greatly impaired in foraging, navigating, and predator evasion.
Mark Korte-Nahabedian
Corporate Affairs Advisor
West Coast Decommissioning Program
Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company (a Chevron U.S.A. Inc. division)
3916 State Street, Suite 200, Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Tel 805 979 3507
[email protected]
June 11, 2025
To: Carpinteria City Council
RE: F. Arredondo Appeal – Carpinteria Oil and Gas Plant Decommissioning Final EIR Dear City Council,
We understand that the City of Carpinteria has received an appeal to the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Carpinteria Oil and Gas Plan Decommissioning Project (FEIR) and that the appeal is based on two issues related to cultural resources. The appellant alleges (1) that the FEIR improperly designates a specific tribe to conduct cultural monitoring work and (2) that the FEIR misidentifies “procedures” as mitigation measures. As discussed below, neither of the appellants claims is supported, and the City Council should accordingly dismiss the appeal and uphold the Planning Department’s certification of the FEIR.
I. The FEIR Does Not Identify any Specific Organization to Conduct Cultural Monitoring.
The appellant alleges that the FEIR requires that a specific Tribe conduct cultural monitoring and disregards other Tribes in the Project area. This is incorrect. The operative mitigation measure in the FEIR is neutral as to the affiliation of who will conduct cultural monitoring. See FEIR, p. 4.4-29 (Mitigation Measure Cul.1c, Cultural Resource Monitoring).
The appellant instead cites language describing a request received from a Tribe during AB 52 consultation. Specifically, during consultation, one of the tribes requested that: “The Tribe would also like the entire Project to be monitored by Chumash Tribal representatives during ground disturbance work.” FEIR, p. 4.12-2. This language cited by the appellant is simply a summary of a request received during consultation; it is not a mitigation measure. The operative mitigation measure does not mandate the affiliation of the monitor.
The FEIR describes the City’s government-to-government consultation pursuant to AB 52 with both federally- and state-recognized Tribes as provided by the Native American Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company (a Chevron U.S.A. Inc. division)
3916 State Street, Suite 200, Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Tel 805 979 3507
[email protected]
Heritage Commission (NAHC)1 to evaluate and mitigate potential impacts to Tribal cultural resources. Complementing the City’s AB 52 consultation process, Chevron has been working iteratively with Tribal leadership from these same Tribes, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians, and Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians (collectively known as the Advising Tribes), to co-develop the Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) for the Project. The CRMP serves as the primary mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure Cul. 1a) for potential impacts to cultural resources outlined in the FEIR. According to applicable laws and its own terms, the CRMP must be kept confidential and therefore will not be made public, but it will be submitted to the City of Carpinteria in accordance with the mitigation measure for final approval. For your information and to help respond to the appellant’s concerns, we offer the following excerpt from the CRMP, with the consent of the Advising Tribes:
In accordance with MM Cul.1c of the Project FEIR, cultural resources monitoring shall be conducted during Project-related ground-disturbing activities for the purpose of identifying and avoiding potential impacts to cultural resources . . . .
Chevron shall also retain a Tribal Monitor that is an authorized representative of each of the Advising Tribes to monitor all ground disturbance in Project excavation areas.
Consistent with the City’s AB 52 consultation, the CRMP requires a monitor for “each of the Advising Tribes” and is not limited to the federally recognized Tribe as appellant contends.
Further, there is no requirement in the FEIR or the CRMP that the monitor be a member of the Advising Tribe; instead, each Tribe may choose any authorized representative that meets the minimum qualifications of a cultural monitor. This provision from the CRMP and the mitigation measure in the FEIR directly refute the allegation that a specific Tribe or organization has been identified to conduct cultural resource monitoring. Rather, it ensures that each Tribal Monitor is an individual qualified and authorized to monitor operations on behalf of the Advising Tribes, 1 State and local agencies are required to coordinate with the NAHC to satisfy tribal consultation requirements under CEQA. See Cal. Pub. Resources Code §§ 5097.94, 5097.95.
Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company (a Chevron U.S.A. Inc. division)
3916 State Street, Suite 200, Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Tel 805 979 3507
[email protected]
thereby providing diverse tribal involvement to address any cultural resources encountered during decommissioning.
II. Mitigation Measures May Include Procedures and Legally Required Actions.
The appellant has also made comments in prior correspondence raising concerns regarding the adequacy of cultural mitigation. In particular, the appellant has stated that the FEIR improperly classifies established regulatory procedures as mitigation measures. This is incorrect. It is a settled principle of law under CEQA that “a condition requiring compliance with regulations is a common and reasonable mitigation measure, and may be proper where it is reasonable to expect compliance.” Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906 (upholding mitigation measure requiring compliance with regulations pursuant to the California Building Code and Seismic Hazards Mapping Act as a mitigation measure). This has been further upheld where applicants are required by a mitigation measure to prepare plans that comply with existing regulations. Tiburon Open Space Committee v.
County of Marin (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 700, 763 (upholding mitigation measure mandating applicant prepare a stormwater pollution prevention plan and a resource management plan as required by the resource agencies). Here, the appellant has not offered any evidence that the applicant would fail to comply with these otherwise applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. The FEIR’s incorporation of these measures was appropriate and supported by substantial evidence.
In addition, substantially similar mitigation measures establishing procedures for the handling of cultural resources have already been upheld by the California Court of Appeals. In particular, in Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 455, 470-71, the court upheld a substantially similar mitigation measure providing data recovery procedures for archaeological resources when avoidance and preservation in place were not feasible. See also Preservation Action Council of San José v. City of San José (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 517, 535 (upholding mitigation measure “documenting the four historic structures prior to any disturbance of the project site, in accordance with specified guidelines (including drawings, photographs, and written documentation)”).
Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company (a Chevron U.S.A. Inc. division)
3916 State Street, Suite 200, Santa Barbara, CA 93105
Tel 805 979 3507
[email protected]
We are proud of the relationships we have built with Tribal communities and the CRMP we developed through collaboration with the Advising Tribes, and we value the participation and perspective from Tribes on the decommissioning project. We look forward to continuing to work with Tribal leadership and their designated representatives throughout the duration of this project. We respectfully request that the City Council dismiss the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s certification of the FEIR.
Kind regards,
Mark Korte-Nahabedian
Corporate Affairs Advisor
Mark Korte-Nahabedian
Attachment G-1.
Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the
Chevron Decommissioning and Remediation of the
Carpinteria Oil and Gas Processing Facilities Project
The FEIR includes the following: Executive
Summary; FEIR; and Technical Appendices A- J.
Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses
to those comments are included in Appendix I.
The full document is available at this link:
https://carpinteriaca.gov/city-hall/community-development/oil-gasinformation/oil-processing-facility-decommissioning/
Decommissioning and Remediation of
the Chevron Carpinteria Oil & Gas
Processing Facility Project
Executive Summary
State Clearinghouse No. 2022080026
April 2025
Prepared by:
City of Carpinteria
Community Development
5775 Carpinteria Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Prepared with assistance from:
MRS Environmental, Inc.
1306 Santa Barbara Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Final
Environmental Impact Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final EIR ES-1 Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning 2025
Executive Summary
This Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to address the environmental impacts associated with the Decommissioning and Remediation of the Chevron Oil and Gas Processing Facility (Project). Chevron USA (Chevron, or “the Applicant”) is currently planning to decommission and remediate the Carpinteria Oil and Gas Processing Facilities (Project Site). The proposed Project-related activities would also include the removal of nearshore/offshore pipelines out to three nautical miles (nmi) (state waters limit) (State Waters Offshore Pipelines). In support of this activity, an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) is being filed with the City of Carpinteria (City).
The Project is subject to analysis pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15367, the City of Carpinteria is the Lead Agency with principal responsibility for considering the Project for approval (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.).
This EIR is an informational document that is being used by the general public and governmental agencies to review and evaluate the Project. The reader should not rely exclusively on the Executive Summary as the sole basis for judgment of the Project. Specifically, the EIR should be consulted for information about the environmental effects associated with the Project and potential mitigation measures to address or minimize those effects.
The remainder of the Executive Summary consists of the following sections:
An introduction, which discusses the regulatory oversight in the preparation of the EIR and public scoping process, and agency use of the EIR;
A brief description of the Project and the Project objectives; A discussion of the background environmental setting;
A brief description of the alternatives evaluated in detail in the EIR; A summary of key impacts of the Project, alternatives, and cumulative impacts; and A discussion of the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
Tables ES.4 through ES.6, located at the end of this Executive Summary, summarize the impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. The impacts and mitigation measures for the Project are discussed in detail in Sections 4.1 through 4.13 of this EIR.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning ES-2 Final EIR 2025
Figure ES-1 Project Site Location Map
Source: Applicant Project Description, 2021.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final EIR ES-3 Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning 2025
ES.1 Introduction
The City, as Lead Agency under CEQA, determined that an EIR would be required as part of the permitting process for the Project. The City’s decision to prepare an EIR is documented in an Initial Study included in Appendix D of this EIR. The Initial Study, which consists of a checklist of possible effects on a range of environmental topics, found that the Project may have significant environmental impacts related to:
Aesthetics;
Air Quality;
Biological Resources;
Cultural Resources;
Geology and Soils;
Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions;
Hazardous Materials and Risk of Upset;
Hydrology and Water Resources;
Land Use and Planning;
Noise and Vibration;
Transportation and Circulation; and
Tribal Cultural Resources.
A detailed analysis associated with an EIR is needed to further assess potential effects. While these issue areas are the main topics of focus in this EIR, other issue areas are included in Section 4.13 which provides a discussion of issue areas that were found not to have the potential for significant impacts.
On August 1, 2022, the City, as the Lead Agency, issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to inform the general public and agencies that an EIR would be prepared for the Project and to solicit comments on environmental issues to be addressed in the document. The public scoping comment period was extended by 30 days and closed on September 30, 2022. Comments received in response to the NOP were used to further refine the scope of the analysis and the technical studies in this EIR. Written comments received in response to the NOP are provided in Appendix D with an indication of specific EIR sections where topics related to individual comments are addressed.
The City of Carpinteria is the Lead Agency per CEQA Guidelines Section 15051. In addition, a number of public agencies with discretionary authority over this Project have been identified as Responsible Agencies which may rely on this EIR, once certified, as part of the deliberative review in deciding whether to approve or disapprove a particular activity. Table 1.2 provides a listing of these Responsible Agencies and their applicability to the Project. The City, as the CEQA Lead Agency, will act first on the Project before any of the Responsible Agencies act on the Project. City decision-makers (Planning Commission and City Council) will use the EIR for decision-making regarding the Project. If the Project is approved by all required permitting agencies, the City would be responsible for reviewing and approving all pre-construction compliance plans and ensuring that the Project modifications and operations are conducted in accordance with the permit conditions.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning ES-4 Final EIR 2025
The City of Carpinteria issued a Draft EIR on November 30, 2023. The public comment period on the Draft EIR ran through January 31, 2024. The City of Carpinteria held a public comment meeting on December 18, 2023.
The public comments received on the Draft EIR were reviewed and responded to as required by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. This Final EIR has been prepared, incorporating all of the comments received, written responses to received comments, and the Draft EIR, along with any changes to the Draft EIR that resulted from the comments received.
The Draft EIR (paper copy form) as well as the Final EIR will be available to the general public for review at these locations:
City of Carpinteria Community Development Department
City of Carpinteria Public Library
CD and paper copies of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR may be obtained (free of charge) at the City of Carpinteria Community Development Department.
The Draft EIR and the Final EIR are also available on the City of Carpinteria’s website at:
https://carpinteriaca.gov/city-hall/community-development/oil-gas-information/oil-processing-facilitydecommissioning/ Revision marks showing the changes from the Draft EIR are shown in the Final EIR where changes are shown as lines in the margins, and added text is shown underlined. Deleted text is not shown due to formatting issues. A full revision version is available by request that shows deletions also.
ES.2 Project Description
The Project proposes to demolish and remove the Facility including, but not limited to the onshore portions of the Facility (Onshore Facility), and State Waters Offshore Pipelines and complete remediation of impacted soils and groundwater at the Facility. Remediation is proposed to comply with levels established in a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) that will be reviewed by the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department, Environmental Health Services (SBCEHS), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). The Project proposal assumes the most stringent clean up levels for the purpose of determining soil excavation and truck trip estimates and therefore a maximum amount of remediation activities (e.g., truck trips, site activities). The Applicant states remediation efforts will be performed along with preservation of existing site resources, including mature trees and bluffs, and in coordination with site constraints including buffer zones adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way (ROW). The most stringent clean up levels would also result in greater flexibility for development on the site meeting the most rigorous standards (e.g., unrestricted land use).
ES.3 Objectives of the Project
Pursuant to Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the description of the Project is to contain “a clearly written statement of objectives” that would aid the Lead Agency in developing a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and would aid decision makers in preparing findings and, if necessary, a statement of overriding considerations. The City is the CEQA Lead Agency responsible for preparing the EIR. The City decision-makers will consider the EIR for certification and the Project for approval.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final EIR ES-5 Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning 2025
The underlying purpose of the Project is to remediate the environmental impacts of the legacy oil and gas facilities on the Project site.1 More specifically, the Project's purpose is to demolish and remove surface and subsurface facilities and subsequent remediation of any impacted soils connected to activities from the Onshore Facility to accommodate the site's potential future redevelopment. Any residually impacted soils at the Onshore Facility will be remediated to an unrestricted land use standard consistent with the approvals from the SBCEHS, RWQCB, and U.S. EPA to facilitate reuse of the property for land use acceptable under the City’s current Draft General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (General Plan) Update (anticipated to be Planned Unit Development and Open Space/Recreation). The State Waters Offshore Pipelines will also be removed. The Project objectives as provided by the Applicant are summarized as follows:
Idling and removal of existing surface and subsurface equipment, piping, pipeline segments and structures associated with the Facility including removal of concrete foundations, asphalt, oil spray, and road base within the Facility;
Pig and flush pipelines in preparation for removal and removal of State Waters Offshore Pipelines out to the 3-nmi state waters limit;
Excavation/remediation of any impacted soils within the Facility and restoration of the affected portions of the Project Site in accordance with the agency approved Remedial Action Plan; Complete removal of State Waters Offshore Pipelines; and Recycling/disposal of all materials removed from the Project Sites.
ES.4 Background and Historic Operations
The Project Site is located within an area that has been historically utilized for agricultural production and more recently for oil and gas development support activities. Historical agricultural production activities documented at the Project Site from the 1920s through 1959 included dry farming, row crop production, orchards (fruit trees and nuts), and commercial flower production (plant nursery).
Oil and gas processing equipment was initially constructed onsite in the 1950s to support production from the offshore Summerland field developed by the Standard, Humble, and Summerland State (SHSS) joint venture. Oil and gas first flowed through Project Site in 1959 after the commissioning of offshore Platform Hazel. The processed oil was metered and transferred to Tank 861, a 217,000-barrel (bbl) capacity aboveground storage tank (AST) with a floating top roof operated by Standard Oil's Pipeline Department (now Chevron Pipeline & Power). Produced gas that flowed to the Project Site from Platform Hazel and later other offshore platforms was processed onsite and then sold to Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas) via the Sales Gas Area (pipes, valves, meters, and equipment), which was also constructed in the late 1950s.
Historically, processing levels at the Facility have been as high as 20,000 barrels per day of crude oil and 20 million standard cubic feet (MMSCF) per day of natural gas. The Facility consisted of offices, production pipelines from offshore platforms, a connected system of product separation, processing, and storage facilities. Processed natural gas from the Facility was fed into the SoCalGas network. Processed crude oil and natural gasoline were blended and shipped from the Facility by way of pipeline to Ventura, from where it was piped to refineries in the Los Angeles area. 1 14 Cal Code Regs §15124(b); See Golden Door Props., LLC v. County of San Diego (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 467, 546; Bay Area Citizens v. Association of Bay Area Gov’ts (2016) 248 Cal.App.4th 966, 1013.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning ES-6 Final EIR 2025
Historically, refined products and crude oil were also transferred from the Facility via marine tanker.
However, the marine terminal, formerly accessed by an offshore mooring, is no longer operational. From 1960 to 1989, the Facility received oil and gas from Platform Hazel as well as several other offshore platforms constructed in the Santa Barbara Channel, including Hilda, Hope, and Heidi (Carpinteria Field), and Gail and Grace (Santa Clara Field and Sockeye Field). Upgrades and additions to the Facility were completed to accommodate the varied quality of the additional oil and gas volume. Abandonment of the wells and decommissioning/removal of offshore Platforms Hazel, Hilda, Hope, and Heidi (4H Platforms) from the Santa Barbara Channel were completed in 1996.
The Applicant sold its Santa Barbara Channel assets to Venoco, Inc. in 1998. Platform Grace ceased operations in 1998 and Platform Gail in 2017. Chevron purchased the property as part of Venoco bankruptcy proceedings and is the Operator of record and Applicant for the decommissioning Project.
ES.5 Description of Alternatives
Alternatives to the Project were developed per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. Section 5.0, Environmental Analysis and Comparison of Alternatives, provides a complete description of all alternatives considered, including an explanation for rejecting potential alternatives for further analysis.
In addition, in response to comments made on the Draft EIR, an additional alternative, the Proposed Project Plus Hilda and Hazel Pipeline Removal Alternative, has been added to this EIR, which is described below and included in the comparative analysis. The following were the alternatives evaluated and carried forward to the Environmentally Superior Alternative Discussion.
ES.5.1 No Project Alternative
CEQA requires an evaluation of the No Project Alternative so that decision makers can compare the impacts of approving the Project with the impacts of not approving the Project. According to CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(3)(B), for a development project the No Project Alternative is the circumstances under which the Project does not proceed. If disapproval of the Project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others, such as the proposal of some other project, this “no project” consequence should be discussed.
Under the No Project Alternative, the Project as proposed would not occur and the Applicant would not conduct the site demolition and remediation activities proposed by the Project. The CPF would remain at the site in a shut-down status and facilities would not be decommissioned. This would include onshore facilities, and offshore pipelines. It should be noted that remediation activities may still be required to proceed since the U.S. EPA and SBCEHS would likely continue to require that these facilities be cleaned up of contaminated materials and appropriately remediated. However, without the removal of aboveground equipment and tanks, it would be difficult to fully access all areas targeted for excavation and remediation.
ES.5.2 Full Removal of Facilities Alternative
The Project as proposed excludes a number of facilities that are not slated for decommissioning for a variety of reasons. Under this alternative all oil and gas facilities within the property and all related offshore facilities that can be addressed would be fully decommissioned. Those facilities would include the plugging and abandonment of the seven wells that exist within the Project Site; removal and remediation of naturally occurring petroleum hydrocarbons which include a number of seep areas within the Buffer Zone Area, MSRC Area, Main Plant Area, and Pier Parking Lot Area; and removal of former Platforms Hazel and Hilda pipeline bundle, which include two, 8-inch diameter and one, 6-inch diameter
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final EIR ES-7 Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning 2025
abandoned pipelines that come from offshore, across the beach near the western extent of the Project area and a 36-inch diameter corrugated metal vault located at the edge of the bluffs.
This alternative would potentially eliminate potential long term oil spill impacts related to oil well blowouts and would eliminate the impacts associated with ongoing oil seeps. In addition, removal of pipelines through the bluffs would prevent future erosion impacts and would address pipelines that were not previously removed and would not become a burden on the public for addressing future removal.
ES.5.3 Proposed Project Plus Hilda and Hazel Pipeline Removal Alternative The Proposed Project Plus Hilda and Hazel Pipeline Removal Alternative consists of all the components of the Proposed Project together with removal of the onshore and nearshore portion of the former Platforms Hazel and Hilda pipeline bundle, which was abandoned in place as approved by the State Lands Commission during the platform removal project in 1997. This alternative is a revised version of the Full Removal of Facilities Alternative described in Section 5.3.2 but does not include removal and remediation of naturally occurring hydrocarbon seeps, plugging and abandonment of seven existing wells within the Project Site, or removal of the former Platforms Hazel and Hilda pipeline bundle further from shore, beyond a depth of 30 feet of water.
Comments from the Applicant and others pointed out that the hydrocarbon seeps and historic wells are not required to be intervened by any regulatory agency and are not feasible under the existing Project.
The California Coastal Commission has stated that the seeps are a chronic natural occurrence that is part of the environmental setting and would not be considered an impact. The seeps, which include a number of seep areas within the Buffer Zone Area, MSRC Area, Main Plant Area, and Pier Parking Lot Area, are natural environmental features resulting from geological conditions. The California Coastal Commission commented that leaving the seeps undisturbed in their natural state would not be inconsistent with the Coastal Act. (California Coastal Commission letter, 1/31/2024). Previous attempts to cement over seeps in southern California have resulted in seeps moving around the cement cap. (Chevron letter, 1/31/2024).
Abandonment of the historic wells on the property that were installed and operated by others are not proposed to be affected by the Proposed Project decommissioning activities and as such, are not considered the Applicant’s responsibility. The California Geologic Energy Management Division (CalGEM) advised that the property owner would be responsible for well reabandonment if the property owner proposed construction that would prevent or impede well access, but the Proposed Project is not projected to build over or impede access to the historic wells. (CalGEM letter, 2/1/2024). CalGEM has determined that there is no regulatory requirement for Chevron to plug or abandon the wells as part of the Proposed Project.
In response, the City has requested and the Applicant has agreed to propose and, if approved, carry out the revised Proposed Project Plus Hilda and Hazel Pipeline Removal Alternative which consists of the original Proposed Project together with partial removal of the former Platforms Hazel and Hilda pipeline bundle, but does not disturb the naturally occurring seeps or historic wells. Under this alternative, in addition to the Proposed Project, the Applicant would remove a portion of the former Platforms Hazel and Hilda pipeline bundle, onshore from the base of the bluff and offshore for approximately 1,400 feet, to a depth of 30 feet of water. The rest of the offshore pipeline bundle would remain abandoned in place, with the ends sealed by mechanical plugs. The 30-foot water depth was selected to ensure that the work barge has sufficient water depth to work safely and in accordance with the proposed removal procedures for the adjacent marine terminal pipelines. In addition, the related 36-inch diameter corrugated metal vault located on the bluff would be fully removed.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning ES-8 Final EIR 2025
The Proposed Project Plus Hilda and Hazel Pipeline Removal Alternative would achieve the basic objectives of the Project by accomplishing the components of the original Proposed Project. In addition, removing the former Platforms Hazel and Hilda pipeline bundle through the bluffs would prevent future erosion and avoid the pipelines becoming a burden on the public if removal is necessary in the future, as noted by the California Coastal Commission. (California Coastal Commission letter, 1/31/2024).
ES.5.4 Other Alternatives Examined
Other alternatives were examined and eliminated from detailed consideration, including:
Removal of Offshore Facilities only Alternative;
Removal of Onshore Facilities only Alternative; and
Limitations on Trucking Destinations Alternative.
These are discussed in Section 5.3, Alternatives Description.
ES.6 Impacts of Project, Alternatives, and Cumulative Development In the Impact Summary Tables (ES.1 through ES.6) in this Executive Summary and throughout this EIR, the impacts of the Project and alternatives have been classified using the categories Class I, II, III, and IV as described below:
Class I – Significant and Unavoidable: Significant unavoidable adverse impacts for which the decisionmaker must adopt a statement of Overriding Considerations: these are significant adverse impacts that cannot be effectively avoided or mitigated. No measures could be taken to avoid or reduce these adverse effects to insignificant or negligible levels. Even after application of feasible mitigation measures, the residual impact would be significant;
Class II – Less Than Significant with Mitigation: Significant environmental impacts that can be feasibly mitigated or avoided for which the decision maker must adopt Findings and recommended mitigation measures: these impacts are potentially similar in significance to those of Class I but can be reduced or avoided by the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. After application of feasible mitigation measures, the residual impact would not be significant; Class III – Less than Significant: Adverse impacts found not to be significant for which the decision maker does not have to adopt Findings under CEQA: these impacts do not meet or exceed the identified thresholds for significance. Generally, no mitigation measures are required for such impacts; and Class IV – Beneficial: Impacts beneficial to the environment.
The term “significance” is used in these tables and throughout this EIR to characterize the magnitude of the projected impact. For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact is a substantial or potentially substantial change to resources in the local Project area or the area adjacent to the Project in comparison to the threshold of significance established for the issue area. Within each issue area an analysis of potential impacts compared to the appropriate significance criteria is presented.
The remainder of this section provides a brief discussion of the significant and unavoidable Class I impacts identified for the Project, the alternatives, and cumulative development. A detailed listing of the impacts associated with the Project can be found in the Impact Summary Tables at the end of this section. Sections
4.1 through 4.13 provide a comprehensive discussion of impacts of the Project and discussions of the impacts associated with the cumulative development. Section 5.0, Alternatives, provides an analysis of
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final EIR ES-9 Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning 2025
the impacts of each selected alternative, compares the impacts of each alternative relative to the Project, and identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
ES.6.1 Impacts Associated with the Project
Table ES.1 summarizes the Project impacts and mitigation measures.
Table ES.1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Issue Area Impact Description Class* Mitigation Measures Aesthetics
A.1 Scenic Vistas III -
A.2 Scenic Resources III -
A.3 Visual Character/Quality III -
A.4 Night Lighting II A.4: Beach/Nearshore Night Lighting Minimization
Air Quality
AQ.1 Standards III -
AQ.2 Odors II AQ.2. Odor Control and Purging Plan
AQ.3 Toxic Air Emissions III -
Biological Resources
Bio.1 Listed Species II
Bio.1a: Agency Approvals
Bio.1b: Habitat Restoration/Revegetation
Plan
Bio.1c: Pre-construction Wildlife Surveys
Bio.1d: Fencing
Bio.1e: Worker Education & Awareness
Plan
Bio.1f: Marine Wildlife Contingency &
Training Plan Implementation
Bio.1g: Harbor Seal Rookery Monitoring
& Protection
Bio.1h: Wildlife Relocation Monitoring
Bio.2 ESHA II
Bio.2a: ESHA Impact Avoidance
Bio.2b: Scrub Mitigation
Bio.2c: Essential Fish Habitat Avoidance
Bio.3 Wetlands II
Bio.3a: Permitting Compliance with
USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW
Requirements
Bio.3b: Wetlands Pre-construction
Survey
Bio.3c: Coastal Wetlands Mitigation and
Monitoring Program
Bio.4 Movement of Wildlife III -
Bio.5 Policy Conflicts II Bio.5: Tree Removal Mitigation Bio.6 Conservation Plan Conflicts III -
Bio.7 Accidental Oil Spills I Bio.7: Oil Spill Contingency Plan Cultural Resources
Cul.1 Known Resource CA-SBA-6 II
Cul.1a: Cultural Resources Management
Plan
Cul.1b: Worker Cultural Resources
Awareness Program
Cul.1c: Cultural Resources Monitoring
Cul.1d: Exclusion Zones
Cul.1e: Phase III Data Recovery
Excavations
Cul.1f: Curation of Project Materials
Cul.2 Human Remains II Cul.2a: On-Call Forensic Anthropologist Cul.2b: Human Remains Discovery
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning ES-10 Final EIR 2025
Table ES.1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Issue Area Impact Description Class* Mitigation Measures Geology & Soils
Geo.1 Earthquake Fault III -
Geo.2 Erosion II Geo.2: Erosion Control Best
Management Practices
Geo.3 Sedimentation II Measure Geo.2
Geo.4 Unstable Bluffs II
Geo.4a: Bluff Stabilization Plan
Geo.4b: Bluff Stabilization During
Pipeline Removal
Geo.4c: Bluff Stabilization Following
Pipeline Removal
Geo.5 Expansive Soils III -
Geo.6 Septic Tanks III -
Geo.7 Paleontological/Geologic
Feature II Measures Cul.1a-f
Climate Change &
GHG
GHG.1 GHG Emissions II GHG.1: GHG Emissions Reductions
GHG.2 Plans II Measure GHG.1
Hazardous Materials
& Risk of Upset
Haz.1 Routine Operations II Haz.1: Contaminated Soil Handling Haz.2 Accidental Releases I Haz.2a: Spill Response Planning Haz.2b: Asbestos and Lead Planning
Haz.3 Schools III -
Haz.4 Site Contamination III -
Haz.5 Airports III -
Haz.6 Emergency Response III -
Haz.7 Wildland Fires II Haz.7: Fire Response Planning
Hydrology & Water
Resources
WR.1 Standards I WR.1: Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan
WR.2 Groundwater Supplies III -
WR.3 Drainage Patterns III -
WR.4 Pollutants III -
WR.5 Control Plans III -
Land Use & Planning LU.1 Create Divisions III -
LU.2 Policy Conflict III -
Noise & Vibration
N.1 12-hour CNEL III
N.2 Hourly Average Ambient Noise II N.2a: Noise Barriers N.2b: Nighttime Activities
N.3 Vibration III -
N.4 Airport Noise Conflicts III -
Transportation &
Circulation
T.1 Policy Conflicts III -
T.2 VMT III -
T.3 Traffic Hazards III -
T.4 Emergency Access III -
Tribal Cultural
Resources
TCR.1 Tribal Cultural Resources II Measures Cul.1a through Cul.2b TCR.2 Tribal Cultural Resources II Measures Cul.1a through Cul.2b Other All
Ag, Energy, Mineral, Housing,
Public Services, Recreation,
Utilities, Wildfire
III -
*Class I = Significant and Unavoidable; Class II = Less than Significant with Mitigation; Class III = Less than Significant; Class IV = Beneficial.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final EIR ES-11 Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning 2025
ES.6.1.1 Significant and Unavoidable Class I Impacts
Significant and unavoidable Class I impacts would occur related to biological resources, hazardous materials and risk of upset, and hydrology and water resources. See Table ES.4 for a description of the Project Class I impacts and the required mitigation measures for each respective impact.
ES.6.1.2 Beneficial Class IV Impacts
No beneficial impacts are associated with the Project.
ES.6.2 Impacts Associated with the Alternatives
As discussed in Section ES.5, several alternatives to the Project were evaluated that had the potential to reduce significant impacts. The relative impacts of each of these alternatives to the Project are summarized below.
ES.6.2.1 No Project Alternative
As described above, under the No Project Alternative the Project as applied for would not occur and the Facility would remain in place and not be decommissioned. This assumes that the Project would not move forward and that no facilities are removed, some accessible contaminated materials could still be removed and remediated in accordance with agency requirements. The No Project Alternative does not meet the purpose of the Project and fails to meet most of the Project objectives.
Equally, the offshore facilities scheduled for decommissioning would not occur and pipelines would remain in place. However, regulatory agencies are likely to still require that remediation activities take place and the contaminated soil excavated and removed from the site. The Applicant would have to fulfill the obligations under their existing regulatory requirements for remediation under the U.S. EPA and the SBCEHS. It is possible that the Applicant would still be required to remediate the Project Site as ordered by the various agencies.
If the Project does not move forward, facilities such as Tank 861 would remain in place and would remain visible from the seal area and public trails; however, because the facility is well screened from surrounding neighbors, and the dominant views from the trail are towards the ocean and the seal rookery, this would not constitute a significant impact. However, it should be noted that elimination of visible industrial equipment in a scenic area would be beneficial and leaving them in place as part of the No Project Alternative would continue to expose passersby to an industrial facility. The No Project Alternative would fail to meet most of the objectives of the Project since it would not remove onshore and offshore facilities and it would not ensure the excavation and remediation of all impacted soils within the Facility.
Under the No Project Alternative, no impacts to air quality would occur since no equipment would be used for decommissioning and no trucks would be used to transport decommissioned materials. Trucks would still be used to transport contaminated materials although it might be significantly less since above ground facilities would remain and excavation could not be completed under Tank 861 and other facilities.
It is likely that additional remediation would have to occur at a later date once a landowner proposes some other development at the site and effectuates the removal of the facilities onsite. Air impacts of the proposed Project were considered less than significant and impacts of the reduced activities under the No Project Alternative would be less than those for the proposed Project. Impacts to greenhouse gases (GHG) from trucking of contaminated materials would be less than those for the proposed Project since fewer activities would occur, and fewer emissions of GHGs would be generated. Mitigation measure GHG.1 would still be applicable. Trees and other vegetation would not be removed to facilitate remediation
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning ES-12 Final EIR 2025
activities and no impacts to biological resources would occur. However, if facilities are not removed, then some contaminated soils under existing facilities would remain in place and could potentially leach into underground water resources or the contaminated soils erode as part of storm cycles and be drained into the ocean, causing potential impacts.
Hazards impacts are likely to be significant since facilities would not be removed and could continue to deteriorate and result in potential spills of material left in pipelines or in other facilities. The No Project Alternative also would not address the seven idle wells within the property and those wells could potentially leak in the future and result in impacts to biological resources and water resources as with the proposed Project.
Cultural resources impacts would still occur since it is likely that regulatory agencies would still require excavation and remediation of contaminated materials. Some of the contaminated materials are within sensitive cultural resources sites and impacts would still occur. Mitigation measures under the cultural resources section would still be applicable (mitigation measures Cul.1a through Cul.1f, Cul.2a, and Cul.2b) to mitigate some of the impacts including the preparation of a Cultural Resources Management Plan and requirements for the presence of Native American monitors. Impacts would be similar to those identified under the proposed Project.
Impacts to geological resources and soils would be similar to those for the proposed Project since excavation of contaminated soils is likely to be required. Requirements for an Erosion Control Plan and best management practices would still occur and would mitigate impacts to less than significant. Pipelines would not be removed through the bluff area and erosion impacts in that area could continue to occur with those facilities being left in place.
Impacts to land use would be considered significant but mitigable since the facility would not be decommissioned and future land uses would be hampered by the existence of these obsolete industrial facilities. Also, environmental impacts could occur as a result of leaving facilities behind, such as oil seeps and idle wells that could leak in the future and cause impacts to biological and water resources.
Impacts from noise under the No Project Alternative would be substantially less than the proposed Project since only the remediation activities would occur, but there would be no impacts associated with offshore or onshore decommissioning activities.
ES.6.2.2 Full Removal of Facilities Alternative
This alternative would have similar aesthetic impacts as the proposed Project since the site is well screened from public viewing areas. However, the public trail and seal viewing area have good views of the equipment and removal of all facilities would be beneficial to those passersby. It should be noted that the dominant attractions for the passersby on the trail are the Pacific Ocean and seal rookery. The addition of a rig to plug and abandon the seven wells within the site would have some added temporary aesthetic impacts beyond those from the proposed Project; however, those impacts would be temporary.
Additional mitigation could include temporary screening barriers, which could also help diminish noise impacts, if needed.
This alternative would result in more emissions than the proposed Project since it would include additional work efforts to plug and abandon wells and remove additional pipelines, which would require more equipment. It would also result in additional GHG emissions for the same reasons stated above. Impacts associated with GHGs from trucking of contaminated materials would be slightly more than those for the proposed Project since more activities would occur, and higher emissions of GHGs would be generated.
The intensity of work would most likely be the same as the proposed Project, but the duration would
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final EIR ES-13 Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning 2025
increase, which would increase emissions. The same GHG mitigation measure, GHG.1, for the proposed Project would apply for this alternative.
Trees and other vegetation would be removed to facilitate remediation activities and impacts to biological resources would be similar to those from the proposed Project.
Hazards impacts are likely to be similar to those of the proposed Project since facilities would be removed and there could be accidental releases during the decommissioning process and result in potential spills of material left in pipelines or in other facilities. This alternative would address the seven idle wells within the property and those wells could potentially leak during the plugging and abandonment process but would permanently remove any potential risk of future oil spills. In the event of a leak, impacts would occur to biological and water resources similar to the proposed Project and require the same mitigation measures. Under this alternative, the seeps would also be addressed, and this would prevent future releases of oil that could occur from the seeps during storm events if left in place.
Cultural resources impacts would still occur since the Project would still require excavation and remediation of contaminated materials. Some of the contaminated materials are within sensitive cultural resources sites and impacts would still occur. Mitigation measures under the cultural resources section would still be applicable (mitigation measures Cul.1a through Cul.1f, Cul.2a, and Cul.2b) to mitigate some of the impacts including the preparation of a Cultural Resources Management Plan and requirements for the presence of Native American monitors. Impacts would be similar to those identified under the proposed Project.
Impacts to geological resources and soils would be similar to those for the proposed Project since excavation of additional pipelines on the bluff could have erosional impacts. Requirements for an Erosion Control Plan and best management practices would still be required and would mitigate impacts to less than significant. Mitigation measures Geo.4a, 4b, and 4c would still be required to mitigate any potential impacts to the bluff area similar to the proposed Project.
Land use impacts would be beneficial since the facility would be completely cleaned up and wells properly plugged and abandoned, resulting in a site ready for development.
Impacts from noise under this alternative would be more than the proposed Project since additional activities would occur as part of the added well abandonment and the added pipeline removal, with the added impacts associated with offshore or onshore decommissioning activities. Peak noise is probably the same, but the duration of the impact would likely increase. Mitigation measures N.2a and N.2b would still apply.
Traffic impacts would be slightly higher than those of the proposed Project. Duration would be longer, meaning more vehicle miles traveled, but peak impacts would probably be the same. Impacts would still be considered to be less than significant under this alternative. Finally, and as detailed above, the Full Removal Alternative with all its components is not considered feasible or viable at this point since plugging and abandonment of the historic wells are not Chevron’s responsibility and since the Coastal Commission considers the seeps to be part of the existing, natural environment and do not require intervention.
ES.6.2.3 Proposed Project Plus Hilda and Hazel Pipeline Removal Alternative Since the Proposed Project Plus Hilda and Hazel Pipeline Removal Alternative is a subset of the Full Removal of Facilities Alternative, it would not result in any impacts not previously identified for the Full Removal of Facilities Alternative. Like the Full Removal Alternative, the Proposed Project Plus Hilda and Hazel Pipeline Removal Alternative would have additional impacts compared to the Proposed Project due
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning ES-14 Final EIR 2025
to the additional decommissioning activities and equipment involved, but at a reduced magnitude since the Proposed Project Plus Hilda and Hazel Pipeline Removal Alternative does not include all of the additional components and activities of the Full Removal Alternative. Since the Proposed Project Plus Hilda and Hazel Pipeline Removal Alternative would not affect the natural seeps and historic wells, it would not alter the potential for future oil releases from those existing conditions. The Platform Hilda and Hazel pipelines were cleaned by flushing and running a “pig” through the lines to remove all hydrocarbons, and filled with grout to a distance of 800 feet offshore from the bluff, prior to abandonment in place in the platform removal project. (State Lands Commission, Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Abandonment and Removal of Four Offshore Oil Platforms, Santa Barbara County, 8/3/1994). As a result, the pipelines do not pose a risk of future oil releases in their existing condition.
This alternative would have similar aesthetic impacts as the Proposed Project since the Site is well screened from public viewing areas. However, the public trail and seal viewing area have good views of the bluffs and will be temporarily affected by the removal of all facilities. It should be noted that the dominant attractions for the passersby on the trail are the Pacific Ocean and seal rookery. The additional removal of pipelines on the bluff area would have some added temporary aesthetic impacts beyond those from the Proposed Project; however, those impacts would be temporary. Additional mitigation could include temporary screening barriers, which could also help diminish noise impacts, if needed.
This alternative would result in slightly more emissions than the Proposed Project since it would include additional work efforts to remove additional pipelines, which would require slightly more equipment. It would also result in additional GHG emissions for the same reasons stated above. Impacts associated with GHGs from trucking would be slightly more than those for the Proposed Project since more activities would occur, and higher emissions of GHGs would be generated. The intensity of work would most likely be the same as the Proposed Project, but the duration would slightly increase, which would increase emissions. The same GHG mitigation measure, GHG.1, for the Proposed Project would apply for this alternative.
Impacts to biological resources would be similar to those from the Proposed Project since the added pipeline removal is unlikely to affect any additional biological resources.
Hazards impacts are similar to those of the Proposed Project since facilities would be removed and there could be accidental releases during the decommissioning process and result in potential spills by onshore and offshore equipment during decommissioning activities. However, there would be no added reduction of significant impacts related to oil spills from the added pipeline removal since those pipelines are empty of hydrocarbons and would not be a potential source of spills. Mitigation measures Haz.1, Haz.2a, Haz.2b and Haz.7 will still be applicable under this alternative.
Cultural resources impacts would still occur since the Project would still require excavation and remediation of contaminated materials. Some of the contaminated materials are within sensitive cultural resources sites and impacts would still occur. Mitigation measures under the Cultural Resources Section would still be applicable (mitigation measures Cul.1a through Cul.1f, Cul.2a, and Cul.2b) to mitigate some of the impacts including the preparation of a Cultural Resources Management Plan and requirements for the presence of Native American monitors. Impacts would be similar to those identified under the Proposed Project.
Impacts to geological resources and soils would be similar to those for the Proposed Project since excavation of additional pipelines on the bluff could have erosional impacts. Requirements for an Erosion Control Plan and best management practices would still be required and would mitigate impacts to less than significant. Mitigation measures Geo.4a, 4b, and 4c would still be required to mitigate any potential
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Final EIR ES-15 Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning 2025
impacts to the bluff area similar to the Proposed Project. Long term impacts to the bluffs would be reduced since elimination of the additional pipelines would result in a reduction of potential paths for erosion.
Land use impacts under this alternative would be similar to those of the Proposed Project. However, it is worth noting that this alternative would result in fewer impediments to achieving a fully cleaned up Site by removing more pipelines from the Site.
Impacts from noise under this alternative would be more than the Proposed Project since additional activities would occur as part of the added pipeline removal, with the added impacts associated with offshore or onshore decommissioning activities. The duration of the decommissioning activities would likely last slightly longer and thus the duration of noise impacts would increase; however, peak noise would be the same since it would involve the same types of activities as the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures N.2a and N.2b would still apply.
Traffic impacts would be slightly higher than those of the Proposed Project. The duration of the vehicular traffic associated with the decommissioning activities would likely be longer, and thus would result in more vehicle miles traveled (VMT). However, peak impacts would probably be the same as the Proposed Project since truck trips per day would be the same with added work days to account for the additional work. Impacts would still be less than significant under this alternative.
ES.6.3 Impacts Associated with the Cumulative Development Section 15130(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Div. 6, Ch. 3) states that a “cumulative impact consists of an impact which is created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts.” CEQA requires a discussion of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable” (14 CCR §15130(a)). Section 3.0 of this EIR provides a list of past, present, and probable future projects that could have cumulative effects with the Project. Table ES.2 provides a summary of the Project’s cumulative effects.
Table ES.2 Cumulative Impacts
Issue Area Proposed Project
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Impacts Additional
Mitigation Measures
Aesthetics Class III None
Air Quality Class III None
Biological Resources Class I None
Cultural Resources Class II None
Geology & Soils Class III None
Climate Change & GHG Class II None
Hazardous Materials & Risk of Upset Class III None
Hydrology & Water Resources Class III None
Land Use & Planning Class III None
Noise & Vibration Class III None
Transportation & Circulation Class III None
Tribal Cultural Resources Class II None
Significant and unavoidable Class I cumulative impacts to biological resources would be realized in the event of an accidental oil spill from the Project Site or the offshore pipelines.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning ES-16 Final EIR 2025
ES.7 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 5.0, Alternatives, provides an analysis of the impacts of each selected alternative, compares the impacts of each alternative to the Project, and identifies the Environmentally Superior Alternative. Table ES.3 provides a relative comparison of the Class I, Class II, and Class III impacts of each alternative to the Project by issue area and impact.
Table ES.3 Alternatives Comparison
Issue Area Proposed
Project No Project Full Removal Project plus Hilda and Hazel Pipelines Aesthetics Class III Class III Class II Class III
Air Quality Class II Class III Class II
Biological Resources Class I Class I Class I Class I
Cultural Resources Class II Class II Class II Class II
Geology & Soils Class II Class II Class II Class II
Climate Change & GHG Class II Class II Class II
Hazardous Materials & Risk of Upset Class I Class I Class I Class I Hydrology & Water Resources Class I Class I Class I Class I Land Use & Planning Class III Class II Class IV Class III Noise & Vibration Class II Class II Class II
Transportation & Circulation Class III Class III Class III Tribal Cultural Resources Class II Class II Class II Class II Other Class III Class III Class II Class III
, increase in severity
As the discussion above indicates, impacts from the various alternatives and the proposed Project are similar in classification for those impacts that are significant and mitigable. There are also some slight differences in severity as indicated above for those impacts that are significant and mitigable and for those impacts that are less than significant. However, because the Full Removal Alternative is not considered feasible and there are no regulatory requirements for this alternative, this alternative is not considered environmentally superior. Finally, although the various alternatives have similar levels of impacts, the reduction of long-term geological impacts to the bluffs from elimination of the additional pipelines under the Proposed Project Plus Hilda and Hazel Pipeline Removal Alternative results in this alternative being the environmentally superior alternative.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Final EIR ES-17 Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning 2025 Table ES.4 Proposed Project Class I Impacts Impacts That Are Significant and Unavoidable Levels (Impacts that must be addressed in a “statement of overriding consideration” if the Project is approved in accordance with Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines) Impact # Description of Impact Phase Mitigation Measures BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Section 4.3) Bio.7 Any accidental oil spill and subsequent clean-up efforts have the potential to directly affect any part of the population of a threatened, endangered, or candidate species or result in the loss or disturbance to its habitat, specifically, species that inhabit Carpinteria Salt Marsh, Carpinteria Creek, or forage along the coast along the CPF. Construction Bio.7: Oil Spill Contingency Plan HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND RISK OF UPSET (Section 4.7) Haz.2 The Project may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Construction Haz.2a: Spill Response Planning Haz.2b: Asbestos and Lead Planning HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES (Section 4.8) WR.1 Surface water quality may be impaired during Project decommissioning. As a result, the Project could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. Accidental discharge of petroleum hydrocarbons into marine waters could adversely affect water quality. Construction WR.1: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning ES-18 Final EIR 2025 Table ES.5 Proposed Project Class II Impacts Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels (Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines) Impact # Description of Impact Phase Mitigation Measure AESTHETICS (Section 4.1) A.4 The Project would create a temporary new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Construction A.4: Beach/Nearshore Night-Lighting Minimization AIR QUALITY (Section 4.2) AQ.2 There is a potential for hydrocarbon-related odors from the decommissioning and demolition of pipelines, tanks, contaminated soils, and other oil and gas processing infrastructure. Construction AQ.2: Odor Control and Purging Plan BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Section 4.3) Bio.1 The proposed Project could potentially affect federal or state- listed threatened, endangered, or rare plant and animal species, other special status species, or habitat that supports these species, including nesting birds and marine species. Construction Bio.1a: Agency Approvals Bio.1b: Habitat Restoration/Revegetation Plan Bio.1c: Pre-construction Wildlife Surveys and Protection Bio.1d: Fencing Bio.1e: Worker Education and Awareness Plan Bio.1f: Marine Wildlife Contingency and Training Plan Implementation Bio.1g: Harbor Seal Rookery Monitoring and Protection Bio.1h: Wildlife Relocation Monitoring Bio.2 The proposed Project could have an adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, including City of Carpinteria and Coastal Commission defined ESHA ,or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or NOAA Fisheries. . Construction Bio.2a: ESHA Impact Avoidance Bio.2b: Scrub Mitigation Bio.2c: Essential Fish Habitat Avoidance Bio.3 Project activities would have an adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands and/or Waters of the US/State (including riparian areas) as defined by Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other state and local agencies. Construction Bio.3a: Permitting Compliance with USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW Regulations Bio.3b: Wetlands Pre-construction Survey Bio.3c: Coastal Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Final EIR ES-19 Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning 2025 Table ES.5 Proposed Project Class II Impacts Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels (Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines) Impact # Description of Impact Phase Mitigation Measure Bio.5 The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Construction Bio.5: Tree Removal Mitigation CULTURAL RESOURCES (Section 4.4) Cul.1 Grading and excavation associated with decommissioning would potentially result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource. Specifically, the Project would cause disturbance to known and unknown CA-SBA- 6 deposits. Equally, in the event of an oil spill, the spill and cleanup efforts would potentially result in disturbance to cultural resources. Construction Cul.1a: Cultural Resources Management Plan Cul.1b: Worker Cultural Resources Awareness Program Cul.1c: Cultural Resources Monitoring Cul.1d: Exclusion Zones Cul.1e: Phase III Data Recovery Excavations Cul.1f: Curation of Project Materials Cul.2 The Project would disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. Construction Cul.2a: On-Call Forensic Anthropologist Cul.2b: Human Remains Discovery CLIMATE CHANGE AND GREENHOUSE GASES (Section 4.6) GHG.1 Construction GHG emissions (including mobile sources) would exceed the Santa Barbara County threshold of significance and therefore GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, may have a significant impact on the environment. Construction GHG.1: GHG Emissions Reductions GHG.2 The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Construction GHG.1: GHG Emissions Reductions GEOLOGY AND SOILS (Section 4.5) Geo.2 The Project could result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Construction Geo.2: Erosion Control Best Management Practices Geo.3 Ground-disturbing activities would potentially result in erosion- induced siltation of nearby drainages and the Pacific Ocean. Construction Geo.2: Erosion Control Best Management Practices Geo.4 Part of the Project location incudes the Carpinteria Bluffs, a geologic unit that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site erosion. Construction Geo.4a: Bluff Stabilization Plan Geo.4b: Bluff Stabilization During Pipeline Removals Geo.4c: Bluff Stabilization Following Pipeline Removal EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning ES-20 Final EIR 2025 Table ES.5 Proposed Project Class II Impacts Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels (Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines) Impact # Description of Impact Phase Mitigation Measure Geo.7 The Project would potentially impact a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Construction Cul.1a: Cultural Resources Management Plan Cul.1b: Worker Cultural Resources Awareness Program Cul.1c: Cultural Resources Monitoring Cul.1d: Exclusion Zones Cul.1e: Phase III Data Recovery Excavations Cul.1f: Curation of Project Materials HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND RISK OF UPSET (Section 4.7) Haz.1 The Project may create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Haz.1: Contaminated Soil Handling Haz.7 The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Construction Haz.7: Fire Response Planning NOISE AND VIBRATION (Section 4.10) N.2 The Project would result in the generation of a temporary increase in hourly average ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project. Construction N.2a: Construction Noise Control N.2b: Nighttime Activities TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (Section 4.12) TCR.1 The proposed decommissioning and remediation Project activities would directly affect known or suspected tribal cultural resources. Construction Cul.1a: Cultural Resources Management Plan Cul.1b: Worker Cultural Resources Awareness Program Cul.1c: Cultural Resources Monitoring Cul.1d: Exclusion Zones Cul.1e: Phase III Data Recovery Excavations Cul.1f: Curation of Project Materials Cul.2a: On-Call Forensic Anthropologist Cul.2b: Human Remains Discovery TCR.2 The Project would/cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and Construction Same as above: Cul.1a through Cul.2b EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Final EIR ES-21 Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning 2025 Table ES.5 Proposed Project Class II Impacts Impacts That Can Be Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels (Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines) Impact # Description of Impact Phase Mitigation Measure scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning ES-22 Final EIR 2025 Table ES.6 Proposed Project Class III Impacts Less Than Significant Impacts Impact # Description of Impact Phase Mitigation Measures AESTHETICS (Section 4.1) A.1 The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Construction None required. A.2 The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Construction None required. A.3 The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings, nor would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. Construction None required. AIR QUALITY (Section 4.2) AQ.1 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. Construction None required. AQ.3 Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction None required. AQ.4 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. Construction None required. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Section 4.3) Bio.4 The Project could interfere substantially with the movement of wildlife or any resident or migratory fish species. Construction None required. Bio.6 The Project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Construction None required. GEOLOGY & SOILS (Section 4.5) Geo.1 The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides. Construction None required. Geo.5 The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994); therefore, Construction None required.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Final EIR ES-23 Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning 2025 Table ES.6 Proposed Project Class III Impacts Less Than Significant Impacts Impact # Description of Impact Phase Mitigation Measures there would be no substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Geo.6 The Project Site does not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. Construction None required. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND RISK OF UPSET (Section 4.7) Haz.3 The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. Construction None required. Haz.4 The Project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Construction None required. Haz.5 The Project is not located with an airport land use plan nor within two miles of a public or public use airport. Construction None required. Haz.6 The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Construction None required. HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES (Section 4.8) WR.2 The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Construction None required. WR.3 The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces. Construction None required. WR.4 The Project would not result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Project inundation. Construction None required. WR.5 The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Construction None required.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Chevron Carpinteria Oil and Gas Facility Decommissioning ES-24 Final EIR 2025 Table ES.6 Proposed Project Class III Impacts Less Than Significant Impacts Impact # Description of Impact Phase Mitigation Measures LAND USE AND PLANNING (Section 4.9) LU.1 The Project would not physically divide an established community. Construction None required. LU.2 The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Construction None required. NOISE AND VIBRATION (Section 4.10) N.1 The Project would result in the generation of a temporary increase in CNEL average ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project. Construction None required. N.3 The Project could result in the generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels during construction/demolition activities. Construction None required. N.4 The Project would not result in excessive noise for people residing or working within two miles of a public, or public use, airport. Construction None required. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (Section 4.11) T.1 The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Construction None required. T.2 The Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b). Construction None required. T.3 The Project would not substantially increase hazards. Construction None required. T.4 The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Construction None required.