Goleta City Council
June 2, 2026

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
The project site is not visible from a scenic highway. Like Alternative 4, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on scenic resources within a State scenic highway.

The No Project Alternative would not result in renovation that would conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations that govern scenic quality. However, the No Project Alternative would not support the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan’s policies governing scenic resources, because it would not include site renovation that would be implemented as part of Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would not result in new sources of light and glare, as no renovation would occur. Sources of light and glare on the project site, under the No Project Alternative, would remain the same as existing conditions. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving the creation of new sources of light and glare, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative

4. Based on the above, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on aesthetics. The No Project Alternative’s aesthetics impacts resulting from construction and light and glare would be reduced when compared to Alternative 4, due to the lack of renovation on the site. However, the No Project Alternative would not include visual enhancements provided by Alternative 4 , such as the undergrounding of existing power lines or restoration of the existing Barnsdall Rio Gas Station. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-7 through 6-8.)
b. Air Quality
The No Project Alternative would not result in renovation that could lead to indirect population growth and therefore would not conflict with the land use assumptions and population projections used to forecast emissions in the 2022 Ozone Plan.

Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving conflict with an applicable air quality management plan, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would not include construction or demolition activities, including construction vehicle trips, that could emit criteria air pollutants. Operation and maintenance of the Sandpiper Golf Club under the No Pr oject Alternative would maintain existing conditions, similar to Alternative 4. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving generation of criteria pollutant emissions, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no construction or demolition activities or construction vehicle trips to the project site that could expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4. 224
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
The No Project Alternative would maintain existing conditions on the project site and would not involve demolition or cons truction activities. The No Project Alternative would not have the potential to generate odors beyond those already occurring. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no change involving odor emissions, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

Based on the above, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on air quality.

The No Project Alternative’s air quality emissions would remain the same and would be less compared to Alternative 4 due to the lack of construction emissions from renovation of the site. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8.)
c. Biological Resources
The No Project Alternative would not include any renovation activities on the project site and therefore would have no potential to impact special -status plant and wildlife specie s, riparian habitat or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA), wetlands, or wildlife migration based on renovation on the project site.

Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on these biological resources from renovation. Because the No Project Alternative would not include any renovation activities on the project site, the No Project Alternative has no potential to conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no impact would occur as a result of renovation. As with Alternative 4, the No Project Alternative would not be located in an area subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and no impact would occur.

Overall, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on biological resources from renovation activities, which is a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.)
D. Cultural Resources
The No Project Alternative would not involve new construction near the historic Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station and would not have the potential to damage Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station due to vibration from construction equipment.

While the No Project Alternative would have no impact on historic resources when compared to existing conditions, the No Project Alternative would not restore the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, as would occur under Alternative 4 . The Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station has been unused and largely abandoned since the 1950s. This long period of inactivity has left it vulnerable to deterioration from weather, vandalism, and lack of upkeep. Under the No Project Alternative, the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station would remain at risk of further deteriorating and losing its historic integrity.

The No Project Alternative would not involve ground -disturbing activities (other than normal routine maintenance activities) that could potentially damage or disturb subsurface archaeological resources. Therefore, the No Project Alternative 225
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
would have no impact on archaeological resources, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

Under the No Project Alternative, no ground-disturbing activities on the project site would occur that could potentially damage or disturb human remains. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on human remains, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

Based on the above, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on cultural resources. T he No Project Alternative’s cultural resources impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the lack of renovation of the site.

However, the No Project Alternative would not restore the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, putting this building a t further risk due to the lack of use. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9.)
e. Energy
Under the No Project Alternative, no construction activities would occur that would result in the consumption of energy. However, the No Project Alternative would not replace aging on -site structures with energy efficient features that could reduce energy use on -site, including the installation of a new irrigation system and construction of buildings compliant with current energy efficiency standards.

Overall, the No Project Alternative w ould not change the current consumption of energy at the site. When compared to existing conditions, the No Project Alternative would have no impact related to energy. When compared to Alternative 4, however, the No Project Alternative would have a greater impact, as it would result in less overall operational energy efficiency than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would not include construction activities that would result in increased energy use on the project site. However, the No Project Alternative would not renovate existing structures to be compliant with current energy efficiency standards, would not include a new maintenance building that allows for the installation of solar panels on the roof, would not increase the number of electric vehi cle charging stations on the project site, and would not improve pedestrian and bicycle transportation along Hollister Avenue; all of which are aligned with Senate Bill 100, the City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP), Strategic Energy Plan, or Municipal Code req uirements. While the No Project Alternative would not conflict with renewable energy or energy efficiency plans, the No Project Alternative would result in less overall operational energy efficiency than Alternative 4.

Based on the above, the No Project Alternative would have no impact related to energy. The No Project Alternative’s energy impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the lack of construction during construction of the site.

However, the No Project Alternative would result in less overall operational energy efficiency than Alternative 4. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-9 through 6-10.) 226
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
f. Geology and Soils
The No Project Alternative would be located on the same project site as Alternative 4 and would be subject to the same seismic hazards, including fault rupture. The No Project Alternative would not involve ground-disturbing activities, and would not introduce new structures, residents, or employees to the project site. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving risk of loss, injury, or death due to fault rupture when compared to existing conditions, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would not involve renovation on the project sit e that could increase the risk of loss, injury, or death due to seismic ground shaking when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no additional impact involving risk of loss, injury, or death due to strong seismi c ground shaking. However, the No Project Alternative would not include the renovation/reconstruction of existing buildings with buildings that meet current, more stringent seismic design requirements than were in place at the time of development of the existing buildings. Thus, the No Project Alternative would not result in seismic upgrades to buildings provided by Alternative 4 from construction of new buildings designed with current seismic standards and therefore the seismic safety the golf course facil ities would remain unchanged from when they were constructed.

The No Project Alternative would not involve ground -disturbing activities or increase the potential for the risk of loss, injury, or death related to liquefaction to occur on the project site when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving risk of loss, injury, or death due to seismic-related ground failure. Although the No Project Alternative would have no impact, the No Project Alterna tive would not include the renovation of the site with buildings constructed in accordance with modern seismic safety standards.

The No Project Alternative would not involve renovation on the project site that could increase the risk of loss, injury, or de ath due to landslides when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving risk of loss, injury, or death due to landslides, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would not involve construction activities, such as grading, that would increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Under the No Project Alternative, existing drainage patterns on the project site would be maintained, an d the No Project Alternative would not result in new sources of runoff that could contribute to project site erosion. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would not increase the potential for unstable soils to occur on the project site when compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the No 227
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Project Alternative would have no impact involving unstable soils, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

Soils on the project site have very low potential for expansion. The No Project Alternative would not involve on-site renovation that could potentially increase the risks to life or property from expansive soils. The No Project Alternative would have no impact involving expansive soils because of no renovation, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

Although the No Project Alternative would not include the abandonment of on-site septic tanks, it also would not involve the installation of additional septic tanks on- site. As such, the No Project Alternative would not result in increased impacts related to the use of septic tanks, similar to Alternative 4. However, the No Project Alternative’s impact involving septic tanks would be greater than Alternative 4, as the No Project Alternative would not discontinue use and abandon the on -site septic tanks and would perpetuate the risk of septic tank failure at the project site.

The No Project Alternative would not involve ground-disturbing activities that could potentially damage or disturb unanticipated paleontological resources would occur. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving paleontological resources, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative

4. Based on the above, the No Project Alternative would have no impact related to fault rupture, liquefaction, landslides, erosion, unstable soils, and expansive soils, which is a less er impact than Alternative 4. However, the No Project Alternative would not include the demolition of existing buildings with the construction of new buildings that meet current, more stringent seismic design requirements than were in place at the time of development of the existing buildings. The No Project Alternative would result in a greater impact related to the use of septic systems when compared to the project. The No Project Alternative would have no impact related to paleontological resources, whic h is a lesser impact than Alternative 4. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-10 through 6-11.)
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The No Project Alternative would not result in construction activities or additional vehicle trips than what is already occurring that could emit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Unlike Alternative 4 , the No Project Alternative would not increase operational GHG emissions. The No Project Alternative would have no impact involving GHG emissions, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative

4. The No Project Alternative does not involve renovation activities that would increase GHG emissions and therefore would not have the potential to conflict with existing policies or regulations established to reduce GHG emissions. The No 228
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Project Alternative would not increase the total number of electric vehicle parking spaces at the project site, would not improve public transit along Hollister Avenue, would not improve the existing and aging irrigation system to maximum water use efficiency, and would not u pgrade the existing buildings to be consistent with modern building electrification requirements; all of which are aligned with existing policies or regulations established to reduce GHG emissions. Nevertheless, the No Project Alternative would not increas e GHG emissions and would have no impact related to conflicts with existing policies or regulations established to reduce GHG emissions, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

Based on the above, the No Project Alternative would have n o impact related to GHG emissions. The No Project Alternative’s GHG emissions impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the lack of additional GHG emissions associated with renovation of the site. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-11 through 6-12.) h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project Alternative would not alter the existing use of the project site and would not introduce new construction -related activities that could increase the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, un like Alternative 4, operation of the No Project Alternative would not reduce fertilizer and pesticide use on the golf course. As a result, the ongoing transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during operation would continue at current levels. Wh ile the No Project Alternative would not increase hazardous materials use beyond existing conditions, its impact would be greater than that of Alternative 4, which includes operational reductions. Nonetheless, this impact would remain less than significant.

The No Project Alternative would not result in a change in the use of the project site and consequently would not have the potential to disturb hazardous materials within the existing clubhouse, comfort station, or Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, or wi thin project site soils or groundwater. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no additional impact involving the accidental release of hazardous materials, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would not involve any handling of hazardous materials for construction and would not result in the increased handling of hazardous materials within the vicinity of Ellwood School. Unlike Alternative 4, operation of the No Project Alternative would not result in reduced fertilizer and pesticide use on the golf course and therefore would not decrease the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation compared to existing conditions.

Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not change the existing condition involving the handling of hazardous materials within 0.25 -mile of a school, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.
229
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
The No Project Alternative would not result in a change of use of the project site and consequently would not have the potential to disturb existing hazardous materials within project site soils or groundwater. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving the creation of a significant hazard to the public or environment, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4, which would involve soil disturbance and potentially disturb hazardous materials within project site soils.

As with Alternative 4 , the No Project Alternative would continue to be located outside of the sa fety and noise contours of the Santa Barbara Airport. The No Project Alternative would not change the use of the property and would not introduce additional employees or visitors to the project site. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no change to the condition involving safety hazards or excessive noise related to airport operations, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would maintain existing roadway conditions at the project site and would n ot involve construction vehicles or operational traffic that could potentially interfere with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no change to the site’s condition that would interfer e with an adopted emergency response or emergency evacuation plan, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would maintain existing conditions at the project site and would not involve renovation activities which could increase the risk of wildland fire beyond existing conditions. As discussed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is partially located within a fire hazard severity zone. As the No Project Alternative would maintain existing conditions, the existing on -site buildings would not be renovated in accordance with the most recent building code standards for wildfire protection. Nonetheless, as the No Project Alternative would not involve construction activities with the potent ial to result in wildfire ignition, the No Project Alternative’s impacts related to wildfire would be decreased when compared to Alternative 4 and would be less than significant.

Based on the above, the No Project Alternative would have a less than significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials. However, unlike Alternative 4, operation of the No Project Alternative would not result in a reduction in fertilizer and pe sticide use on the golf course and therefore would not decrease the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation that are currently occurring. Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not renovate existing buildings to meet cur rent building code standards for wildfire protection.

However, the No Project Alternative’s impact related to wildfire would be decreased when compared to Alternative 4, as the No Project Alternative would 230
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
not include construction activities that would inc rease the risk of wildfire ignition. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-12 through 6-13.)
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
The No Project Alternative would not result in demolition or new construction that could violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements . No new sources of pollutants would be introduced to the project site, and existing drainage patterns would be maintained. The No Project Alternative would have no impact involving water quality degradation during construction, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4. However, unlike Alternative 4, operation of the No Project Alternative would not result in a reduction in fertilizer and pesticide use on the golf course, would not include a new water -efficient irrigation system, and would not include new on -site bioretention basins. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not decrease the potential to impair water quality due to pesticides, reduced irrigation, and additional stormwater treatment infrastructure on-site.

Unlike Alternative 4, the No Project Alternative would not involve construction and consequently would not require groundwater dewatering. The No Project Alternative would not introduce new impervious surfaces that could affect groundwater recharge. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would not involve renovation and would maintain existing conditions at the project site. The No Project Alternative would not include construction activities that could alter the drainage pattern of the project site, including through the alteration of a course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces in a manner that could result in substantial erosion or siltation and introduction of polluted runoff, which is a lesser level of impact compared to Alternative 4 . However, unlike Alternative 4 , the No Project Alternative would not remove the existing culvert and restore Devereaux Creek to its natural condition and flow.

The No Project Alternative would be subject to the same on -site inundation hazards as Alternative 4. Like Alternative 4, hazardous materials stored on -site would located be outside the inund ation areas and stored in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. The No Project Alternative would not change the risk of release of stormwater pollutants during inundation compared to existing conditions.

The No Project Alternative would not result in water quality impacts related to erosion, groundwater dewatering, construction of new structures, or addition of new uses to the site. Consequently, the No Project Alternative would not conflict with the goals of the Basin Plan. The No Project Alternative would have no impact 231
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
on on-site water use and therefore would not interfere with the management of the Basin in accordance with the Wright Judgement or implementation of Goleta Water District’s Groundwater Management Plan Goleta Groundwater Basin . However, the No Project Alternative would not decrease the potential to impair water quality or reduce water use on-site. Nevertheless, the No Project Alternative would have no change/impact involving obstruction of a water quality control plan or groundwater management plan, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

Based on the above, the No Project Alternative would have no impact related to hydrology and water quality. However, unlike Alternative 4, operation of the No Project Alternative would not decrease the potential to impair water quality due to pesticides, reduced potential for overwatering, and additional stormwater treatment infrastructure on -site. Nevertheless, the No Project Alternative’s hydrology and water quality impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the lack of construction activities during renovation of the site. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-13 through 6-14.)
j. Land Use and Planning
The No Project Alternative would not include construction that could physical ly divide an established community. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving the physical division of an established community, which would be the same level of impact as Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would not include renovation or other additional on-site activities beyond existing conditions. The No Project Alternative would not support Policies VH 2.3, VH 4.14, and PF 6.2 related to the undergrounding of existing utility lines, as the No Project Alternative would not underground the existing utility lines. Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not support Policy VH 5.4 related to preservation of historic structures, as the No Project Alternative would not adaptivel y reuse the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would not directly conflict with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Impacts would be less than significant, which is a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4. (Draft EIR, p. 6-14.)
k. Noise
The No Project Alternative would not involve demolition or construction, including grading and excavation, that could result in the generation of constructi on noise levels that exceed City of Goleta standards. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving generation of a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4. 232
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
The No Project Alternative would maintain existing on -site conditions and would not introduce new structures or land uses that could result in increases in operational noise. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would maintain existing on -site conditions and would not introduce new vehicle trips to and from the project s ite. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving generation of a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels due to vehicle trips, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative wo uld not involve new construction near the historic Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station and would not result in any potential to affect the building due to construction-related ground-borne vibration. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving ground-borne vibration, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would be located outside the noise contours from Santa Barbara Airport and, unlike Alternative 4, would not result in increased employees or visitors on the project site. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact involving exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

Based on the above, the No Project Alternative would have no impact related to noise. The No Project Alternative’s noise impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the lack of renovation of the site. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-14 through 6-15.)
l. Parks and Recreation
The No Project Alternative would not result in new employees or visitors at the project site, and would consequently not increase demand for parks or recreational facilities. The No Project Alternative would not redevelop the Sandpiper Golf Club, an existing recreational facility, and would thus have no impact involving construction or expansion of a recreational facility that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Unlike Alternative 4, the No Project Alternative would not expand recreational access at the project site through the extension of a Class I bicycle path or dedication of a lateral access easement along the beach frontage on the sand and along Hollister Avenue. Nevertheless, t he No Project Alternative would have no impact on parks or recreational facilities, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4. (Draft EIR, p. 6-15.) m. Public Services
233
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
The No Project Alternative would not result in new employees or visitor s at the project site and would not increase demand for public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, or other public facilities. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on public services, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4. (Draft EIR, p. 6-15.) n. Transportation and Circulation
Unlike Alternative 4 , the No Project Alternative would not include any improvements to Hollister Avenue or the Class 1 bicycle path . The No Project Alternative would not change vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated from the site, which is a lesser level of impact compared to Alternative 4 . The No Project Alternative would not involve any changes to the existing circulation network at or surrounding the project site and would not include any construction activities at the project site that could result in delays to emergency access. Overall, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on transportation and circulation, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-15 through 6-16.) o. Tribal Cultural Resources
The No Project Alternative would involve no ground-disturbing activities and would have no potential to adversely impact tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact on tribal cultural resources, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4. (Draft EIR, p. 6-16.) p. Utilities and Service Systems
The No Project Alternative would not include any installation of utility infrastructure or necessitate additional utility infrastructure to the project site. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded utility infrastructure, which would be a lesser level o f impact than Alternative 4.

The No Project Alternative would not change the existing water use on the site.

Unlike Alternative 4, the No Project Alternative would not reduce irrigated turf and corresponding reductions in water use for golf course irrigation.

The No Project Alternative would not include any renovation or increase in employees or visitors and would not increase existing wastewater generation on the project site. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no impact related to wastewater generation, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative

4. The No Project Alternative would not require construction activities or include additional operations at the Sandpiper Golf Club and therefore would not increase solid waste genera tion compared to existing conditions. Accordingly, the No 234
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Project Alternative would have no impact related to solid waste generation, which would be a lesser level of impact than Alternative 4.

Based on the above, the No Project Alternative would have no impact related to utilities and service systems. The No Project Alternative’s impacts related to the installation of utility infrastructure, wastewater, and solid waste would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the lack of renovation of the site. The No Project Alternative would result in no impact on water supply but would not include reductions in water use for golf course irrigation. (Draft EIR, pages 6-7 through 6-

16.)
Attainment of Project Objectives: None. The No Project Alternative would not fulfill any project objectives. (Draft EIR, p. 6-67.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 1: No Project/No Build Alternative, on the following ground, which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet all of the Project objectives.

2. Alternative 2: Clubhouse Renovation
Description: Alternative 2 would consist of just demolition of the existing clubhouse facility and reconstructing a new clubhouse building. This alternative would not involve golf course recontouring, replacement of the existing comfort station or maintenance yard, con struction of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop (including restoration and adaptive reuse of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station), coastal access improvements, dedication of a lateral access easement, dedication of an open space easement in Bell Canyon, or Hollis ter Avenue improvements. Similar to Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would involve the demolition of the existing 9,305 square foot clubhouse, and construction of a new 37,179 square foot, two -level clubhouse and basement, and 135 parking spaces . The new clubh ouse would feature expanded storage areas for materials and supplies needed for golf course operations, employee support spaces, a lobby, pro -shop, grab and go café, kitchens, gallery, offices, golf simulator rooms, a guest lounge, a new restaurant and kitchen, and a cocktail bar. The new clubhouse would expand outdoor dining terrace areas by 4,416 square feet, indoor restaurant seating by 47 seats, and outdoor restaurant seating by 54 seats. The new clubhouse would require an additional 12 employees, for a total of 47 projected full-time staff at the Sandpiper Golf Club. Similar to Alternative 4, the project applicant would request a zoning code adjustment to allow a portion of the clubhouse to exceed the 25 -foot height limit for the Open Space/Active Recre ation zone, and the Sphere of Influence request would remain. Operation of the golf course would be similar to existing conditions, as the number of golf rounds would not change, maintenance activities would be the same as existing conditions, and the amou nt of turf would not be reduced. (Draft EIR, p. ES-10.)
235
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Impacts:
a. Aesthetics
Under this alternative, potential impacts related to aesthetics would be limited to those involving the demolition, construction, and operation of the proposed clubhouse. Construction of the clubhouse in accordance with Alternative 2 would be visible from the Hollister Avenue scenic corridor and related scenic viewpoints, but such visual impacts would be temporary and construction areas would be screened with fencing during construction to obstruct views of equipment and the construction sites from public viewing areas. Due to this alternative’s reduced construction activities, Alternative 2 would result in fewer temporary visual impediments from the Hollister Avenue scenic c orridor and related scenic viewpoints during construction compared to Alternative 4 . Alternative 2’s tree removal would be limited to the clubhouse site and would include tree plantings at the clubhouse to maintain the existing, vegetated conditions that s urround the clubhouse, and would screen views of the new, paved parking areas from Hollister Avenue. Similar to Alternative 4, the addition of new trees at the clubhouse would not interfere with previous, unobstructed, scenic views from public locations.

However, Alternative 2 would not include undergrounding of the existing power lines or restoration of the existing Barnsdall Rio Gas Station, and therefore would not result in the same aesthetic improvements to the project site that would occur as part of Alternative 4. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have lesser construction impacts, but would include fewer visual enhancements than Alternative 4 . Like Alternative 4, impacts to scenic vistas would be less than significant.

Alternative 2 would not place infras tructure in an area visible from an officially designated State scenic highway. As with Alternative 4 , existing buildings topography, and vegetation obscure views of the project site and existing on -site development from vehicles travelling along United St ates Route 101 (U.S. 101).

Alternative 2’s clubhouse would be the same height as Alternative 4’s clubhouse, and thus obscured from views from U.S. 101, similar to Alternative 4. No impact to scenic highways would occur, the same as Alternative 4.

Alternative 2’s clubhouse would not differ from Alternative 4 ’s clubhouse and therefore would be consistent with the same policies and regulations governing visual quality as those applicable to Alternative 4 ’s clubhouse. Alternative 2’s clubhouse would meet the same development standard as Alternative 4, including maximum lot coverage, maximum building height,5 minimum setbacks, and parking, of the Open Space/Active Recreation zone. In addition, Alternative 2’s clubhouse would not exceed Federal Air Regulations (FAR) Part 77 building height restrictions and would not obstruct views of the Pacific Ocean in compliance with Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act. Like Alternative 4, impacts to scenic quality would be less than significant.
236
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of lighting from on-site structures compared to Alternative 4 because it would not include lighting associated with the Rio Grande Coffee Shop and parking lot. Light sources associated with Alternative 2’s clubhouse would be the same as Alternative 4’s clubhouse and be designed in accordance with City standards, including City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.12, Lighting, which requires outdoor lighting fixtures to be designed, located, aimed downward or toward structures (if properly shielded), retrofitted if feasible, and maintained in order to prevent over -lighting, energy waste, glare, light trespass, and sky glow. Because of a decrease in employees and associated vehicle trips compared to Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would result in less vehicle-related lighting than Alternative 4. Lighting would be similar to the surrounding area due to frequent residential and commercial vehicles near the U.S. 101 and Hollister Avenue/Cathedral Oaks Road interchange. Alternative 2 would introduce the same glare from sunlight reflecting on the clubhouse’s glass surfaces but would reduce the overall glare compared to Alternative 4 due to Alternative 2’s reduction in renovation activities. Like Alternative 4, impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 2’s aesthetics impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction and lack of renovation of the site. However, Alternative 2 would include fewer visual enhancements than Alternative 4 because it would not include the undergrounding of utilities or restoration of the existing Barnsdal l Rio Gas Station. Alternative 2 would have no impact on scenic highways and less than significant impacts on scenic vistas, scenic quality, and light and glare, similar to Alternative 4. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-16 through 6-17.)
b. Air Quality
As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would not change the project site’s existing land use and therefore would not conflict with the land use assumptions that inform the 2022 Ozone Plan’s emissions forecasts. Alternative 2 would require nine fewer employees than Alternative 4 and therefore would result in less indirect population growth compared to Alternative 4. Given that Alternative 4’s indirect population growth is within Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) growth projections utilized within the 2022 Ozone Plan, Alternative 2 would also be within SBCAG growth projections and therefore would not conflict with the 2022 Ozone Plan. Alternative 2’s impacts related to conflicts with an air quality management plan would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Alternative 2 would reduce the scope of Alternative 4’s construction activities by limiting demolition and construction to the clubhouse and therefore would reduce criteria air pollutant emissions during constructio n compared to Alternative 4 .

Given that construction of Alternative 4 would not exceed Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) emissions thresholds, Alternative 2’s 237
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
reduced construction would also not exceed SBCAPCD thresholds. Similarly, given Alternative 2’s reduced scale compared to Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would generate less criteria air pollutant emissions during operation compared to Alternative 4 , which would not exceed SBCAPCD thresholds. Alternative 2’s impacts related to release of criteria air pollutants would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Because Alternative 2 would limit construction to the clubhouse, Alternative 2’s construction would result in less toxic air contaminant emissions on the project site compared to Alternative 4 and would limit toxic air contaminant emissions to the clubhouse area, farther from single-family residences to the east of the project site.

As with Alternative 4 , operation of Alternative 2 would not invo lve the use of equipment that would increase toxic air contaminant emission on the project site.

Alternative 2’s impacts related to the release of toxic air contaminants would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Because Alternative 2 would limit construction to the clubhouse, Alternative 2’s construction would result in less odors from construction equipment compared to Alternative 4, which would be intermittent, temporary, and dissipate rapidly with distance from in-use construction equipment. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would include food preparation at the clubhouse restaurant; however, odors associated with food preparation would primarily be confined to the indoor dining areas. Food-related odors would also dissipate rapidly, and given the northeast to southwest wind patterns, would not be carried to nearby development north and east of the project site. Alternative 2’s odor impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 2’s air quality impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction and less renovation of the site. Like Alternative 4, Alternative 2’s impacts to air quality would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-18.)
c. Biological Resources
Alternative 2 would limit construction to the clubhouse area and therefore would avoid impacts to red sand verbena and southern California black walnut in Bell Canyon and woolly seablite along the coastal bluff, similar to Alternative 4. Unlike Alternative 4 , Alternative 2 would not include landscaping within coyote brush scrub occupied by cliff malacothrix along the coastal bluff and would not involve planting of milkweed where Santa Barbara hone ysuckle is located. In addition, Alternative 2 would not include trenching for a water main from the comfort station and does not have the potential to result in direct impacts to special -status plant species that have expanded into proposed disturbance areas at this portion of the project site. Accordingly, Alternative 2 would avoid potentially significant direct impacts to special-status plant species, and would not require implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1, BIO-2, or BIO -3 for special -status plant species. As 238
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 could result in indirect impacts to special -status plant species due to water quality effects and chemical spills or vehicle leaks; therefore, Alternative 2 would require implementation of Mitigation Measur e BIO- 4, which includes best management practices (BMP) to reduce potential indirect impacts to special-status plant species. Alternative 2’s impacts related to special - status plant species would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Alternative 2 would limit construction to the clubhouse area and therefore would avoid direct impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee, monarch butterfly and monarch ESHA, California red -legged frog, and southwestern pond turtle, and tidewater goby. Accordingly, Alternative 2 would not require implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-5, BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-8, or BIO -9 for special status wildlife species. However, Alternative 2 could result in similar indirect impacts to special-status wildlife species habitat due to water quality effects, chemical spills, or vehicle leaks. In addition, if nests are present, Alternative 2 could resu lt in impacts to special-status bird species due to the potential to disturb nests during tree removal or in proximity to the clubhouse during construction. Mitigation Measures BIO -4 and BIO -10 calling for construction BMPS and nesting bird surveys and avo idance would therefore continue to be required. Alternative 2’s impacts related to special -status wildlife species would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Alternative 2 would limit project activit ies to the clubhouse area and therefore would avoid direct impacts to riparian habitat and ESHA. As such, Mitigation Measure BIO-11 would no longer be required. Alternative 2 could result in similar indirect impacts to ESHA habitat due to water quality eff ects, chemical spills, or vehicle leaks; therefore, Alternative 2 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -4, which includes BMPs to reduce potential indirect impacts to ESHA. Alternative 2’s impacts related to riparian habitat and ESHA would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Alternative 2 would limit project activities to the clubhouse area and therefore would avoid direct impacts to state or federally protected wetlands and would no t require implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD -1, BIO-2, BIO-3, or BIO -11.

Alternative 2 could result in indirect impacts to wetlands due to water quality effects chemical spills, or vehicle leaks; therefore, Alternative 2 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -4 which includes BMPs to reduce potential indirect impacts to state or federally protected wetlands. Alternative 2’s impacts related to federally protected wetlands would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation.

As Alternative 2 would limit project activities to the clubhouse area, it would avoid substantial noise exceeding Goleta’s noise standards, which would avoid impediments to wildlife migration or the use of wildlife nursery sites that could occur 239
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
with Alternative 4. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would not be required to reduce construction noise levels that could affect essential behavioral activities of wildlife. Given that Alternative 2 would not require mitigation for construction noise, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts related to wildlife movement, which is reduced compared to Alternative 4.

Alternative 2 would limit project activities to the clubhouse area and therefore would avoid p otential conflicts with Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy CE 1.6 and Policy CE 9.5 which would result from Alternative 4’s activities in areas other than the clubhouse. As a result, Alternative 2 would not require implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-8, or BIO-11 to reduce impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Accordingly, Alternative 2 would result in a less than significant impact related to co nflict with policies protecting biological resources, which is reduced compared to Alternative 4.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would not be located in an area subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Alternative 2 would have no impact related to conflicts with these plans, which would be the same level of impact compared to Alternative 4.

Based on the above, Alternative 2 would have a reduced level of impact compared to Alternative 4 due to Alternative 2’s reduced construction activities and lack of renovation of the site. Alternative 2’s impact related to special -status plant and wildlife species, riparian habitat and ESHA, and state and federally protected wetlands would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated, similar to Alternative 4 . Like Alternative 4 , Alternative 2 would have no impact related to conflicts with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communit y Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. For impacts to wildlife movement and conflicts with local policies or ordinances, Alternative 2 would reduce Alternative 4’s less than significant with mitigation impact to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-18 through 6-20.) d. Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would not involve the restoration and adaptive reuse of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, a historical resource, and would concentrate construction at the clubhouse. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not have the potential to result in damage to the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station from vibration caused by construction equipment proximate to the station. Mitigation Measures CUL1 and NOI-2 would n ot be required for Alternative 2. Alternative 2 would result in no construction impacts to historic resources, which is reduced compared to Alternative 4 . However, Alternative 2 would not include the restoration of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, such that the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station would remain at risk of further deteriorating and losing its historic integrity. 240
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Construction of Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of ground disturbance compared to Alternative 4, which would reduce the potential to encounter unknown archaeological resources. Because some ground disturbance would still occur, Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-4 would continue to be required. These measures would minimize potential impacts to unanticipated discoveries of archaeological resources by requiring archaeological monitoring, a cultural resources sensitivity meeting for construction personnel, and implementation of appropriate procedures for evaluation and treatment of any discoveries made during construction. Alter native 2’s impacts related to archaeological resources would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Construction of Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of ground disturbance compared to Alternative 4, which would reduce the potential to encounter unknown human remains. As with Alternative 4, in the event of unanticipated discovery of human remains, the construction contractor would comply with State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and human remains would be preserved in accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

Alternative 2’s impacts related to human remains would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 2’s cultural resources impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in ground disturbing activities and avoidance of construction equipment use near the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station. Alternative 2 would result in no impact to historical resources, compared to Alternative 4’s less than significant with mitigation impact; however, Alternative 2 would not restore and adaptively reuse the Barnsdall Rio Gas Station putting this building at further risk due t o the lack of use. Alternative 2’s impact to archaeological resources would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 2’s impact to human remains would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-20 through 6-21.)
e. Energy
Alternative 2 would reduce the scope of Alternative 4’s construction activities by limiting demolition and construction to the clubhouse which would reduce the amount of petroleum -based fuels used for construction equipment compared to Alternative 4 . As with Alternative 4 , energy use during construction would be temporary and minimized in compliance with existing regulations such as California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles and off-road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes. Due to Alternative 2’s reduced renovation activities, including the omission of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, Alternative 2 would use less energy during operation than Alternative 4. Operation of Alternative 2 would require the same energy consumption for the clubhouse as Alternative 4 ’s clubhouse and would adhere to the same energy efficiency standards as 241
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 4, such as the California Green Building Standards Code and the 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would be designed in accordance with the City’s Energy Performance Reach Code which would provide electric -ready facilities for the use of electric infrastructure. In addition, Alternative 2 would continue to utilize the existing on -site electric golf carts for golfers. Alternative 2’s impact related to the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would adhere to the California Green Building Standards Code and the 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards to minimize unnecessary energy use in the clubhouse. The clubhouse would be supplied power from Southern California Edison (SCE) in accordance with Senate Bill 100, which requires SCE to increase renewable energy procurement to 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would provide 15 electric vehicle (EV) cha rging spaces at the clubhouse, which would make up 88 percent of the 17 total parking spaces proposed in accordance with Alternative

2. This amount of electric vehicle parking would be consistent with the requirements of the CALGreen intervening code updat e and the City’s Municipal Code, which requires new non -residential construction to construct at least 30 percent of new parking spaces to be EV capable or include EV charging infrastructure. Alternative 2 would include 12 bicycle spaces at the clubhouse t o encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan, Strategic Energy Plan, General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, or Municipal Code. Alternative 2’s impact related to conflicts with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency be less than significant, the same as Alternative 4.

Based on the above, Alternative 2’s overall energy impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction and lack of renovation of the site, but would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-21 through 6-22.)
f. Geology and Soils
As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would not locate structures within 50 feet of the More Ranch Fault and would not directly or indirectly cause the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. This impact would remain less than significant.

Alternative 2 would include renovation in an area with the same risks of seismic activity as Alternative 4 . As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 2 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requiring recommendations from the project-specific geotechnical reports to be put into grading and building plans; however, only the recommendations of the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Club House would apply for Alternative 2 as no other renovation 242
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
would be included. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1 would reduce potential impacts due to ground -shaking to a less than significant level through incorporation of structural integrity recommendations. Unlike Alternative 4 , Alternative 2 would not include seismic upgrades associated with renovation of existing maintenance buildings with buildings that meet current, more stringent seismic design requirements. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impacts related to ground- shaking would be greater compared to Alternative 4, but would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Alternative 2 would be subject to the same liquefaction risks as Alternative 4 ’s clubhouse, which are very low. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 design would incorporate design measures required by the California Building Code (CBC) which reduce the potential for substantial adverse effects due to liquefaction.

Therefore, Alternative 2’s impact related to liquefaction would be similar to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Alternative 2 would be subject to the same landslide risks as Alternative 4 ’s clubhouse, which is not located in an area with landslide potential. Alt ernative 2’s clubhouse would require the same cut and fill slopes as Alternative 4, which would not result in substantially steep slopes or other conditions that could induce a landslide. However, Alternative 2 would not include recontouring of the golf course within high landslide potential areas. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impact related to landslides would be less than Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Construction of Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of ground disturbance compared to Alternative 4, which would reduce the potential for erosion. Alternative 2’s clubhouse would be 37,179 square feet, or 0.85 -acre, which would exempt Alternative 2’s construction from obtaining coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permit. However, Chapter 15.09 of the City’s Municipal Code requires preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan in order to obtain a grading permit. Thus, Alternative 2 would still include implementation of an erosion control plan to minimize erosion during construction activities. Alternative 2 would include implementation of bioretention basins at the clubhouse to treat and discharge stormwater onto the golf course consistent with the requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), including erosion control, during operation. As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 2 would not substantially increase the rate of runoff on the site compared to existing conditions, as the impervious surfaces added to the project site from the clu bhouse would represent an increase of less than 0.2 percent compared to existing conditions.

Therefore, Alternative 2’s impact related to erosion would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would not locate structures in an area subject to substantial liquefaction potential, landslide hazards, or potential for soil collapse.

Potential impacts associated with geotechnical hazards would be minimized with adherence to the CBC. As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 2 may require 243
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
groundwater dewatering during construction, but groundwater dewatering would be limited to the localized perched water on the project site and would be temporary, only occurring if perched groundwater is encountere d. Therefore, construction of Alternative 2 would not result in substantial groundwater withdrawals that could result in subsidence on -site. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impact related to the risk of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would locate renovation on soils with very low potential for expansion. The construction contractor would be required to comply with the CBC, including the use of non -expansive fill material, to minimize the potential for structural hazards associated with soil expansion. Alternative 2’s impact related to creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property related to expan sive soil would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would involve connecting the clubhouse to the Goleta West Sanitary District sewer system and the abandonment of the private septic systems serving the clubhouse, but would retain the existing septic tank serving the comfort station. Alterna tive 2 would not involve the installation of additional septic tanks on-site and therefore would not result in impacts related to the use of septic tanks. The No Project Alternative would have no impact, which would be the same level of impact compared to Alternative 4.

Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of ground disturbance compared to Alternative 4 , which would reduce the potential to encounter paleontological resources or unique geologic features compared to Alternative 4 . However, Alternative 2 could result in the disturbance of unknown paleontological resources at the clubhouse area; therefore, Alternative 2 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -2 to reduce potential construction impacts to paleontological resources and unique geol ogic features to a less than significant level by requiring a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training, monitoring, and setting forth procedures for the recovery, identification, and curation of fossils discovered during construction. Alterna tive 2’s impacts related to paleontological resources and unique geologic features would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Based on the above, Alternative 2’s impacts related to fault rupture, liq uefaction, landslides, unstable soils, and expansive soils, would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant. Alternative 2’s impacts related to erosion would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 , but would remain less than significant. Alternative 2 would result in no impact related to septic systems, which is the same as Alternative 4. Alternative 2’s impacts related to ground-shaking and paleontological resources would be reduced compared to Alternative 4, but remain less than si gnificant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 2 would not include 244
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
seismic upgrades associated with renovation of existing maintenance buildings with buildings that meet current, more stringent seismic design requirements. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-22 through 6-23.)
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 2 would reduce the scope of Alternative 4’s construction activities by limiting demolition and construction to the clubhouse. Therefore, this alternative would result in reduced GHG emissions during construct ion compared to Alternative 4 . In addition, Alternative 2’s reduced scope would reduce GHG emissions during operation compared to Alternative 4 because Alternative 2 does not include construction of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop. Given the reduction in GHG emissions compared to Alternative 4, Alternative 2’s impacts related to GHG emissions would be reduced compared to Alternative 4. Impacts would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 2 would include design features to promote renewable energy use, energy efficiency, water efficiency, and reductions in vehicle travel, all of which contribute to the creation of minimal GHG emissions.

Alternative 2 would include EV charging infrastructure that exceeds California Green Building Standard s and City requirements for EV charging infrastructure.

Alternative 2’s clubhouse would be the same as Alternative 4 and therefore be designed in accordance with the same energy efficiency standards. Alternative 2 would incorporate water efficient fixtures to reduce water consumption for landscaping, plumbing, and irrigation consistent with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Alternative 2 would not reduce the maximum rounds of golf per year and therefore would result in increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT) compared to Alternative 4. Alternative 2 would not include installation of a new water -efficient irrigation system and would not result in minimal GHG emissions related to reduced water use like Alternative

4. Alternative 2 would introduce less bicycle parking than Alternative 4, would not include construction of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop (which is designed as a bicycle way station and would encourage bicycling in the area), would not include the Class I bic ycle path, and would therefore not promote minimal GHG emissions from vehicles like Alternative 4 . Accordingly, while Alternative 2 would not implement components included in Alternative 4 to reduce GHG emissions, Alternative 2 would still be consistent with applicable GHG reduction plans.

Therefore, Alternative 2’s impact related to consistency with applicable GHG reduction plans would be increased compared to Alternative 4 but would remai n less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 2’s GHG emissions impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to decreased construction activity. As Alternative 2 would include less infrastructure that would minimize on -site GHG emissi ons, impact related to consistency with applicable GHG reduction plans would increase 245
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
compared to Alternative 4. Alternative 2’s impacts related to GHG emissions would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-23 through 6-24.) h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 2 would reduce the scope of Alternative 4’s construction activities by limiting demolition and construction to the clubhouse and therefore would result in less hazardous material usage compared to Alternative 4. Hazardous material s used during construction of Alternative 2 would be handled in accordance with the same regulations as Alternative 4, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, and California Code of Regulations Title 22. Alternative 2 would not be required to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan but would be required to implement construction site BMPs to reduce potential spills in accordance with Chapter 15.09 of th e City’s Municipal Code. All hazardous material transport, use, or disposal associated with Alternative 2’s operation would comply with existing hazardous materials regulations established by United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Cali fornia, the County of Santa Barbara, and the City of Goleta. These regulations prescribe measures for the safe transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials to reduce risk of spills.

However, unlike Alternative 4 , operation of the Alternativ e 2 would not reduce fertilizer and pesticide use on the golf course and therefore would not decrease the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operation. Alternative 2’s construction-related impact would be reduced compared to Alternative 4, but Alternative 2’s operational impact would be increased. Alternative 2’s overall impact would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 2 would include demolition of the existing clubhouse which has the potential to contain asbestos-containing materials (ACM), lead-based paint (LBP), mercury, and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). Alternative 2 would require less ground disturbance than Alternative 4 and therefore would have less potential to result in release of hazardous soils; however, grading at the clubhouse could potentially disturb hazardous materials in soil, leading to an accidental release of hazardous materials. As with Alternative 4, construction of Alternative 2 could also encounter perched groundwater which, if con taminated, could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials. In addition, operation of Alternative 2 could result in exposure to volatile organic compounds in the soil, similar to Alternative 4. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6 would continue to be required, which would reduce potential hazardous material impacts associated with accidental releases of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing clubhouse, and grading of potentially contaminated soil, soil vapor, or groundwater to a less than significant level. However, unlike Alternative 4 , operation of Alternative 2 would not reduce fertilizer and pesticide use on the golf course and therefore would not decrease the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during oper ation. Alternative 2’s construction -related impact would be reduced compared to Alternative 4, but Alternative 2’s operational impact 246
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
would be increased. Alternative 2’s overall impact would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Alternative 2 woul d limit construction activities to the clubhouse area, which is located approximately 0.6 -mile southwest of the Ellwood School. Accordingly, construction of Alternative 2 would not involve handling hazardous materials within

0.25 mile of a school. As with Alternative 4, Alterative 2’s construction activities would have the potential to create a significant hazard involving the release of ACMs, LBP, mercury, or PCBs into the environment, or through exposure and transport of on -site contaminated soil or groun dwater, which would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -1 through HAZ -6. However, unlike Alternative 4, operation of the Alternative 2 would not result in a reduction in fertilizer and pesticide use on the golf course and therefore wo uld require increased handling of hazardous materials associated with landscaping compared to Alternative 4 . Alternative 2’s construction -related impact would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 , but Alternative 2’s operational impact would be increased. Alternative 2’s overall impact would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Alternative 2 would have less potential to result in hazardous material release due to the presence of on -site hazardous materials compared to Alternative 4 due to the redu ction in ground disturbing activities; however, Alternative 2’s ground disturbing activities could still potentially result in hazardous material release.

Mitigation Measures HAZ-3 through HAZ-6 and HAZ-7 would be required, which mandate oversight from Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services and Central Coast RWQCB. Alternative 2’s impact related to the presence of on -site hazardous materials would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would be located outside of the safety and noise contours of the Santa Barbara Airport. Alternative 2’s clubhouse would be the same as Alternative 4 and therefore would not conflict with the standards of Review Area 2 of the Santa Barbara Airport’s Airport Influence Area or FAR Part 77.

Therefore, Alternative 2’s impact related to safety hazards and excessive noise due to proximity to an airport would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Alternative 2 would not include construction on Hollister Avenue and therefore would result in less potential to interfere with emergency response or evacuation of Hollister Avenue compared to Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2’s operations would not introduce activities that could impede or interfere with the Santa Barbara County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan or emergency evacuations on Hollister Avenue. Alternative 2’s impact related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.
247
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 2 would be located on the same site as Alternative 4 and therefore be exposed to the same fire risks as Alternative 4. Alternative 2 would reduce the amount of construction compared to Alternative 4 and therefore reduce the potential for construction equipment to result in a fire. As with Alternative 4 , construction of Alternative 2 would comply with California Public Resources Code Sections 4442, 4427, 4428, and 4431 to minimize the potential for wildland fire.

Alternative 2’s clubhouse would result in the same fire risk as Alternative 4 ’s clubhouse. However, under Alternative 2, the proposed clubhouse would be constructed with adherence to the standards of the California Fire Code, CBC, and California Code of Regulations Title 14, all of which would improve the structure’s resilience and safety during a wildfire event. The other on-site structures would not be renovated to the same fire code standards. Nonetheless, as Alternative 2 would involve less construction than Alternative 4 , Alternative 2’s impact related to wildland fire would be lesser when compared to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 2’s hazardous materials impacts from construction would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction activities, lack of encroachment onto Hollister Avenue, and lack of renovation of the site. Alternative 2’s operational impacts related to hazardous materials would be increased compared to Alternative 4 due to the increased use of hazardous materials for landscaping. A lternative 2’s impacts related to upset or accident of hazardous materials, emissions of hazardous materials near schools, and hazardous materials sites would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impacts related to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, airport hazards, emergency response plans, and wildland fires would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-24 through 6-26.) i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Given the reduction in construction activities, Alternative 2 would have a reduced potential to degrade water quality compared to Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would include demolition of the existing clubhouse, which could discharge ACB and LBP to on-site soils where they could then be transported off- site in stormwater runoff. Mitigation Measures HAZ -1 and HAZ-2 would continue to be required, and would minimize the potential for the accidental release of ACB and LBP.

As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 2 could require groundwater dewatering of perched groundwater during construction which, if contaminated, could result in releases of hazardous materials into stormwater. Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 would continue to reduce the potential f or the accidental discharge of contaminated groundwater. Construction of Alternative 2 would not be required to comply with the Construction Stormwater General Permit, but would be required to implement construction site BMPs to minimize the creation of st ormwater pollutants during 248
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
construction activities in accordance with Chapter 15.09 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Alternative 2 would not include work at Devereaux Creek and therefore would not result in the potential to degrade water quality in Devereaux Creek due to increased temporary erosion and would not require implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD-1 or BIO -4. In addition, adherence to the City’s Municipal Code would ensure construction activities would not result in substantial runoff water which would exceed the capacities of Devereaux Creek or Bell Canyon Creek.

Alternative 2’s construction impacts related to water quality degradation, erosion, and the introduction of substantial polluted runoff and exceedances of stormwater capacity would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Alternative 2 would include implementation of bioretention basins at the clubhouse to treat and discharge stormwater onto the golf course consistent with the requirements of the Central Coast RWQCB but would not include Alternative 4’s other bioretention basins outside of the clubhouse area and therefore would not result in the same long-term stormwater quality improvements as Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, treated water and high -flow bypass from the basins would be discharged to the golf course rather than the storm drain system in Hollister Avenue that outlets to Bell Canyon Creek which would minimize the amount of stormwater and potential stormwat er pollutants entering Bell Canyon Creek.

Alternative 2 would also abandon the existing clubhouse septic system which, upon completion, would reduce the potential for groundwater quality to be affected by sewage. Unlike Alternative 4, operation of Alternat ive 2 would not result in a reduction in fertilizer and pesticide use on the golf course. Alternative 2 would not install a new efficient irrigation system included in Alternative 4 and therefore would increase the potential for golf course operation to discharge stormwater pollutants compared to Alternative 4 . Alternative 2 would not include changes to the maintenance facility and therefore the potential to introduce stormwater pollutants from the maintenance facility would be the same as under existing co nditions.

Alternative 2’s operational impacts related to water quality degradation, erosion, and the introduction of substantial polluted runoff and exceedances of stormwater capacity would be increased compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4 , construction of Alternative 2 has the potential to require groundwater dewatering of perched groundwater. Groundwater dewatering activities would be localized and temporary, lasting only during excavation activities, if groundwater is encountered. The anticipated duration and minimal amount of groundwater dewatering that would be required for excavation would not result in substantial groundwater losses in the Goleta Groundwater Basin (Basin). Similar to Alternative 4, given the limited infiltration potential of on-site soils and the minimal amount of impervious surface increase generated by Alternative 2, Alternative 2 would not substantially change groundwater infiltration rates on - 249
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
site or result in substantial interfer ence to groundwater recharge. Alternative 2’s impact related to substantially decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Unlike Alternative 4 , Alterna tive 2 would not result in long -term improvements associated with culvert removal and the restoration of Deveraux Creek to its natural flow. Alternative 2’s impact related to on - or off -site flooding would be increased compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Alternative 2 would be subject to the same on -site inundation hazards as Alternative 4. The new clubhouse would be located outside of a flood hazard zone, tsunami zone, seiche hazard zone, and dam inundation zone. Like Alternative 4, hazardous materials stored on-site would located be outside the inundation areas and stored in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Impacts related to risk of release of stormwater pollutants during inundation would be similar to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Given the reduction in construction activities, Alternative 2 would have a reduced potential to degrade water quality in conflict with the Basin Plan compared to Alternative 4 during construction but woul d not result in the same long -term stormwater quality improvements as Alternative 4 . As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 2 would adhere to Chapter 13.04 and Chapter 15.09 of the City’s Municipal Code to minimize water quality impacts, and would require Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-5 to reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Accordingly, Alternative 2’s impacts related to conflicts with the Basin Plan would be greater than Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As described above, Alternative 2 would not adversely impact g roundwater supplies, but would result in greater water use during operation than Alternative 4 because Alternative 2 would not reduce the amount of irrigated golf course turf from 125 acres to 62 acres. Alternative 2 would not interfere with the management of the Basin in accordance with the Wright Judgement. Accordingly, Alternative 2’s impact related to conflicts with the Wright Judgement or Goleta Water District’s Groundwater Management Plan Goleta Groundwater Basin would be greater than Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 2’s hydrology and water quality impacts during construction would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction activities and lack of renovation of the site. Alternative 2’s operational impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be increased compared to Alternative 4 due to the increased use of pesticides and fertilizers for landscaping and less infrastructure to improve stormwater quality. Alternat ive 2’s impacts related to water quality, polluted runoff, and conflict with water quality plans or groundwater management plans would remain less than significant with mitigation 250
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
incorporated. Impacts related to groundwater, erosion and siltation, floodin g, and release of pollutants from inundation would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-26 through 6-28.)
j. Land Use and Planning
As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would be located on the existing Sandpiper Golf Club and would not include an y components that could divide an established community. Alternative 2 would have no impact related to the physical division of an established community, which would be the same level of impact compared to Alternative 4.

Alternative 2’s clubhouse would be the same as Alternative 4 ’s clubhouse and would therefore be consistent with all applicable Goleta Municipal Code zoning standards and FAR Part 77 standards. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would be consistent with most policies of the Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -4, BIO -10, CUL -2 through CUL-4, TCR -1, and TCR -2 to minimize potential impacts related to cultural resources, tribal cultural resources, and biological resources. However, Alternative 2 would not support Policies VH 2.3, VH 4.14, and PF 6.2 related to the undergrounding of existing utility lines, as Alternative 2 would not underground the existing utility lines. Additionally, Alternative 2 would not support Policy VH 5.4 related to preservation of historic structures, as Alternative 2 would not adaptively reuse the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station. As Alternative 2 would not include the Class I bicycle path, Alternative 2 would be inconsistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, as well as Policies OS 4.4, VH 2.5, VH 3.3, VH 3.5, and VH 4.10. This impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated, which would be a similar level of impact compared to Alternative 4.

However, given Alternative 2’s reduced renovation, Alternative 2 would not require implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-5, BIO-6, BIO-7, BIO-8, BIO-9, BIO11, HYD-1, NOI-1, or UTIL-1 to reduce impacts related to conflict with the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-28 through 6-29.) k. Noise
Due to Alternative 2’s reduction in construction activities compared to Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would result in less construction noise compared to Alternative 4.

Construction of the clubhouse in accorda nce with Alternative 2 would require the use of the same construction equipment the same distance from sensitive receptors as Alternative 4’s clubhouse. As with the construction of Alternative 4’s clubhouse, construction of Alternative 2 would not exceed 65 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at the nearest sensitive receptors, and no noise control is needed.

Alternative 2 would not include construction activities for golf course improvements, maintenance yard, the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, restoration and adaptive reu se of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, or Hollister Avenue improvements, and therefore would not include the construction of project 251
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
components which could exceed 65 dBA at the residential receptors to the east of the project site. Therefore, construc tion of Alternative 2 would not require implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -1 to reduce construction noise levels, unlike Alternative 4. Alternative 2’s noise impact would be less than significant, which is reduced compared to Alternative 4.

Due to Alternative 2’s reduction in construction activities, Alternative 2 would result in less construction traffic noise than Alternative 4 . Because Alternative 4 ’s construction traffic would not result in an increase of 3 dBA or more, the reduced construction in accordance with Alternative 2 would not result in an increase of 3 dBA or more of traffic noise. Alternative 2’s construction traffic noise impact would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Alternative 2’s clubhou se would be the same as Alternative 4 . Therefore, operational noise in the clubhouse due to the use of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units, and conversational noise would not exceed City noise thresholds. In addition, Alternative 2 would not i nclude the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, which would decrease operational noise at the residential receptors to the east of the project site compared to Alternative 4. Alternative 2’s impact related to operational noise would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Due to the absence of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, Alternative 2 would result in fewer new vehicle trips than Alternative 4. Alternative 2’s operational traffic noise impact would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Unlike Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would not include the use of a vibratory roller or large bulldozer in proximity to the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station and therefore would not result in potential damage to the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station due to vibration from construction equipment. As a result, Mitigation Measure NOI -2 would not be required. Therefore, Alternative 2’s vibration impacts would be less than significant, which is reduced compared to Alternative 4.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would be located outside of the noise contours from Santa Barbara Airport. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impact related to excessive airport noise would remain less than significant, which is the same as Alternative

4. Based on the above, Alternative 2’s noise impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction activities and distance from existing noise - and vibration sensitive receptors. Alternative 2 would reduce Alternative 4 ’s less than significant noise and vibration impacts to less than significant. Airport noise impacts would be less than significant and the same as Alternative 4. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-29 through 6-30.)
252
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
l. Parks and Recreation
Alternative 2 would require less co nstruction activities and therefore would result in less potential to degrade existing park facilities due to construction worker use.

Alternative 2 would require nine fewer employees than Alternative 4 and therefore would result in less indirect populatio n growth compared to Alternative 4, which would reduce alteration in ratio of parkland per 1,000 residents compared to Alternative 4 . Given that Alternative 4 would not substantially reduce this ratio, Alternative 2 would also not substantially reduce the amount of parkland available to the residents of Goleta. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 could increase the amount of visitors at the clubhouse restaurant which may increase the use of nearby parks and trails. However, given the minimal additional ant icipated non- golfer visitors, it is unlikely that these visitors would substantially degrade existing park facilities. In addition, Alternative 2 would result in fewer non -golfer visitors to the project site because Alternative 2 does not include the Rio G rande Coffee Shop. Therefore, although Alternative 2 does not include the recreational facilities included in Alternative 4 (i.e., sidewalks to provide access to Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperling Preserve, construction of a Class I bicycle path , and dedication of lateral access along beach frontage on the sand and along Hollister Avenue to enhance coastal access to Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperling Preserve and Haskell’s Beach), Alternative 2 would also not substantially increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities such as Sperling Preserve, Santa Barbara Shores Park, or Haskell’s Beach such that a need for new or physically altered park facilities would occur or physical deterioration of existing facilities would occur or be accelerat ed. Alternative 2’s impact to park facilities would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Unlike Alternative 4 , Alternative 2 would not renovate the existing golf course.

However, as described above, Alternative 2 wou ld not result in substantial deterioration of recreational facilities and furthermore would not necessitate new or expanded recreational facilities. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not result in adverse physical effects on the environment due to new or expanded recreational facilities. Alternative 2’s impact related to recreational facilities would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 2’s construction impacts to parks and recreation would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction activities. Alternative 2’s operational impacts related to parks and recreation would be similar to Alternative 4. Alternative 2’s impacts related to parks and recreation would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-30.) m. Public Services
Alternative 2 would require nine fewer employees than Alternative 4 and therefore would result in less indirect population growth compared to Alternative 4. Given that Alternative 4 ’s indirect po pulation growth would not result in substantially 253
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
diminished fire protection services, police protection services, school capacities, or library services, Alternative 2’s reduced indirect population growth would also not result in substantially diminished public services. As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 2 would be located in proximity to existing fire stations and police stations and would be adequately served by existing fire protection and police protection services in Goleta. In addition, as with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would also include the required payment of development impact fees which would provide funding for expanded public services in accordance with Chapter 17.70 of the Municipal Code and Goleta Union School District and Santa Barba ra Unified School District fees. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impact related to public services would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-30 through 6-31.)
n. Transportation and Circulation
As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would not include elements that would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Alternative 2 would add bicycle parking spaces to the project site, providing facilities for bicycle travel.

Alternative 2 would not result in any temporary lane, bicycle route, or sidewalk closures on Hollister Avenue. However, unlike Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would not include any improve ments to Hollister Avenue or extension of the Class I bicycle lane. Alternative 2 would require nine fewer employees than Alternative 4 which, as with Alternative 4, would not substantially interfere with Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District operati ons. Alternative 2’s impact related to conflicts with transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities during construction would be reduced compared to Alternative 4. However, unlike Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would not include infrastructure along H ollister Avenue to promote bicycle and pedestrian transportation, and would not further support the City’s policies related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. However, impacts would remain less than significant.

Alternative 2 would require less constru ction activities than Alternative 4 and therefore would generate less short -term VMT increases than Alternative 4. This construction-related VMT increase would be temporary and would not have a lasting effect on the overall transportation network or long -term VMT patterns in the area. Alternative 2’s proposed clubhouse would be the same as Alternative 4 and therefore the clubhouse restaurant would be exempt from quantitative VMT analysis and presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT pursuant to the City’s VMT Guidelines. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2’s non -restaurant portion of the clubhouse would serve golfers. Alternative 2 would not increase the time between tee -offs and correspondingly reduce the annual rounds of golf per year, and th erefore would result in additional VMT from golfers compared to Alternative 4 . Therefore, Alternative 2’s impact related to conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) would be greater than Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.
254
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
As with Alternative 4, during construction of Alternative 2, equipment staging would occur on-site and construction personnel would park on-site, which would minimize the potential for construction related vehicles and equipment to disrupt circulation in the immediate area. Alternative 2 would not include construction in the right-of- way of Hollister Avenue and therefore would not result in any roadway impediments on Hollister Avenue. Alternative 2 would include the same new driveway for entrance to the clubhouse parking lot and would include the same reconfigurations to the existing clubhouse driveway. As with Alternative 4, these driveways would be designed in accordance with City and Santa Barbara County Fire Department (SBCFD) driveway access control and vision clearance standards which would ensure Alternative 2’s design would not result in the potential to result in line-of-sight disruptions and increase hazards between vehicles and pedestrians and vehicles and cyclists, similar to Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would not introduce new incompatible uses, such as farm equipment, to roadways, and Alternative 2’s uses would be the same as existing on -site uses.

Accordingly, Alternative 2’s impacts to increased hazards would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

As stated above, during construction of Alternative 2, equipment staging would occur on-site and construction personnel would park on-site, which would minimize the potential for construction rela ted vehicles and equipment to result in inadequate emergency access. Alternative 2 would not result in inadequate emergency access on Hollister Avenue because Alternative 2 does not include construction in the Hollister Avenue right-of-way. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would be designed in accordance with all applicable SBCFD standards to maintain adequate emergency access. As with Alternative 4, SBCFD and the City would review and approve Alternative 2’s design, which would ensure Alternative 2 would provide adequate egress for emergency access. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impacts to emergency access would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 2’s transportation and circulation i mpacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the lack of construction in the Hollister Avenue right -of-way. Alternative 2’s impacts related to transportation and circulation would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-31 through 6-32.) o. Tribal Cultural Resources
As with Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would be located in an area with high sensitivity for cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources. Alternative 2 would require less ground disturbance, which would reduce the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources compared to Alternative 4 . Although impacts would be reduced, potential to unearth previously unidentified resources would remain. As such, Mitigation Measures CUL -2 through CUL -4, TCR-1, and TCR -2 would be required, including implementation of a tribal monitoring agreement and appropriate disposition of any unanticipated tribal cultural resources discovered 255
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
during construction. Alternative 2’s impact related to tribal cultural resources would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, p. 6-32.)
p. Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 2 would require the installation and relocation of the same utility infrastructure as required for Alternative 4 ’s clubhouse, but unlike Alternative 4 would not include utilities associated with the maintenance facility, comfort station, or Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station and Rio Grande Coffee Shop. Accordingly, Alternative 2’s impact related to the relocation or construction of utility infrastructure would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Alternative 2 would not include reductions in irrigated turf and, unlike Alternative 4, would not result in a reduction in water use for golf course irrigation. Alternative 2’s water demand from the clubhouse would be the same water demand as Alternative 4’s clubhouse. Unlike Alternative 4, Alternative 2 would not reduce on -site water use associated with reductions in irrigated turf. As with Alternative 4, the project applicant would ensure Alternative 2 would adhere to the water shortage restrictions during stages o f drought, as set forth in Goleta Water District Code Chapter 6.21. Accordingly, although Alternative 2 would have greater impacts on water supply than Alternative 4, impacts would remain less than significant.

Based on a 100 gallons per day per 1,000 squ are feet wastewater generation factor, Alternative 2 would result in 0.003 million gallon s per day (MGD) of wastewater. A 0.002 MGD increase in wastewater flows represents approximately

0.2 percent of the 0.93 MGD capacity available for Goleta West Sanitar y District customers. Accordingly, existing wastewater treatment plant capacity would be sufficient to accept wastewater generated by Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impact related to wastewater treatment capacity would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Alternative 2 would result in less solid waste generation during construction and operation than Alternative 4 due to reduced construction activities and reduced renovation of the golf course. Alternative 2 would involve the demolition of the existing clubhouse (9,305 square feet). Based on a solid waste generation factor of 100 pounds per square foot for demolition, the demolition of the existing clubhouse would result in approximately 465 6 tons of debris . Based on a solid waste generation factor of 3.89 pounds per square foot for construction, the construction of Alternative 2 would generate app roximately 72 tons of debris8 . 9 In total, Alternative 2’s demolition and construction activities would generate approximately 537 tons of solid waste. With the required 65 percent diversion rate for demolition and construction debris, construction of Alternative 2 would generate approximately 188 tons of solid waste10, which would not exceed the City’s construction and demolition waste threshold of 350 tons. Accordingly, Alternative 256
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
2 would not require Mitigation Measure UTIL -1 due to solid waste generation during construction. Once operational, Alternative 2 would result in less solid waste generation than Alternative 4 due to the absence of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, which would not exceed the City’s project-specific threshold of 196 tons per year.

Therefore, Alternative 2 would reduce Alternative 4 ’s operational solid waste impacts to a less than significant level.

Based on the above, Alternative 2’s impacts related to water supply would increase to a less than significant level, compared to no impact under Alternative 4, because Alternative 2 does not include a reduction in irrigated turf. Alternative 2’s impact s related to solid waste would decrease to a less than significant level as demolition and construction of Alternative 2 would not exceed City solid waste thresholds and implementation of Mitigation Measure UTIL -1 would not be required. Alternative 2’s imp act related to the construction of utility infrastructure and wastewater treatment capacity would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-16 through 6-33.) Attainment of Project Objectives: Alternative 2 would fail to meet most project objectives, and would only partially meet project objectives related to providing improved recreational and dining facilities and converting existing private septic systems to public sewers. (Draft EIR, p. ES-11.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: Clubhouse Renovation, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet most of the Project objectives; and (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to hydrology, water quality, and water supply.

3. Alternative 3: Revised Site Plan
Description: Alternative 3 would shift the proposed location of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop 75 feet southwest, such that the Coffee Shop and associated parking lot would be located approximately 50 feet southwest of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station to ensure vibration from construction vehicles and equipment would not damage the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station. The new coffee shop would be directly east of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station. Restoration of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, construction of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, and connection of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop to the existing s ewer system under Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 4, with the only change being a 75 - foot shift in the location of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop.

To further reduce potential vibration impacts, Alternative 3 would not include the following Hollister Avenue roadway improvements:
 Improvements to the Hollister Avenue/Cathedral Oaks Road intersection, including:
257
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
o Installation of pedestrian ramps and striping to create crosswalks on all three legs of the intersection
o Construction of a pedestrian refuge on the northeastern corner o Extension of an access ramp on the northwestern corner o Relandscaping at the northwestern corner
 Reconfiguration of the striped median of Hollister Avenue and addition of a left-hand turn lane for the clubhouse parking lot;
 Construction of a Type 4 trail and landscaping trail along the south side of Hollister Avenue;
 Dedication of a lateral access easement along Hollister Avenue;  Construction of a curb and gutter along the south side of Hollister Avenue;  Relocation of the exi sting bus stop and pocket2 approximately 200 feet east, across from a planned fire station;
 Improvements to Hollister Avenue at the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, including:
o Construction of a 10-foot-wide bicycle entrance with a bollard o Construction of a new mean dering concrete sidewalk, which would extend from the Rio Grande Coffee Shop to the eastern project site boundary
o Construction of a new 24 -foot-wide two-way driveway entrance for access to the parking lot
 Installation of pedestrian ramps and striping to create new crosswalks at the west and south legs of the Hollister Avenue/Las Armas Road intersection, to provide for improved public access to Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperling Preserve; and
 Reconstruction of the maintenance facility driveway access and striping for the addition of a lefthand turn lane to enter the maintenance yard.

Additionally, Alternative 3 would not include the construction of the free -standing bridge over Devereaux Creek. Similar to Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would include the cons truction of a new clubhouse, comfort station, maintenance yard, golf course recontouring, dedication of lateral access easements, dedication of open 258
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
space easement at Bell Canyon, and undergrounding of existing utility lines, which would be the same as Alternative 4.

Similar to Alternative 4 , the project applicant would request a zoning code adjustment to allow a portion of the clubhouse to exceed the 25 -foot height limit for the Open Space/Active Recreation zone, and the Sphere of Influence request would remain. Operation of the Sandpiper Golf Club under Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 4, as Alternative 3 would require the same number of employees and maintenance activities for the recontoured golf course. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-33 through 6-49.)
Impacts:
a. Aesthetics
Alternative 3 would include the same facilities as Alternative 4 , excluding the Hollister Avenue improvements and free -standing bridge over Devereaux Creek, and therefore would result in similar effects on scenic vistas comp ared to the project. Construction of Alternative 3 would occur over a similar timeframe as construction of Alternative 4 and therefore would result in similar temporary visual impediments. As with Alternative 4 , construction activities associated with Alternative 3 would be visible from the Hollister Avenue scenic corridor and related scenic viewpoints, but such visual impacts would be temporary and construction areas would be screened with fencing during construction to obstruct views of equipment and the construction sites from public viewing areas. Alternative 3 would include the same tree removal and replacement as Alternative 4 which would not interfere with previous, unobstructed, scenic views from public locations.

The minimal movement of the Rio Gran de Coffee Shop 75 feet southwest would not result in additional impediments of scenic vistas beyond Alternative 4’s Rio Grande Coffee Shop because the Rio Grande Coffee Shop would continue to be obscured by trees and would not result in additional substant ial changes to the landscape. Because Alternative 3 would include the same project facilities as Alternative 4 , excluding the Hollister Avenue improvements and free -standing bridge over Devereaux Creek, Alternative 3 would not result in substantial adverse effects on key viewpoints surrounding the project site. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to scenic vistas would be similar to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 would not place infrastructure in an area visible f rom an officially - designated State scenic highway. As with Alternative 4 , existing buildings, topography, and vegetation obscure views of the project site and existing on -site development from vehicles travelling along U.S. 101. Alternative 3 would not increase the height of Alternative 4 ’s facilities, and therefore Alternative 3’s facilities would be obscured from views from U.S. 101. As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would result in no impact related to scenic resources within a State scenic highway.
259
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 3’s proposed facilities would not differ from the same facilities evaluated in Alternative 4, aside from the shift in the location of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop and omission of the Hollister Avenue improvements and free-standing bridge over Devereaux Creek. This minor shift in location would not result in any inconsistencies with the policies and regulations governing visual quality applicable to Alternative 4 . Alternative 3’s facilities would meet the same development standards as Alternative 4 , including maximum lot coverage, maximum building height, minimum setbacks, and parking, of the Open Space/Active Recreation zone. In addition, Alternative 3‘s facilities would not exceed FAR Part 77 building height restrictions and would not obstruct vie ws of the Pacific Ocean in compliance with Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act.

Alternative 3’s impact related to conflicts with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality would be similar to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 would result in the same amount of lighting compared to Alternative 4 as the Alternative 3 would include the same facilities with lighting as Alternative

4. As with Alternative 4, light sources associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to existing conditions and be designed in accordance with City standards, including City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy 4.12, Lighting, which requires outdoor lighting fixt ures to be designed, located, aimed downward or toward structures (if properly shielded), retrofitted if feasible, and maintained in order to prevent over -lighting, energy waste, glare, light trespass, and sky glow.

Alternative 3 would result in the same lighting sources from vehicles as Alternative

4. Lighting would be similar to the surrounding area due to frequent residential and commercial vehicles near the U.S. 101 and Hollister Avenue/Cathedral Oaks Road interchange. Alternative 3 would introduce the same sources of glare from the sunlight reflecting on the glass surfaces of proposed facilities as Alternative 4 .

Vegetative screening around the clubhouse and maintenance yard would reduce off-site impacts of glare from the clubhouse and cars, and the comfort station would be located in the southeastern portion of the project site and would have limited potential to produce off -site glare impacts. Like Alternative 4 ,, Alternative 3’s impact related to light and glare would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 3’s aesthetics impacts would be the same compared to Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would have less than significant impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic quality, and light and glare, and no impacts related to scenic highways. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-33 through 6-35.) b. Air Quality
Alternative 3 does not propose any change to the project site’s existing land use and therefore would not conflict with the land use assumptions that inform the 2022 Ozone Plan’s emissions forecasts. Alternative 3 would require the same number of employees compared to Alternative 4 and therefore would result in the same indirect population growth. Given that Alternative 4’s indirect population growth is 260
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
within SBCAG growth projections utilized within the 2022 Ozone Plan, Alternative 3 would also be within SBCAG growth projections and therefore would not conflict with the 2022 Ozone Plan, which would be the same level of impact compared to Alternative 4.

Alternative 3 would reduce t he scope of Alternative 4’s construction activities by excluding the Hollister Avenue improvements and free -standing bridge over Devereaux Creek and therefore would result in reduced criteria air pollutant emissions during construction compared to Alternative 4. Given that construction of Alternative 4 would not exceed SBCAPCD emissions thresholds, Alternative 3’s construction would also not exceed SBCAPCD thresholds. Alternative 3 would include the same operational activities as Alternative 4 and therefore would generate the same criteria air pollutant emissions as operation of Alternative 4, which would not exceed SBCAPCD thresholds. This impact would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

As described above, Alternat ive 3 would reduce the scope of Alternative 4 ’s construction activities which would result in less toxic air contaminant emissions on the project site compared to Alternative 4 . Based on existing northeast to southwest wind patterns on the project site, th ese emissions would be carried away from the single-family residential receptors. As with Alternative 4, operation of Alternative 3 would not involve the use of equipment that would increase toxic air contaminant emission on the project site. Alternative 3’s impact related to toxic air contaminants would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3’s construction would result in the same odors as Alternative 4 which would be intermittent, temporary, and dissipa te rapidly with distance from in -use construction equipment. Alternative 3 would shift the location of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop further from residential receptors than Alternative 4 which would result in the creation of odors further from residential receptors. Food-related odors associated with food preparation would primarily be confined to the indoor dining areas of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop. Food -related odors would also dissipate rapidly, and given the northeast to southwest wind patterns, would not be carried to nearby development north and east of the project site. Therefore, Alternative 3’s odor impact would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 3’s air quality impacts would b e reduced to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction activities compared to Alternative

4. Like Alternative 4 , Alternative 3’s impacts to air quality would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-35.)
c. Biological Resources
261
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 3 would not include construction of the free -standing bridge within Devereaux Creek and therefore would avoid impacts to monarch butterfly associated with degradation of Monarch Butterfly Roosting ESHA at Devereaux Creek due to bridge installat ion. Alternative 3 would result in similar direct and indirect impacts to special -status species related to habitat removal and degradation and would require Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BIO -10 to reduce potential impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species to a less than significant level. Alternative 3’s impacts to special-status species would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Alternative 3 would not include construction of the free -standing bridge over Devereaux Creek and therefore would avoid Devereux Creek riparian ESHA and Monarch Butterfly Roosting ESHA along the eastern boundary of the project site.

However, similar to Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would include direct impacts t o riparian habitat ESHA, and aquatic resources through storm drain installation and grading activities and indirect impacts associated with construction activities such as the use of construction equipment. Therefore, Alternative 3 would require Mitigation Measures BIO-2 through BIO-4 and BIO-11 to reduce potential impacts related to riparian habitat, ESHA, and wetlands to a less than significant level.

Alternative 3’s impact related to riparian habitat, ESHA, and aquatic resources would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Alternative 3’s construction activities could exceed City noise thresholds and result in potential disruption of wildlife movement in the short term. Accordingly, Alternative 3 would require Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to reduce potential impacts to wildlife movement related to construction noise to a less than significant level.

Alternative 3 would include the same lighting as Alternative 4 which would not result in substantial impediments to wildlife movement. Alternative 3 would result in the same human presence on the project site as Alternative 4. Like Alternative 4, Alternative 3’s impact related to wildlife movement would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would include installation of a storm drain and associated outlet within arroyo willow thickets ESHA along Devereux Creek, sand capping and grading within the 100-foot Streamside Protection Area, and trenching for underground utilities within riparian ESHA along Devereux Creek and along the eastern project site boundary within riparian and monarch butterfly roosting habitat ESHA. As with Alternative 4, these activities could potentially be inconsistent with General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy CE 1.6 and Policy CE.9.5. Therefore, Alternative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -2, BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO -6, BIO7, BIO -8, and BIO -11 to reduce this impact to a less than significant level, which would be the same as Alternative 4.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would not be located in an area subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or 262
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Alt ernative 3 would have no impact related to conflicts with these plans, which would be the same level of impact compared to Alternative 4.

Overall, Alternative 3 would reduce Alternative 4’s impacts to riparian habitat and ESHA by excluding construction of the free -standing bridge over Devereaux Creek. Alternative 3’s impacts related to special -status plant and wildlife species, riparian and ESHA habitat, wetlands, wildlife migration, and conflicts with local policies protecting biological resources would r emain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Like Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would have no impact related to conflicts with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-36 through 6-37.)
d. Cultural Resources
As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would include the restoration and adaptive reuse of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, a historical resource. Restoration and adaptive reuse activities would be carried out in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL-1 to ensure the historical integrity of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station is preserved. Alternative 3 would shift the Rio Grande Coffee Shop approximately 50 feet from the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station which would ensure construction activities, including the use of a vibratory roller or large bulldozer, would not result in substantial vibration which could damage Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station. Therefore, Mitigati on Measure NOI -2 would not be required for Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts to historic resources, which is reduced compared to Alternative 4.

Construction of Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of ground distur bance compared to Alternative 4 as Alternative 3 would not include the Hollister Avenue improvements or construction of the free -standing bridge over Devereaux Creek.

Therefore, Alternative 3 would reduce the potential to encounter unknown archaeological resources compared to Alternative 4. Because ground disturbance would still occur, Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-4 would continue to be required. These measures would minimize potential impacts to unanticipated discoveries of archaeological resources by requiring archaeological monitoring, a cultural resources sensitivity meeting for construction personnel, and implementation of appropriate procedures for evaluation and treatment of any discoveries made during construction. Accordingly, Alternative 3 ’s impact to archaeological resources would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Construction of Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of ground disturbance compared to Alternative 4 which would reduce the potential to encounter unknown human remains. As with Alternative 4, in the event of unanticipated discovery of human remains, the construction contractor would comply with State of California 263
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and human remains would be preserved in accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.

With regulatory compliance, Alternative 3’s impact to human remains would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 3 would reduce Alternative 4’s impact to historical resources to less than significant and would not require the implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -2. Alternative 3’s impact to archaeological resources would be reduced but wo uld remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 3’s impact to human remains would be reduced but would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-37.)
e. Energy
Alternative 3 would reduce the scope of Alternative 4’s construction activities by excluding the Hollister Avenue improvements and free -standing bridge over Devereaux Creek and therefore would result in reduced fuel used for construction equipment compared to Alternative 4 . As with Alternative 4 , energy use during construction would be temporary and minimized in compliance with existing regulations such as California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles and off -road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes. Operation of Alternative 3 would require the same energy consumption as Alternative 4 , which would occur in compliance with the energy efficiency standards such as the California Green Building Standards Code a nd the 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards.

Alternative 3’s impact related to the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would adhere to the California Green Building Standards Code and the 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards to minimize unnecessary energy use in the proposed facilities. Alternative 3’s facilities would be supplied power from SC E in accordance with Senate Bill 100, which requires SCE to increase renewable energy procurement to 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. Alternative 3 would provide the same amount of electric vehicle parking as Alternative 4 which would be consis tent with the requirements of the CALGreen intervening code update and the City’s Municipal Code, which requires new non-residential construction to construct at least 30 percent of new parking spaces to be EV capable or include EV charging infrastructure. Alternative 3 would include the same amount of bicycle spaces as Alternative 4 to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, consistent with the City’s CAP, Strategic Energy Plan, General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, and Municipal Code.

Furthermore, Alternative 3 would be designed in accordance with the City’s Energy Performance Reach Code which would provide electric-ready facilities for the use of electric infrastructure. In addition, Alternative 3 would continue to utilize the existing on -site electric golf carts for golfers. Alternative 3’s impact related to 264
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
conflicts with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 3’s energy impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction activities. Alternative 3’s impacts to energy would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-37 through 6-38.)
f. Geology and Soils
As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would not locate structures within 50 feet of the More Ranch Fault and would not directly or indirectly cause the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. This impact would be the same as Alternative 4, and would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 would include renovation in an area with the same risks of seismic activity as Alternative 4 and therefore could result in potential risks associated with seismic ground shaking. As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requiring recommendations from the project-specific geotechnical reports to be put into grading and building plans.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts due to ground -shaking on the project site to a less than significant level through incorporation of structural integrity recommendations. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to seismic ground shaking would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Alternative 3 would be subject to the same liquefaction risks as Alternative 4 ’s structures, which are very low. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3’s design would incorporate design measures required by the CBC which reduce the potential for substantial adverse effects due to liquefaction. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to liquefaction would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 woul d be subject to the same landslide risks as Alternative 4 and would not place structures in areas of high landslide potential. Only activities related to the proposed golf course improvements would occur in areas with high landslide potential. Alternative 3 would require the same maximum cut and fill slopes as Alternative 4 , which would not result in substantially steep slopes or other conditions that could induce a landslide. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to landslides would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Construction of Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of ground disturbance compared to Alternative 4 which would reduce the potential for erosion compared to Alternative 4. Construction of Alternative 3 w ould occur in compliance with the same requirements for erosion control as Alternative 4, including the Construction 265
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Stormwater General Permit and Chapter 15.09 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Accordingly, construction of Alternative 3 would minimize the pot ential to cause substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Alternative 3 would include implementation of the same stormwater control infrastructure and site design BMPs as Alternative 4 to minimize erosion during operation. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would not substantially increase the rate of runoff on the site compared to existing conditions, as the impervious surfaces added to the project site would represent an increase of less than 0.2 percent compared to existing conditions. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to erosion would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 would be subject to the same risks related to unstable geologic units and soil as Alternative 4 . As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would not locate structures in an area subject to substantial liquefaction potential, landslide hazards, or potential for soil collapse. Potential impacts associated with geotechnical hazards would be minimized with adherence to the CBC . As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 may require groundwater dewatering during construction, but groundwater dewatering would be limited to the localized perched water on the project site and would be temporary, only occurring if perched groundwater is e ncountered. Therefore, construction of Alternative 3 would not result in substantial groundwater withdrawals that could result in subsidence on - site. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to the risk of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would locate structures on soils with very low potential for expansion. The construction contractor would be required to comply with the requirements of the CBC, including the use of non-expansive fill material, to minimize the potential fo r structural hazards associated with soil expansion.

Alternative 3’s impact related to creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property related to expansive soil would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would involve connecting the clubhouse, comfort station, and Rio Grande Coffee Shop to the Goleta West Sanitary District sewer system and the abandonment of the private septic systems serving the existing clubhouse and c omfort station. Alternative 3 would not involve the installation of additional septic tanks on -site and therefore would not result in impacts related to the use of septic tanks. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have no impact related to soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks, which would be the same level of impact compared to Alternative 4.

Alternative 3 would reduce the amount of ground disturbance compared to Alternative 4 which would reduce the potential to encounter paleontolog ical resources or unique geologic features compared to Alternative 4 . However, Alternative 3 could result in the disturbance of unknown paleontological resources. 266
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Therefore, Alternative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO- 2 to reduce p otential impacts to paleontological resources and unique geologic features to a less than significant level by requiring WEAP training, monitoring, and setting forth procedures for the recovery, identification, and curation of fossils discovered during construction. Alternative 3’s impacts related to paleontological resources or unique geologic features would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Based on the above, Alternative 3’s erosion impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant. Alternative 3’s paleontological resources impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Al ternative 3’s impacts related to ground-shaking would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 3’s impacts related to fault rupture, liquefaction, landslides, unstable soils, and expansive soils, would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant. As with Alternative 4 , there would be no impact related potential for on -site soils to be capable to support the existing on-site septic systems. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-38 through 6-40.)
g. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 3 would reduce the scope of Alternative 4’s construction activities by excluding Hollister Avenue improvements and the freestanding bridge over Devereaux Creek. Therefore, this alternative would result in r educed GHG emissions during construction compared to Alternative 4. Alternative 3’s operation would include the same components as Alternative 4 and therefore generate the same GHG emissions as operation of Alternative 4. Accordingly, the combined construction and operation emissions of Alternative 3 would be reduced compared to Alternative 4, which would not result in substantial GHG emissions. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impacts related to GHG emissions would be reduced compared to Alternative 4. Impacts would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would include design features to promote renewable energy use, energy efficiency, water efficiency, and reductions in vehicle travel, all of which contribute to the creation of minimal GHG emissions.

Alternative 3 would not include addition al renovation compared to Alternative 4 which could have the potential to conflict with applicable GHG reduction plans.

Alternative 3 would include EV charging infrastructure that exceeds California Green Building Standards and City requirements for EV cha rging infrastructure.

Alternative 3’s proposed facilities would be the same as Alternative 4 and be designed in accordance with the same energy efficiency standards. Alternative 3 would incorporate water efficient fixtures to reduce water consumption for landscaping, plumbing, and irrigation consistent with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Alternative 3 would also include the same new water-efficient irrigation system as Alternative 4 which would 267
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
reduce GHG e missions associated with water use. Alternative 3 would include active transportation facilities (i.e., bicycle parking) and therefore would encourage active transportation and the reduction of GHG emission from vehicles. However, Alternative 3 would no t i nclude implementation of the Class I bicycle path and therefore would not promote minimal GHG emissions from vehicles like Alternative

4. Nevertheless, Alternative 3 would be consistent with applicable GHG reduction plans. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact would be greater compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 3’s GHG emissions would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to decreased construction activity. As Alternative 3 would include less in frastructure that would minimize on -site GHG emissions, impacts related to consistency with applicable GHG reduction plans would be increased compared to Alternative 4. Impacts related to GHG emissions would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-40 through 6-41.)
h. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 3 would reduce the scope of Alternative 4’s construction activities by excluding Hollister Avenue improvements and the freestanding bridge over Devereaux Creek and therefore would result i n less hazardous material usage compared to Alternative 4 . Hazardous materials used during construction of Alternative 3 would be handled in accordance with the same regulations as Alternative 4 , such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, and California Code of Regulations Title 22. Construction of Alternative 3 would occur in compliance with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to reduce potential spills. All hazardous material transport, use, or disposal associated with Alternative 3’s operation would comply with existing hazardous materials regulations established by United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State of California, the County of Santa Barbara, and the City of Goleta. These regulations prescribe measures for the safe transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials to reduce risk of spills. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s impact related to the routine transport, use, and disposal o f hazardous materials would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would include demolition of the existing clubhouse portions of the existing maintenance facility, and comfort sta tion, and restoration of the Barnsdall Rio Gas Station which have the potential to contain ACM, LBP, mercury, and PCB. Alternative 3 would require less ground disturbance than Alternative 4 and therefore would have less potential to result in release of hazardous soils; however, grading could potentially disturb hazardous materials in soil, leading to an accidental release of hazardous materials. As with Alternative 4, construction of Alternative 3 could also encounter perched groundwater which, if contaminated, could result in the accidental release of hazardous materials. In addition, operation of Alternative 3 could result in exposure to volatile organic 268
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
compounds in the soil similar to Alternative 4. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6 would continue to be required, which would reduce potential hazardous material impacts associated with accidental releases of hazardous materials during demolition of the existing clubhouse, and grading of potentially contaminated soil, soil vapor, or groundwater to a l ess than significant level.

Operation of Alternative 3 would result in the same reduction in fertilizer and pesticide use on the golf course as Alternative 4 due to the same reduction of irrigated turf. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s impact related to the ac cidental release of hazardous materials would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As with Alternative 4, construction of Alternative 3 could potentially occur within

0.25 mile of the El lwood School. As with Alternative 4, Alterative 3’s construction activities would have the potential to create a significant hazard involving the release of ACMs, LBP, mercury, or PCBs into the environment, or through exposure and transport of on-site contaminated soil or groundwater, which would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -1 through HAZ -6.

Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to handling hazardous materials within

0.25-mile of a school would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would have potential to result in hazardous material release due to the presence of on -site hazardous materials. Mitigation Measures HAZ-3 through H AZ6 and HAZ -7 would be required which mandates oversight from Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services and Central Coast RWQCB. Alternative 3’s impact related to the presence of on-site hazardous materials would be the same as Alternative 4 and w ould remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would be located outside of the safety and noise contours of the Santa Barbara Airport. Alternative 3’s facilities would be designed the same as Alternative 4 and therefore would not conflict with the standards of Review Area 2 of the Santa Barbara Airport’s Airport Influence Area or FAR Part

77. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to safety hazards and excessive noise due to proximity to an airport would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 would not include construction on Hollister Avenue and therefore would result in less potential to interfere with emergency response or evacuation of Hollister Avenue compared to Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3’s operations would not introduce activities that could impede or interfere with the Santa Barbara County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan or emergency evacuations on Hollister Avenu e. Alternative 3’s impact related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.
269
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 3 would be located on the same site as Alternative 4 and therefore be exposed to the same fire risks as Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, construction of Alternative 3 would comply with California Public Resources Code Sections 4442, 4427, 4428, and 4431 to minimize the potential for wildland fire. Alternative 3’s structures would result in the same fire risks as Alternative 4, which would be minimized with adherence to the standards of the California Fire Code, CBC, and California Code of Regulations Title 14. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to wildland fire would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 3’s impacts related to hazardous materials would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 3’s hazardous materials impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction activities and lack of encroachment onto Hollister Avenue.

Alternative 3’s impacts related to upset or accide nt of hazardous materials, emissions of hazardous materials near schools, and hazardous materials sites would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impacts related to transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, airport hazards , emergency response plans, and wildland fires would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-41 through 6-42.)
i. Hydrology and Water Quality
Given the reduction in construction activities, Alternative 3 would have reduced potential to degrade water quality compared to Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would include demolition of the existing clubhouse, portions of the existing maintenance facility, and comfort station, which could discharge ACB and LBP to on -site soils where they could then be transported off -site in stormwater runoff. M itigation Measures HAZ -1 and HAZ -2 would be required and would minimize the potential for the accidental release of ACB and LBP. As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 could require groundwater dewatering of perched groundwater during construction which, if contaminated, could result in releases of hazardous materials into stormwater. Mitigation Measure HAZ-5 would be required to reduce the potential for the accidental discharge of contaminated groundwater.

Construction of Alternative 3 would comply with the Construction Stormwater General Permit, including the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and BMPs to minimize the introduction of pollutants during construction activities. Alternative 3 would not include the installation of bridge a t Devereaux Creek or culvert removal and therefore would not require implementation of Mitigation Measures HYD -1 and BIO -4 to minimize the introduction of pollutants into Devereaux Creek. In addition, adherence to the City’s Municipal Code would ensure con struction activities would minimize substantial runoff water which would exceed the capacities of Devereaux Creek or Bell Canyon Creek. Alternative 3’s construction impacts related to water quality degradation, erosion, and the introduction of substantial polluted runoff and 270
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
exceedances of stormwater capacity would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Alternative 3 would include the same stormwater control infrastructure as Alternative 4 to treat and discharge stormwater onto the golf course consistent with the requirements of the Central Coast RWQCB. As with Alternative 4, treated water and high-flow bypass from the basins would be discharged to the golf course rather than the storm drain system in Hollister Avenue that outlets to Bell Canyon Creek which would minimize the amount of stormwater and potential stormwater pollutants entering Bell Canyon Creek. Alternative 3 would also abandon the existing onsite septic systems which, upon completion, would reduce the potential for groundwater quality to be affected by sewage. Operation of Alternative 3 would result in the same reduction in fertilizer and pesticide use on the golf course as Alternative 4. Alternative 3 would include the same new irrigation system included in Alternative 4 which would reduce water use for landscaping compared to existing conditions and therefore would reduce the potential for operation of the golf course to discharge stormwater pollutants due to erosion compared to existing conditions. Alternative 3 would include the same maintenance facility as Alternative 4 , and potential stormwater pollutants from the maintenance facility would be minimized with storage of hazardous materials in accordance with the requirements of the Santa Barbara Public Health Department’s Consolidated Unified Program Agency Hazardous Material Division and the Santa Barbara County Agriculture Commissioner. Alternative 3’s operational impacts related to water quality degradation, erosion, and th e introduction of substantial polluted runoff and exceedances of stormwater capacity would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4 , construction of Alternative 3 has the potential to require groundwater d ewatering of perched groundwater. Groundwater dewatering activities would be localized and temporary, lasting only during excavation activities, if groundwater is encountered. The anticipated duration and minimal amount of groundwater dewatering that would be required for excavation would not result in substantial groundwater losses in the Basin. Similar to Alternative 4, given the limited infiltration potential of on -site soils and the minimal amount of impervious surface increase generated by Alternative 3, Alternative 3 would not substantially decrease groundwater infiltration rates on-site or result in substantial interference to groundwater recharge, Alternative 3’s impact related to substantially decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering with grou ndwater recharge would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3’s bioretention basins would be sized to collect and convey stormwater runoff on the project site to the golf course such that an increase in on -site flooding compared to existing conditions would not occur in accordance with Central Coast RWQCB requirements. Alternative 3 would not include work within Devereaux Creek and therefore has no potential to result in 271
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
on- or off-site flooding in Deveraux Creek; however, Alternative 3 would not result in long-term improvements associated with culvert removal and the restoration of Deveraux Creek to its natural flow. Alternative 3’s impact related to on - or off-site flooding would be greate r compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 would be subject to the same on -site inundation hazards as Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would locate structures outside of a flood hazard zone, tsunam i zone, seiche hazard zone, and dam inundation zone. Like Alternative 4 , hazardous materials stored on -site would located be outside the inundation areas and stored in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements. Impacts related to risk of release o f stormwater pollutants during inundation would be similar to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Given the reduction in construction activities, Alternative 3 would have a reduced potential to degrade water quality in conflict with the Basin Plan compared to Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would adhere to the requirements of the Construction Stormwater General Permit and Chapter 13.04 and Chapter

15.09 of the City’s Municipal Code to minimize water quality impacts, an d would require Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-5 to reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s impacts related to conflicts with the Basin Plan would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

As described above, Alternative 3 would not adversely impact groundwater supplies. Accordingly, Alternative 3 would not interfere with the management of the Basin in accordance with the Wright Judgement. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s impact related to conflicts with the Wright Judgement or Goleta Water District’s Groundwater Management Plan Goleta Groundwater Basin would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 3’s overall hydrology and water quality impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction activities. Alternative 3’s impacts related to water quality, polluted runoff, and conflict with water quality plans or groundwater management plans would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impacts related to groundwater, erosion and siltation, flooding, and release of pollutants from inundation would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-42 through 6-44.) j. Land Use and Planning
As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would be located on the existing Sandpiper Golf Club and would not include any components that could divide an established community. Alternative 3’s i mpact would be the same as Alternative 4, and no impact related to the physical division of an established community would occur. 272
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 3 would largely include the same renovation as Alternative 4, excluding the Hollister Avenue improvements and wou ld not include the construction of the free-standing bridge over Devereaux Creek. Alternative 3’s facilities would be the same as Alternative 4 and would therefore be consistent with all applicable Goleta Municipal Code zoning standards and FAR Part 77 standards. Alternative 3 would include installation of the same storm drain and outlet within arroyo willow thickets ESHA as Alternative 4 and therefore would have the same potential to conflict with Policy CE 1.6 of the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Plan. Alternative 3 would include trenching for underground utilities along Hollister Avenue right-of-way and would result in trenching wit hin riparian and monarch butterfly roosting ESHA.

Therefore, Alternative 3 would have a similar potential to conflict with Policy 9.5 of the City’s General Plan/Local Coastal Plan compared to Alternative 4 . As Alternative 3 would not include the Class I bi cycle path, Alternative 3 would be inconsistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, as well as Policies OS 4.4, VH 2.5, VH 3.3, VH 3.5, and VH 4.10. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would be consistent with most policies of the Goleta G eneral Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan through implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BIO-11, CUL-1 through CUL-4, NOI-1, TCR-1, and TCR-2. Alternative 3’s impact would be similar when compared to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-44 through 6-45.)
k. Noise
Alternative 3 would not include the Hollister Avenue improvements and would not include the construction of the free -standing bridge over Devereaux Creek and therefore would result in less con struction noise than Alternative 4. In addition, Alternative 3 would shift the location of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop resulting in a reduction in construction noise associated with the Rio Grande Coffee Shop for single-family residences to the east. Alternative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -1 to ensure construction noise levels do not exceed Goleta’s 65 dBA construction noise standards. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s construction noise impact remain less than significant with mitigation.

Alternative 3 would result in less construction traffic noise than Alternative 4 because Alternative 3 would not require construction worker trips for the Hollister Avenue improvements or free -standing bridge over Devereaux Creek. Because Alternative 4’s construction would not result in an increase of 3 dBA or more, the reduced construction in accordance with Alternative 3 would not result in an increase of 3 dBA or more of traffic noise. Alternative 3’s construction traffic noise impact would be red uced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 would include the same facilities as Alternative 4 which would generate the same noise levels at nearby sensitive receptors as Alternative 4 except for the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, which would generate decreased noise at single-family residences to the east due to its relocation. Operational noise 273
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
associated with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units, the pump station, and conversational noise would not exceed Ci ty noise thresholds. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s stationary operational noise impact would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 would result in the same new vehicle trips as Alternative 4 as Alternative 3 includes the same facilities as Alternative 4. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would not result in operational traffic noise exceeding 3 dBA.

Alternative 3’s operational traffic noise impact would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 would include the use of similar construction equipment as Alternative 4, including the use of a vibratory roller and large bulldozer, which could generate substantial ground -borne vibration. The equipment would exceed the Caltrans vibration damage potential threshold for historical structures of 0.12 PPV in/sec for transient sources within a distance of 42 feet and 20 feet, respectively. However, Alternative 3 includes the relocation of Rio Grande Coffee Shop 50 feet southwest of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station. This relocation would ensure that construction equipment would be operated greater than 42 feet from Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station which would minimize the potential for construction to generate ground-borne vibration that could damage the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station. Unlike Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would not require implementation of mitigation to reduce potential ground-borne vibration impacts. Alternative 3 would reduce Alternative 4’s vibration impact to a less than significant level.

As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would be located outside of the noise contours from Santa Barbara Airport. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to excessive airport noise would remain less than signific ant, which is the same as Alternative

4. Based on the above, Alternative 3’s construction noise and construction vibration impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction activities and relocation of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop. Alternative 3’s operational noise impacts would be the same as Alternative 4. Alternative 3’s would result in less than significant ground -borne vibration impacts, compared to Alternative 4’s less than significant with mitigation impact. Alternative 3’s impacts related to construction noise would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Alternative 3’s impacts related to operational noise and airport noise would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-45 through 6-55.) l. Parks and Recreation
Alternative 3 would require less construction activities and therefore would result in less potential to degrade existing park facilities due to construction worker use as construction workers would not need to spend as much time at the project site and would have less opportunities to use surrounding recreational areas during 274
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
break periods. Alternative 3 would include the same amount of employees as Alternative 4 which would not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of parkland available to the residents of Goleta. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 could increase the amount of visitors to the project site which may increase the use of nearby parks and trails; however, ultimately Alternative 3 would expand recreational opportunities in Goleta such that residents have additional options for recreation through the dedication of a lateral access easement for beach access.

However, Alternative 3 would not include the Class I bicycle pa th and therefore would not provide the same amount of recreation infrastructure as Alternative 4.

Alternative 3’s impact to park facilities would be greater than Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 would include similar recreational facilities as Alternative 4, excluding the Class I bicycle path . As described above, Alternative 3 would not result in substantial deterioration of recreational facilities and furthermore would not necessitate new or expanded recreational facilit ies. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to recreational facilities would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 3’s parks and recreation impacts would be reduced during construction comp ared to Alternative 4 due to the reduction in construction activities but would be increased during operation due to the lack of the Class I bicycle path . Alternative 3’s impacts related to parks and recreation would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-46.) m. Public Services
Alternative 3 would require the same employees as Alternative 4 and therefore would result in the same indirect population growth compared to Alternative 4 .

Given that Alternative 4 ’s indirect population growth would not res ult in substantially diminished fire protection services, police protection services, school capacities, or library services, Alternative 3’s indirect population growth would also not result in substantially diminished public services. As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would be located in proximity to existing fire stations and police stations and would be adequately served by existing fire protection and police protection services in Goleta. In addition, as with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would also i nclude the required payment of development impact fees which would provide funding for expanded public services in accordance with Chapter 17.70 of the Municipal Code and Goleta Union School District and Santa Barbara Unified School District fees. Therefor e, Alternative 3’s impact related to public services would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-46 through 6-47.)
n. Transportation and Circulation
275
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
As with Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would not include elements that would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Alternative 3 would add the same bicycle parking spaces and bicycle entrance to the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, but would not include the continuation of the Class I bicycle path to the project site or dedication of a lateral access easement along Hollister Avenue, and would therefore provide less facilities for bicycle and pedestrian travel. As with Alternative 4, the design for Alternative 3’s proposed driveways would be subject to review and approval by the City and SBCFD which would minimize the potential for vehicle to pedestrian and vehicle to cyclist conflicts. Unlike Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would not result in any temporary lane, bicycle route, or sidewalk closures on Hollister Avenue and would not include roadway impediments on Hollister Avenue during construction. Alternative 3 would require the same amount of employees than Alternative 4 which, as with Alternative 4 , would not substantially interfere with Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District operations.

Accordingly, Alternative 3’s construction impact related to conflicts with transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian faciliti es would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant. However, unlike Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would not include infrastructure along Hollister Avenue to promote bicycle and pedestrian transportation, and would not further support the City’s policies related to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. However, impacts would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 would require less construction activities than Alternative 4 and therefore would generate less short -term VMT increases than Alternative 4. This construction-related VMT increase would be temporary and would not have a lasting effect on the overall transportation network or long -term VMT patterns in the area. Alternative 3 would include the same facilities as Alternative 4 which would be exempt from quantitative VMT analysis and presumed to have a less than significant impact on VMT pursuant to the City’s VMT Guidelines. As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would increase the time between tee -offs and correspondingly reduce the annual rounds of golf per year, which would reduce the amount of vehicle trips and associated VMT generated by golfers to get to and from the project site compared to existing conditions. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

As with Alternative 4, during construction of Alternative 3, equipment staging would occur on-site and construction personnel would park on-site, which would minimize the potential for construction related vehicles and equipment to disrupt in the immediate area. Unlike Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would not include construction in the right -of-way of Hollister Avenue and therefore would not result in any roadway impediments on Hollister Avenue. Alternative 3 would include the same driveway configuration as Alternative 4 which would be designed accordance with all applicable SBCFD standards to minimize line -of-sight disruptions and hazards between vehicles and pedestrians and vehicles and cyclists. As with Alternative 4, 276
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 3 would not introduce new incompatible uses, such as farm equipment, to roadways, and Alternative 3’s uses would be the same as existing on-site uses.

Accordingly, Alternative 3’s impacts to increased hazards would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

As stated above, during construction of Alternative 3, equipment staging would occur on-site and construction personnel would park on-site, which would minimize the potential for construction related vehicles and equipment to result in inadequate emergency access. Unlike Alternative 4, Alternative 3 would not result in any potential for inadequate emergency access in the short term on Hollister Avenue because Alternative 3 does not include construction in the Hollister Avenue right -of-way. As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would be designed in accordance with all applicable SBCFD standards to maintain adequate emergency access. As with Alternative 4 , SBCFD and the City would review and approve Alternative 3’s design, which would ensure Alternative 3 would provide adequate egress for emergency access. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impacts to emergency access would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant.

Based on the above, Alternative 3’s transportation and circulation impacts would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 due to the lack of construction in the Hollister Avenue right -of-way. Alternative 3’s impacts related to transportation and circulation would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-64 through 6-65.) o. Tribal Cultural Resources
As with Alternative 4 , Alternative 3 would be located in an area with a high sensitivity for cultural resources, including tribal cultural resources. Alternative 3 would require less ground disturbance, whic h would reduce the potential to encounter tribal cultural resources compared to Alternative 4. Although impacts would be reduced, potential to unearth previously unidentified resources would remain. As such, Mitigation Measures CUL-2 through CUL-4, and TCR-1 and TCR- 2 would be required, including implementation of a tribal monitoring agreement and appropriate disposition of any unanticipated tribal cultural resources discovered during construction. Alternative 3’s impact related to tribal cultural resources would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, p. 6-65.)
p. Utilities and Service Systems
Alternative 3 would require the installation and relocation of the same utility infrastructure as req uired for Alternative 4 . Accordingly, Alternative 3’s impact related to the relocation or construction of utility infrastructure would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant. 277
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 3’s water demand would be the same as Alternative 4 which would reduce onsite water use compared to existing conditions. Accordingly, Alternative 3 would have no impact on water use, the same as Alternative 4.

Alternative 3’s wastewater generation would be the same as Alternative 4 which would be accommodated by existing wastewater treatment plant capacity available for Goleta West Sanitary District customers. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to wastewater treatment capacity would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant.

Alternative 3 would result in less solid waste generation as Alternative 4 during construction due lack of Hollister Avenue improvements and free-standing bridge, but would still generate substantial solid waste during construction. As such, Mitigation Measure UTIL -1 would be required to reduce solid waste generated during construction below the City’s project specific threshold of 350 tons of nonrecyclable construction and demolition debris. Once operational, Alternative 3 would result in the same solid waste generation as Alternative 4 which does not exceed the City’s project-specific threshold of 196 tons per year. Therefore, solid waste impacts related to the operation of Alternative 3 would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Based on the above, Alternative 3’s impacts related to solid waste would be reduced compared to Alternative 4 but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 3’s impacts related to the construction of utility infrastructure and wastewater treatment capacity would be the same as Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant. Like Alternative 4 , no water supply impacts would occur. (Draft EIR pages 6-33 through 6-49) Attainment of Project Objectives: Alternative 3 would fail to meet the f ollowing project objectives: Maintain and improve golf course playability and establish a new golf course routing plan that more closely follows the natural top ography of the project site, improve public views across the property from Hollister Avenue by undergrounding overhead utility lines and impl ementing other improvements, improve coastal access for the public in the vicinity of the project site. (Draft EIR, p. 6-68.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3: Revised Site Plan, on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet most of the Project objectives; and (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality (runoff and flooding), parks and recreation, and transportation (conflict with plans that encourage provision of alterna tive transportation).

4. Alternative D4: Proposed Project
278
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Description: The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing clubhouse; construction of a new, two -story clubhouse with basement; provision of additional parking spaces; modifications to and re-routing of the existing 18-hole golf course; landscaping and irrigation improvements; replacement of existing maintenance facilities; replacement of an existing comfort station; construction of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop adjacent to the historic Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station; adaptive reuse and restoration of the historic Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station to provide seating and bicycle amenities for the Rio Grande Coffee Shop; incorporation of the new clubhouse and comfort station into the Sphere of Influence area for the Goleta West Sanitary District (GWSD); right -of-way (ROW) vacation from the City; and improvements along Hollister Avenue, including revised entry points, a new public trail, undergrounding of electrical and utility lines, bus st ation relocation, and curb and sidewalk improvements. The Hollister Avenue improvements include construction of a Type 4 path along the Hollister Avenue ROW, which would extend westerly from the Rio Grande Coffee Shop to the proposed western clubhouse parking lot. The Type 4 path would offer views of the Pacific Ocean along the majority of the pathway, and would serve as a continuation of the De Anza Trail identified in the Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Open Space Element. (Draft EIR, pp. ES-2 through ES-5.) Impacts: Given the relative similarities between Alternative 4 and the proposed project, the proposed project is expected to result in a nominal increase in air quality, energy, greenhouse gases, land use, parks and recreation, and transportation, parks and recreation. (Draft EIR, p. 6-68.) Attainment of Project Objectives: The proposed project would not further the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policies related to vertical access and active transportation to the same extent as Alternative 4. While the proposed project would fulfill all the project objectives, it would not further Project Objective 1 to the same extent as Alternative 4 would. (Draft EIR, p. 6-68.) Finding: The Ci ty Council rejects the proposed project on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the proposed project would result in increased impacts relating to air quality, energy, greenhouse gases, land use, parks and recreation, transportation, parks and recreation; and (2) the proposed project would not fulfill the Project objectives to the same extent as Alternative 4.

E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed Project shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR.

The No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) would result in the fewest adverse environmental effects when compared to existing conditions because no renovation 279
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
activities would occur; therefore, the No Project Alternative woul d be considered environmentally superior. However, the No Project Alternative would not result in the benefits achieved by Alternative 4 to scenic quality (through undergrounding of the existing utility lines), historic resources (through renovation of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station), fire and seismic safety (through renovations to existing buildings), water and energy efficiency (through site-wide renovations), and wastewater leakage (through elimination of the existing septic systems). Additionally, the No Project Alternative would not fulfill any project objectives.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) provides that, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives would be Alternative 2 (Clubhouse Renovation). Due to Alternative 2’s reduced construction footprint and schedule, Alternative 2 would have less potential than Alternative 4, Alternative 3 (Revised Site Plan), and Alternative 4 (Extended Bicycle Path) to result in impacts related to aesthetics (light and glare), air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils (landslides, erosion, and paleontological resources), greenhouse gas emissions, noise, parks and recreation, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities (wastewater and solid waste). However, as Alternative 2 would exclude project features other than the new clubhouse, it would fail to meet the following project objectives:

1. Maintain and improve golf course playability and establish a new golf course routing plan that more closely follows the natural topography of the project site.

2. Reduce golf course turf area and replace with native and coastal appropriate landscaping to restore the golf course to a more natural state, thereby reducing water usage and agrichemical application.

4. Provide enhanced maintenance facilities to support Sandpiper Golf Club operations.

5. Rehabilitate, preserve, and adaptively reuse the historic Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station.

7. Improve public views across the property from Hollister Avenue by undergrounding overhead utility lines and implementing other improvements.

8. Improve coastal access for the public in the vicinity of the project site.

In addition, Alternative 2 would o nly partially meet the following project objectives as Alternative 2 would not include recreational improvements or the Rio Grande Coffee Shop and would only include removal of the septic system serving the existing clubhouse:

1. Provide improved recreational and dining facilities for golfers, diners, and special event attendees at the Sandpiper Golf Club.

2. Protect water quality and bluff stability by converting existing private septic systems to public sewers and utilizing sand capping to filter stormwater. 280
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____

Alternative 3 would result in slightly increased impacts to greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality (runoff and flooding), parks and recreation, and transportation (conflict with plans that encourage provision of alternative transportation), although impacts would remain less than significant. Alternative 3 would result in similar, or slightly reduced, impacts to all other issue areas. Additionally, Alternative 3 would fail to meet the following project objectives:

1. Maintain and improve golf course playability and establish a new golf course routing plan that more closely follows the natural topography of the project site.

7. Improve public views across the property from Hollister Avenue by undergrounding overhead utility lines and implementing other improvements.

8. Improve coastal access for the public in the vicinity of the project site.

Alternative 4 would result in slightly increased impacts to noise, as Alternative 4 would be closer to sensitive receptors and result in a nominal increase in construction noise in the vicinity of these receptors. Alternative 4 would result in reduced impacts to air quality, energy, greenhouse gases, land use, parks and recreation, and transportation through the encouragement of alternative transportation a nd corresponding reduction in automobile travel, which would in turn reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions being emitted. It would also result in reduced impacts to parks and recreation by facilitating greater access to the Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperling Preserve and the Pacific Ocean by allowing for a safe and wide path that connects users of the path to multiple vertical and lateral beach access points offsite, and increase access to recreational facilities. Alternative 4 would result in sim ilar, or slightly reduced, impacts to all other issue areas. Additionally, Alternative 4 would better support the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policies related to vertical access and the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policies relat ed to active transportation. Alternative 4 complies with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan whereas Alternative 4 does not. Alternative 4 would meet all project objectives. It would also further the following project objective to a greater exten t than Alternative 4 by providing lateral access along Hollister Avenue that would connect to multiple vertical access points that allow Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperling Preserve visitors access to the beach and lateral bluff access points located offs ite, and provide a safe and smooth surface wide enough to accommodate two directional flow of walking and alternative modes of transportation to multiple lateral and vertical access points off the project site:

1. Improve coastal access for the public in the vicinity of the project site. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-66 through 6-68.)

281
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit B
Sandpiper EIR Weblink: https://www.cityofgoleta.org/your-city/planning-and- environmental-review/ceqa-review/sandpiper-golf-course
282
ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit C
MMRP
283
Exhibit C to Attachment 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Project
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation Project
1 | P a g e

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course
Renovation and New Clubhouse Project
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project (proposed project) identifies mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires a public agency to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to a proposed development. As stated in California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6:
“…the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.”
Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during implementation of the proposed project, shall be defined as part of adopting a Final EIR.

The mitigation monitoring table below lists those mitigation measures that will be required as part of approval of the proposed project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The proposed project applicant will have the responsibility for implementing the measures, and the various City of Goleta departments will have the primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of th e mitigation measures. Implementation responsibilities are detailed in the table below. Parties who are involved in fulfilling the requirements of the mitigation measures herein include the applicant, the applicant’s project design engineer, the construction contractor, City staff, independent third parties contracted by the City and paid for by the applicant (e.g., qualified biologists, abatement contractors, qualified environmental professionals), the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, t he California Department of Public Health, and Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services.

284
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 2 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Pre-Construction Special-Status Plant Survey and Avoidance Prior to the start of construction activities, a City-approved, qualified biologist (retained by the project applicant) shall conduct a pre-construction special-status plant survey within 50-feet of the areas of proposed ground disturbance (including landscaping activities). The survey shall be conducted at the appropriate season, and in appropriate habitat, for identifying potentially occurring special-status plant species, including cliff malacothrix, woolly seablite, and Santa Barbara honeysuckle. The special-status plant survey shall be conducted in conformance with the California Native Plant Society Botanical Survey Guidelines (CNPS 2001), Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (CDFW 2018), and the USFWS’s General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines (Cypher 2002). Reference sites shall be visited to document if target species are detectable prior to the special-status plant survey. If special-status plant species are encountered within 50 feet of project activities, the qualified biologist shall flag a minimum 50-foot buffer around all known locations to avoid potential impacts to seed banks and microhabitats that support the species. The buffers shall be flagged for avoidance prior to the start of construction activities. Any habitat area supporting special-status plants shall be considered ESHA, and appropriate setbacks shall be established within which no construction activities may occur and no landscaping may occur that will result in removal of or harm to rare plants. If construction has not commenced within two years of the most recent plant survey, the special- status plant survey shall be repeated prior to the start of construction. The qualified biologist shall submit a summary of the survey results to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, for review and approval prior to initiation of construction activities, including landscaping activities.

If ground disturbing activities must occur within the established buffer, the topsoil (top 6 inches) in the disturbance areas shall be salvaged for any plant species with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1A to 2B. Salvaged topsoil shall be stored in temporary stockpiles and replaced in the same location following ground disturbance completion. If replacement in the same location is not feasible, the stockpiles shall be placed in the same vegetation community that currently supports the special-status plant species.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a City-approved, qualified biologist
to conduct the pre-construction special-
status plant survey.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Ensuring construction activities do not begin
until survey results are reviewed and
approved by the Planning and Environmental
Review Director (or designee).
 Incorporating any required avoidance buffers
and ESHA setbacks into grading and
landscaping plans.

The City-approved qualified biologist is
responsible for:
 Conducting the special-status plant survey in
accordance with CNPS (2001), CDFW (2018),
and USFWS (2002) guidelines during the
appropriate season and in suitable habitat.
 Visiting reference sites to confirm
detectability of target species prior to survey.
 Flagging and mapping any special-status plant
locations and establish appropriate
avoidance buffers.
 Preparing and submitting a survey summary
report to the Planning and Environmental
Review Director (or designee).

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving the survey report
prior to initiation of construction or
landscaping activities.
 Verifying that avoidance buffers and ESHA
setbacks are incorporated into grading and
landscaping plans.
 Conducting periodic site inspections to
confirm compliance with survey
recommendations.

The qualified biologist shall
conduct a pre-construction
special-status plant survey and
submit a summary of the pre-
construction special-status plant
survey results to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, within two years
prior to the start of construction
activities, including landscaping
activities. If special-status plant
species are detected, the
qualified biologist shall flag an
appropriate avoidance buffer
prior to Zoning Clearance for the
grading permit.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
survey results and keep the results on
file with the City. The City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, shall conduct
periodic spot checks to ensure that
construction does not occur within the
buffer during construction.

BIO-2: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Fencing and Protection Prior to initiation of construction activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to delineate all ESHA, aquatic resources, and required setbacks with temporary construction fencing and/or flagging and signage. The fencing shall serve as a visual boundary for construction personnel and be maintained throughout the duration of construction. The construction contractor shall ensure that construction personnel and equipment do not enter the setback areas during the duration of construction activities.

No non-native or invasive plant species that have a potential to displace or alter sensitive vegetation communities or vegetation communities supporting sensitive species shall be planted within ESHA or ESHA buffers. Areas protected under this measure shall include sensitive coastal sage scrub and coastal bluff scrub communities, riparian habitats associated The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a City-approved, qualified biologist
to delineate all ESHA, aquatic resources, and
required setbacks prior to construction.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Installing and maintaining temporary
construction fencing, flagging, and signage
throughout construction.

The project applicant shall retain
a qualified biologist to delineate
all ESHA and required setbacks
with temporary construction
fencing and/or flagging and
signage prior to the start of
construction activities.

The qualified biologist and construction
contractor shall provide evidence of
ESHA delineation and BMP installation
to the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, prior to the start of
construction. The City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, shall conduct
periodic spot checks to ensure that

285
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
with Devereux Creek, coastal wetlands, native grasslands, open water associated with the golf course pond, areas supporting special-status plant species, and aquatic resources. Unless otherwise authorized, the setbacks shall be as follows:
 Sensitive scrub communities: 25 feet
 Riparian vegetation: 100 feet unless otherwise authorized  Coastal wetlands: 100 feet
 Native grasslands: 10 feet
 Monarch roost: 100 feet
 Aquatic resources and open water: 100 feet unless otherwise authorized No grading, vehicles or heavy machinery, or construction shall be permitted with the setbacks, unless reduced setbacks are approved by the City for specific activities and locations. No grading, sand capping, vehicles, heavy machinery, or construction activities shall be permitted within any ESHA at any time, unless these activities are covered under compensatory mitigation described in Mitigation Measure BIO-11.
 Ensuring construction personnel and
equipment do not enter setback areas during
construction.
 Avoiding planting non-native or invasive
species within ESHA or ESHA buffers.

The City-approved qualified biologist is
responsible for:
 Identifying and delineating ESHA, aquatic
resources, and required setbacks in the field.
 Installing temporary fencing, flagging, and
signage to mark boundaries.
 Providing evidence of ESHA delineation and
BMP installation to the Planning and
Environmental Review Director (or designee).

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
 Reviewing documentation of ESHA
delineation and BMP installation prior to
construction start.
 Conducting periodic spot checks during
construction to ensure compliance with
setback requirements.
construction does not occur within the
buffer during construction.

BIO-3: Biological Monitoring and Worker Education
Prior to initiation of construction activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist familiar with special-status plant and wildlife species with the potential to occur in the project work area. The qualified biologist shall be present on-site daily during grading and vegetation removal. The monitor shall be responsible for the following:
 Ensure that procedures for verifying compliance with biological resource mitigation measures are followed.
 Lines of communication and reporting methods.
 Guiding the construction contractor in marking/flagging construction area limits.  Conducting construction crew Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training.  Authority to stop non-emergency work.
 Action to be taken in the event of non-compliance.
 Conducting daily wildlife clearance surveys prior to any grading, turf removal, other vegetation removal.
 Inspecting ESHA fencing around sensitive habitats.
 Preparing monitoring summaries of special-status species’ presence, or the lack thereof, on the project site during grading or vegetation removal.

All construction personnel shall attend a WEAP training conducted by the qualified biologist prior to commencement of construction activities. The construction contractor(s) shall be responsible for ensuring that all new personnel receive the training after construction is initiated. The WEAP shall include a description of a special-status species potentially present in the area, jurisdictional habitats present proximate to the Project site, information on sensitive habitats to be avoided, and specific measures that shall be implemented to protect special- status species. Special-status plant species addressed in the WEAP training shall include, at a minimum, cliff malacothrix, red sand verbena, Santa Barbara honeysuckle, Southern California black walnut, and woolly seablite. Species-status wildlife species addressed in the WEAP, at a minimum, shall include California red-legged frog, tidewater goby, monarch butterfly, Crotch’s bumble bee, Cooper’s hawk, southwestern pond turtle, yellow warbler, and white-tailed kite.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a qualified biologist familiar with
special-status plant and wildlife species prior
to initiation of construction activities.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Ensuring all construction personnel attend
WEAP training prior to commencement of
construction activities and that new
personnel receive training after construction
begins.
 Maintaining records of WEAP participation
and providing them to the City upon request.

The qualified biologist is responsible for:
 Conducting WEAP training for all construction
personnel, including information on special-
status species and sensitive habitats.
 Being present on-site daily during grading
and vegetation removal.
 Verifying compliance with biological resource
mitigation measures.
 Guiding the construction contractor in
marking/flagging construction area limits.
 Conducting daily wildlife clearance surveys
prior to grading or vegetation removal.
 Inspecting ESHA fencing around sensitive
habitats.

The qualified biologist shall be
present on-site daily during
grading and vegetation removal.

This measure shall be
incorporated into the grading
plans and the WEAP shall be
available on-site during
construction. The qualified
biologist shall submit a
monitoring summary to the City
of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director
within 30 days after completing
each phase of construction.

Records of construction worker WEAP
participation shall be kept on file with
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director for the
duration of construction. Monitoring
summaries shall be kept on file with
the City for the duration of
construction.

286
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 4 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 Preparing monitoring summaries
documenting special-status species presence
or absence during grading or vegetation
removal.
 Submitting monitoring summaries to the
Planning and Environmental Review Director
 Exercising authority to stop non-emergency
work in the event of non-compliance.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing monitoring summaries submitted
by the qualified biologist.
 Maintaining WEAP participation records and
monitoring summaries for the duration of
construction.
 Conducting periodic site inspections to verify
compliance with biological monitoring and
WEAP requirements.

BIO-4: General Best Management Practices
The construction contractor shall ensure that all construction personnel are informed of and adhere to the general requirements listed below prior to the start of construction activities.

This measure shall be incorporated into the construction plans, including demolition, grading, building, and landscaping plans. The project applicant shall submit the construction plans to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit. The City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall review and approve the construction plans to ensure the below measures are included.
 Best management practices, such as silt fending or straw wattles, shall be installed prior to conducting any project activity within 100 feet of any aquatic resource, including sand capping, grading, cart path construction, or bridge construction. Implementation of BMPs shall be consistent with any requirements from the approved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Project.
 Project-related vehicles shall observe a 5-mile-per-hour speed limit within the unpaved limits of construction.
 All open trenches shall be fenced and sloped to prevent entrapment of wildlife species.  All hollow posts and pipes shall be capped, and metal fence stakes shall be plugged with bolts or other plugging materials to prevent wildlife entrapment and mortality.  All food-related trash items such as wrappers, cans, bottles, and food scraps generated during proposed project construction shall be disposed of in closed containers and removed daily from the project site.
 No deliberate feeding of wildlife shall be allowed.
 No pets shall be allowed on the project site.
 No firearms shall be allowed on the project site.
 If vehicle or equipment maintenance is necessary, it shall be performed in the designated staging areas.
 During construction, heavy equipment shall be operated in accordance with standard BMPs. All equipment used on-site shall be properly maintained to avoid leaks of oil, fuel, or residues. The construction contractor shall prevent oil, petroleum products, or any other pollutants from contaminating the soil or entering a watercourse (dry or otherwise). When vehicles or equipment are stationary, mats or drip pans shall be placed below vehicles to contain fluid leaks. Provisions shall be in place to remediate any accidental spills.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Submitting construction plans (including
demolition, grading, building, and
landscaping plans) to the City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental Review Director,
or designee, prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading permit.
 Ensuring the construction plans incorporate
all general requirements listed in the
measure.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Ensuring all construction personnel are
informed of and adhere to the general
requirements prior to the start of
construction activities.
 Implementing and maintaining the
requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-5
during construction:

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving construction plans
prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance to
ensure all requirements are included.
 Conducting periodic site inspections to verify
compliance with BMPs and general
requirements during construction.

This measure shall be
incorporated into the
construction plans, including
demolition, grading, building,
and landscaping plans. The
project applicant shall submit
the construction plans to the
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, for review and
approval prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance for the grading
permit. The construction
contractor shall ensure that all
construction personnel are
informed of and adhere to the
general requirements listed
above prior to the start of
construction activities.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
construction plans to ensure this
measure is included.

287
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 Refueling of any equipment shall only occur in designated staging areas. Designated areas shall not be located near any storm drain inlets, drainage swales, or surface waterways.

When refueling gas powered equipment or mixing herbicide, workers shall refuel or mix over drip pan which is appropriately sized to catch any spillage. The designated refueling area shall be inspected frequently to ensure no spill of hazardous materials have occurred and could contaminate the ground or water. The construction contractor shall advise workers to clean and report spills immediately.
 Standard dust control measures shall be implemented to reduce impacts on nearby plants and wildlife. This includes a variety of options to reduce dust including replacing ground cover in disturbed areas as quickly as possible, watering active sites regularly, and suspending all excavating and grading operations during periods of high winds.

BIO-5: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Pre-construction Survey and Avoidance Should ground-disturbing activities, including grading, trenching, and vegetation removal such as grubbing, be scheduled to occur during the Crotch’s bumble bee colony active period (typically spring to late summer), a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment prior to ground-disturbing activities to identify areas containing suitable habitat for Crotch’s bumble bee. The habitat assessment shall be conducted in areas supporting suitable vegetation communities and land covers and shall focus on presence of suitable floral resources and potential nest sites, and shall be conducted within areas of proposed ground disturbance that meet the preceding criteria. The qualified biologist shall submit the habitat assessment results to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director for review and approval within five days of completing the habitat assessment.

Following completion of the habitat assessment, if suitable habitat is present, the qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee in the areas identified as suitable, using a methodology (including number of surveys, timing of surveys, suitable survey conditions, and time of day) accepted by CDFW. The pre-construction surveys shall be conducted prior to ground-disturbing activities. The qualified biologist shall submit the pre- construction survey results to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director for review and approval within five days of completing the pre-construction surveys.

If Crotch’s bumble bees are not detected during the pre-construction surveys but suitable habitat is present, a qualified biologist shall be present during ground-disturbing project activities that occur during the Crotch’s bumble bee colony active period, to ensure that no impacts occur to a previously unidentified Crotch’s bumble bee nest. No additional work restrictions with regard to Crotch’s bumble bee shall be implemented for the remainder of the colony active period. If Crotch’s bumble bees are detected, ground-disturbing activities shall be prohibited within 100 feet of any known, occupied Crotch’s bumble bee nest, or as determined by the qualified biologist, who shall demarcate the 100-foot buffer via flagging. Work shall not resume in this area for the duration of the Crotch’s bumble bee colony active period, unless the qualified biologist determines the nest is inactive, with concurrence from CDFW.

If Crotch’s bumble bee remains a State candidate species or is listed as endangered or threatened under the California Endangered Species Act, and should ground-disturbing activities in areas potentially supporting habitat extend into one or more subsequent years, the habitat assessment and, if necessary, the surveys, shall be repeated in areas where ground disturbance may occur that year. Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, should the California Fish and Game Commission remove the candidate status of Crotch’s bumble bee and determine the species shall not be listed, then no measures protecting Crotch’s bumble bee shall be required.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a qualified biologist prior to
initiation of ground-disturbing activities
scheduled during the Crotch’s bumble bee
colony active period (typically spring to late
summer).
 Ensuring that ground-disturbing activities do
not begin until habitat assessment and, if
necessary, pre-construction surveys are
completed and approved by the City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee).

The qualified biologist is responsible for:
 Conducting a habitat assessment prior to
ground-disturbing activities.
 Submitting habitat assessment results to the
Planning and Environmental Review Director
within five days of completion.

If suitable habitat is present, the qualified
biologist is responsible for:
 Conducting pre-construction surveys for
Crotch’s bumble bee using CDFW-accepted
methodology prior to ground-disturbing
activities.
 Submitting pre-construction survey results to
the Planning and Environmental Review
Director within five days of completion.

If Crotch’s bumble bee are detected, the
qualified biologist is responsible for:
 Demarcating a 100-foot buffer around any
known, occupied nest via flagging.
 Ensuring no ground-disturbing activities
occur within the buffer for the duration of
the colony active period unless the nest is
confirmed inactive with CDFW concurrence.

If Crotch’s bumble bees are not detected but
suitable habitat is present, the qualified
biologist is responsible for:

The qualified biologist shall
conduct a habitat assessment
prior to any ground-disturbing
activities during the Crotch’s
bumble bee colony active
period. Following the habitat
assessment, the qualified
biologist shall conduct pre-
construction surveys in the
identified suitable areas. If
Crotch’s bumble bees are
detected, prior to ground-
disturbing activities, the
qualified biologist shall
demarcate a 100-foot buffer for
any known, occupied nest via
flagging. If Crotch’s bumble bees
are not detected, a qualified
biologist shall be present during
ground-disturbing activities. The
qualified biologist shall submit
the habitat assessment results
and pre-construction survey
results to the City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental
Review Director, or designee,
prior to ground-disturbing
activities. The qualified biologist
shall submit monitoring results
to the City of Goleta’s Planning
and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, following
the completion of ground-
disturbing activities.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
habitat assessment results, pre-
construction survey results, and
monitoring results. The City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, shall conduct
periodic spot checks to ensure that
construction does not occur within the
buffer during construction.

288
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 6 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 Remaining on-site during ground-disturbing
activities occurring during the colony active
period to monitor for previously unidentified
nests.
 Preparing and submitting monitoring results
to the Planning and Environmental Review
Director following completion of ground-
disturbing activities.
 Repeating habitat assessment and surveys in
subsequent years if ground-disturbing
activities extend beyond one season and the
species remains a candidate or listed under
CESA.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Complying with flagged buffers established
by the qualified biologist.
 Ensuring no ground-disturbing activities
occur within the 100-foot buffer around
occupied nests unless authorized by the
qualified biologist and CDFW.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving habitat assessment
results, pre-construction survey results, and
monitoring reports prior to initiation of
ground-disturbing activities.
 Conducting periodic spot checks during
construction to ensure compliance with
buffer requirements and monitoring
protocols.

BIO-6: Monarch Butterfly Roost Protection
Construction activities (including grading and sand capping) within 200 feet of monarch butterfly ESHA shall be scheduled by the construction contractor to occur between April 1 and September 30 where feasible, to avoid overwintering monarch butterflies.

If construction activities within 200 feet of monarch butterfly ESHA cannot feasibly be scheduled to avoid the overwintering season, the project applicant shall ensure the following measures are implemented prior to construction activities:
 A monarch specialist or qualified biologist shall conduct a survey for roosting monarchs prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities, including vegetation removal, and confirm the absence of roosting monarchs before the work can commence. Roosting monarch surveys must follow the Xerces Society Protocol (2022). Surveys shall be conducted in the early morning while temperatures are low enough that monarch butterflies remain clustered from the evening before (usually when temperatures are below 13 °C or 55 °F).  Surveys shall be spaced sufficiently apart to capture roosting individuals during this timeframe and conducted during a time when monarchs are present at a local reference site as feasible. Depending on the observed monarch behavior, more than two site visits may be necessary to conclude the presence/absence of roosting monarchs throughout the season.
 During the overwintering season and during construction activities, roosting monarch surveys shall be conducted routinely to confirm continued absence or to identify, map, and describe roost locations if presence of roosting monarchs is confirmed. Mapped roosting The project applicant is responsible for:
 Scheduling construction activities within 200
feet of monarch butterfly ESHA to occur
between April 1 and September 30, where
feasible, to avoid overwintering monarch
butterflies.
 If construction cannot be scheduled outside
the overwintering season, retaining a
monarch specialist or qualified biologist prior
to construction activities.
 Ensuring survey results and monitoring
reports are submitted to the City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental Review Director
(or designee) within the required timeframes.

The monarch specialist or qualified biologist is
responsible for:
 Conducting pre-construction surveys for
roosting monarchs prior to ground-disturbing
activities, following Xerces Society Protocol
(2022).

If construction activities within
200 feet of monarch butterfly
ESHA cannot feasibly be
scheduled to avoid the
overwintering season, the
project applicant shall retain a
monarch specialist or qualified
biologist to conduct surveys for
roosting monarchs prior to the
start of construction activities.

The monarch specialist or
qualified biologist shall submit
survey results to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, within five days of
completing the pre-construction
survey. The monarch specialist
or qualified biologist shall
monitor ground-disturbing
activities, including vegetation
removal, during construction.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
survey and monitoring results.

289
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
locations may be adjusted as needed under the guidance of a monarch specialist or qualified biologist.
 Any construction activities within 200 ft of roosting monarchs within the monarch butterfly ESHA shall be prohibited (consistent with CE 4.5 and CE 4.6d).  A monarch specialist or qualified biologist shall be present during ground-disturbing activities, including vegetation removal, to document monarch butterfly protection. The monarch monitor shall document that roosting monarchs are not disturbed by ground- disturbing activities. The monarch monitor shall have authority to stop ground-disturbing activities if monarchs show signs of unnatural disturbance.  Submitting survey results to the Planning and
Environmental Review Director within five
days of completion.
 Conducting routine surveys during
construction to confirm continued absence or
identify and map roost locations if monarchs
are present.
 Monitoring ground-disturbing activities
within 200 feet of monarch butterfly ESHA
during construction to ensure monarchs are
not disturbed.
 Exercising authority to stop ground-
disturbing activities if monarchs show signs of
unnatural disturbance.
 Submitting monitoring results to the Planning
and Environmental Review Director following
completion of construction activities within
200 feet of monarch butterfly ESHA.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Complying with flagged buffers and
restrictions established by the monarch
specialist or qualified biologist.
 Ensuring no construction activities occur
within 200 feet of roosting monarchs.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving survey results and
monitoring reports submitted by the
monarch specialist or qualified biologist.
 Conducting periodic site inspections to verify
compliance with monarch butterfly
protection measures.

The monarch specialist or
qualified biologist shall submit
monitoring results to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director
following the completion of
construction activities within
200 feet of monarch butterfly
ESHA.

BIO-7: Implementation of Monarch Roost Protection Plan
The project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to prepare a Monarch Roost Protection Plan prior to the start of construction activities. The Monarch Roost Protection Plan shall include the following.
 Trees majorly impacted by construction, grading, and trenching of the project improvement elements within the monarch butterfly ESHA shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio within the ESHA and as close to the impacted tree as is reasonably feasible.  If understory vegetation that supports overwintering habitat is removed within monarch butterfly ESHA, as determined by a monarch specialist, the vegetation shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio as close to the removed vegetation as is feasible.  Grading or other activities that could alter the surface hydrology that sustains the groves of trees within monarch butterfly ESHA are prohibited within the ESHA buffer (50- or 100- feet depending on whether the site is transitory or overwintering habitat).

The qualified biologist shall submit the Monarch Roost Protection Plan to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, for review and approval prior to the start of construction activities. The construction contractor shall implement the Monarch Roost Protection Plan for the duration of construction.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a qualified biologist prior to the
start of construction activities to prepare a
Monarch Roost Protection Plan.
 Ensuring the construction contractor
implements the approved Monarch Roost
Protection Plan for the duration of
construction.

The qualified biologist is responsible for:
 Preparing the Monarch Roost Protection Plan
 Submitting the Monarch Roost Protection
Plan to the Planning and Environmental
Review Director (or designee) for review and
approval prior to Zoning Clearance for the
grading permit.

The construction contractor is responsible for:

The qualified biologist shall
prepare a Monarch Roost
Protection Plan, which shall be
submitted to the City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental
Review Director, or designee, for
review and approval prior to
Zoning Clearance for the grading
permit.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
Monarch Roost Protection Plan prior to
Zoning Clearance for the grading
permit.

290
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 8 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 Implementing the approved Monarch Roost
Protection Plan for the duration of
construction.
 Ensuring compliance with tree and
understory vegetation replacement
requirements and hydrology protection
measures outlined in the plan.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving the Monarch Roost
Protection Plan prior to Zoning Clearance for
the grading permit.
 Conducting periodic site inspections to verify
implementation of the Monarch Roost
Protection Plan during construction.

BIO-8: Tree Protection Measures
The construction contractor shall implement the following tree protection measures to ensure that impacts to mature native (protected) trees are minimized to the extent feasible or avoided, consistent with the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Policy CE 4 and CE 9, prior to the start of project construction. The following tree protection measures shall be included within the project construction plans, including the grading and landscaping plans. All measures below shall be conducted by or under the direct supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist retained by the project applicant:

Prior to Construction
 A certified arborist or qualified biologist under the supervision of the certified arborist shall monitor any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities that have a potential to impact protected trees.
 Temporary fencing such as snow fencing, not less than 3 feet high with tree protection signs shall be erected around all protected trees (or tree groups) to be preserved that have a potential to be impacted during construction. The protective fence shall be installed at the protected zone boundary of each tree (or tree group), which is defined as the critical root zone. The contractor shall maintain the fence to keep it upright, taut and aligned during active construction. Fencing shall be in place and inspected by a City approved biologist prior to the start of activities with the potential to impact protected trees. Fencing shall be removed only after all construction activities with the potential to impact protected trees are complete.
 A pre-construction meeting shall be held between all contractors (including grading, tree removal/pruning, builders, etc.) and the project arborist. The meeting shall focus on instructing the contractors on tree protection practices. All equipment operators and spotters, assistants, or those directing operators from the ground shall provide written acknowledgement of their receiving tree protection training. This training shall include information on the location and marking of protected trees, the necessity of preventing damage, and the discussion of work practices that will accomplish such.

Protection and Maintenance During Construction
 Contractors shall avoid heavy equipment operations, grade changes, ponding water, and fill or compaction within the protected tree zone unless where specifically approved and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist or qualified biologist in direct communication with the Certified Arborist.
 Contractors shall ensure that damage to the tree be avoided to the extent feasible when transporting or moving construction materials and working within or adjacent to the protected zone). If contact with the tree crown is unavoidable, affected branches may be pruned by a qualified arborist under supervision of a Certified Arborist and shall adhere to industry standards.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining an ISA Certified Arborist prior to
the start of construction activities.
 Submitting construction plans that include all
tree protection measures to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) for review and
approval prior to Zoning Clearance for the
grading permit.

The qualified biologist or ISA Certified Arborist is
responsible for:
 Monitoring any ground disturbance or
vegetation removal activities that could
impact protected trees.
 Supervising implementation of all tree
protection measures

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Implementing all tree protection measures
included in the approved construction plans.
 Ensuring compliance with fencing, irrigation,
trenching, and pruning requirements under
arborist supervision.
 Avoiding damage to protected trees during
material transport and construction activities.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving construction plans
to ensure tree protection measures are
included.
 Approving the ISA Certified Arborist prior to
Zoning Clearance for the grading permit.

The project applicant shall
submit the construction plans
that include the tree protection
measures to the City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental
Review Director for review and
approval prior to Zoning
Clearance for the grading
permit.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
construction plans to ensure this
measure is included. The City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental
Review Director, or designee, shall
approve the arborist prior to Zoning
Clearance for the grading permit.

291
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 Except where specifically approved in writing beforehand, all trenching shall be done outside of the fenced protected zone. Where trenching is necessary in areas that contain roots from retained trees, contractors should use trenching techniques that include the use of either a root pruner or an Air-Spade to limit root impacts. A Certified Arborist or qualified biologist in direct communication with the Certified Arborist shall ensure that all pruning cuts be clean and sharp to minimize ripping, tearing, and fracturing of the root system. Use of both root-pruning and Air-Spade equipment shall be accompanied only by hand tools to remove soil from trench locations. The trench should be made no deeper than necessary, and when possible, alternatives to trenching should be utilized.  The contractor shall be responsible for irrigating (deep watering) the trees in the summer and fall irrigation as necessary and determined by a Certified Arborist. One irrigation cycle shall thoroughly soak the root zones of the trees to a depth of two feet. The soil shall be allowed to dry out between watering to avoid keeping a consistently wet soil.. Soil moisture shall be checked with a soil probe before irrigating. The area within three feet of the trunk shall never be soaked, especially in summer months.  If any protected trees are damaged to the point where continued viability is threatened, as determined by a certified arborist, the tree shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with like species grown from locally obtained seed. Replacement shall occur on site as feasible, or off site (within the same watershed) if on site replacement is not feasible. Replacement trees shall be monitored for a period of 5 years.

Maintenance After Construction
 The contractors shall ensure that the mulch is kept a minimum one foot away from the trunk base and no more than 8 inches deep to avoid creating conditions favorable to the establishment and growth of decay-causing fungal pathogens.  Conducting periodic site inspections to verify
compliance with tree protection measures
during construction.

BIO-9: Preconstruction Semi-Aquatic Species Survey, Avoidance, and Relocation Prior to the start of construction activities, a qualified biologist (retained by the project applicant) shall conduct a pre-construction survey for semi-aquatic species (e.g., California red- legged frog, southwestern pond turtle) within areas of proposed ground disturbance. The survey shall be completed seven days prior to ground disturbance in dry conditions or 48 hours prior to ground disturbance in favorable conditions for upland amphibian migration (e.g., during or immediately after heavy rain events, heavy fog, or high humidity). The qualified biologist shall survey for California red-legged frog adhering to survey methods described in Revised Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for the California Red-legged Frog (USFWS 2005). Additionally, the qualified biologist shall survey for southwestern pond turtle adhering to the survey methods described in USGS Western Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata) Visual Survey Protocol for the Southcoast Ecoregion (United States Geological Survey 2006).

The qualified biologist shall submit a summary of the survey results to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, for review and approval prior to initiation of ground disturbance.

If a special status species is identified during construction, the construction contractor shall halt construction activities within 100 feet of the location and contact the qualified biologist. If identified during pre-construction surveys or during construction, individual special-status species in the work area shall be allowed to move out of the work area of their own volition. If special-status species are detected and do not move out of the work area, a Species Relocation and Exclusion Plan shall be prepared by the qualified biologist and submitted to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, for approval prior to relocation. The Species Relocation and Exclusion Plan shall specify that if relocation by humans is required, the animal shall be captured by a qualified biologist and relocated out of harm’s way to the nearest suitable habitat, a minimum of 100 feet from the project work area where it was found. Species listed as threatened or endangered (e.g., California red-legged frog) shall only be handled as authorized by United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The qualified biologist shall document observations of special-status species on California Natural Diversity Database forms and submit the documentation to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife upon project completion. If one or more special status semi-aquatic species are detected, surveys are required each day prior to construction activities until the species has moved out of the The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a qualified biologist prior to the
start of construction activities to conduct pre-
construction surveys for semi-aquatic species
(e.g., California red-legged frog,
southwestern pond turtle).
 Ensuring surveys are completed within the
required timeframe.
 Ensuring construction does not begin until
survey results are submitted to and approved
by the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director (or designee).

The qualified biologist is responsible for:
 Conducting pre-construction surveys using
approved protocols
 Submitting survey results to the Planning and
Environmental Review Director prior to
initiation of ground disturbance.
 Documenting observations on California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) forms
and submitting to CDFW upon project
completion.
 Conducting daily surveys prior to
construction activities until species have
moved or been relocated and construction is
cleared to resume.
 Preparing and submitting monitoring results
to the Planning and Environmental Review
Prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading
permit, the qualified biologist
shall submit a summary of the
survey results to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director.

If no special-status species are
found, grading activities can
commence and no further
reporting is required.

If species are detected and do
not move out of the work area, a
Species Relocation and Exclusion
Plan shall be prepared by the
qualified biologist and submitted
to the City of Goleta’s Planning
and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, for
approval prior to relocation and
commencing construction. If
construction ceases for more
than 30 days, a new special
status survey is required.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review any biological
survey, relocation, or exclusion reports
in consultation with CDFW or USFWS.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall conduct periodic site
inspections to verify compliance with
survey recommendations in the field.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall conduct periodic spot
checks to ensure that construction
does not occur within the buffer during
construction.

292
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 10 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
work area or the qualified biologist has determined that construction may resume.

Construction can commence when the semi-aquatic species moves or is relocated out of the work area and when approved by the qualified biologist. If construction ceases for more than 30 days, a new special status survey is required.

Director following completion of ground-
disturbing activities.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Halting construction activities within 100 feet
of any detected special-status species and
contacting the qualified biologist
immediately.
 Complying with all buffers and relocation
requirements established by the qualified
biologist.
 Ensuring no work resumes until clearance is
provided by the qualified biologist.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving pre-construction
survey results and any Species Relocation and
Exclusion Plan prior to initiation of ground
disturbance or relocation activities.
 Reviewing monitoring results and
maintaining documentation for the duration
of construction.
 Conducting periodic site inspections to verify
compliance with species protection
measures.

BIO-10: Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance disturbance outside the bird and raptor breeding season, which is typically February 1 through September 1 but can vary based on local and annual climatic conditions. If construction begins within the breeding season, then not more than seven days before demolition, ground disturbance, and/or vegetation removal commences, a bird and raptor preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a City-approved biologist (retained by the project applicant) within the disturbance footprint, plus a 300-foot buffer. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of bird species known to occur in southern California.

The City-approved biologist shall conduct the preconstruction nesting bird and raptor surveys during the time of day when bird species are active and for a sufficient duration to reliably conclude presence/absence of nesting birds and raptors within the 300-foot buffer. The City- approved biologist shall submit a summary of the nesting bird and raptor survey results to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee. Survey conclusions shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, prior to initiation of construction. If no bird nests are observed no further mitigation is required.

If an active nest of species protected by the California Fish and Game Code (§ 3503) or Migratory Bird Treaty Act are found within 300 feet of the disturbance footprint, the City- approved biologist shall flag their locations and map their locations on an aerial photograph of the disturbance footprint at a scale no less than 1”=200’ and/or recorded with the use of a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit. If active raptor nests are detected, the map shall include topographic lines, parcel boundaries, adjacent roads, known historical nests for protected nesting species, and known roosting or foraging areas, as required by the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Policy CE 8.3. The buffer shall be 300 feet in compliance with the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Policy CE 8.4. If the 300-foot buffer is infeasible, the City-approved biologist may reduce the buffer distance as appropriate, depending upon the species and the proposed work activities. If any active non-raptor bird nests are found, the City-approved biologist shall establish a suitable buffer area (varying from The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a City-approved biologist prior to
initiation of construction activities during the
bird and raptor breeding season.
 Ensuring construction does not begin until
pre-construction survey results are submitted
to and approved by the City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental Review Director
(or designee).
 Funding a City-contracted biological monitor
if work within an active nest buffer is
necessary.

The qualified biologist is responsible for:
 Conducting a pre-construction nesting bird
and raptor survey no more than seven days
prior to demolition, grading, vegetation
removal, or other ground-disturbing activities
during the breeding season.
 Surveying the disturbance footprint plus a
300-foot buffer, during times when birds are
active, and for sufficient duration to confirm
presence/absence of nests.
 Submitting a summary of survey results to
the Planning and Environmental Review
The survey shall be conducted
no more than seven (7) days
prior to commencement of any
demolition, grading, and/or
vegetation removal activities.

Survey conclusions shall be
reviewed and approved by the
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, prior to the
commencement of construction
activities that could disturb
suitable nesting habitat, such as
demolition, grading, and/or
vegetation removal. This
measure, and any buffer
requirements, shall be
incorporated into the grading
plans.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review any biological
survey reports and conduct periodic
site inspections to verify compliance
with survey recommendations in the
field. The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall conduct periodic spot
checks to ensure that construction
does not occur within the buffer during
construction.

293
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
25 to 300 feet), depending on the species. The construction contractor shall ensure that no ground disturbance occurs within the buffer until the City-approved biologist confirms that the breeding/nesting is completed and all the young have fledged, and removes the buffer. If work within the buffer is necessary, a City-contracted biological monitor (funded by the project applicant) shall monitor the active nest full-time during construction activities within the buffer to ensure project activities are not indirectly impacting protected nesting birds and raptors. If work ceases for more than 30 days, a new nesting bird survey shall be conducted in accordance with this measure.

Director (or designee) for review and
approval prior to construction.
 Flagging and mapping nest locations, and
establishing buffers, if required.
 Confirming when nesting is complete and
young have fledged before removing buffers.
 Monitoring active nests full-time if work
within a buffer is necessary, ensuring no
indirect impacts occur.
 Conducting a new nesting bird survey if work
ceases for more than 30 days.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Ensuring no ground disturbance occurs within
established buffers until cleared by the City-
approved biologist.
 Coordinating with the biologist and City if
work within a buffer is unavoidable.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving survey reports prior
to construction.
 Verifying buffer requirements are
incorporated into grading plans.
 Conducting periodic site inspections to
confirm compliance with survey
recommendations and buffer protections.

BIO-11: Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts on Sensitive Communities and Riparian Habitat Onsite mitigation shall be provided to compensate for the permanent loss of arroyo willow thickets/riparian habitat (0.002 acre) at a ratio of 5:1. Temporary impacts to arroyo willow thickets/riparian habitat (0.005 acre), eucalyptus woodland/riparian habitat (0.04 acre), and non-wetland waters of the United States and State (0.002 acre) shall be restored at a 1:1 ratio.

Details of the mitigation program requirements shall be described in a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Program (HMMP). A qualified biologist, retained by the project applicant, shall prepare the HMMP.

Final landscape plans for the project shall not include removal of sensitive vegetation or aquatic resources in areas for landscaping purposes only (where no construction ground disturbances, including grading, trenching, excavation for bioretention basins or other drainage or utility features, is proposed).

Requirements described in the HMMP shall include:
 Specification that mitigation shall be on-site and shall occur adjacent, or as near as possible, to any removed habitat area. Mitigation for loss of arroyo willow/riparian habitat associated with Devereux Creek shall occur only along Devereux Creek, and near the area of impacts to the extent possible.
 Mitigation for the loss of riparian habitat and non-wetland waters of the United States and State shall conform with any requirements included within a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement provided by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a Clean Water Act 401 Certification issued by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, or USACE Clean Water Act Section 404 permit.
 The mitigation program shall conform with all requirements of the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan and the City of Goleta Creeks and Watershed Management Plan.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a qualified biologist prior to
initiation of construction activities to prepare
an HMMP.
 Ensuring final landscape plans do not include
removal of sensitive vegetation or aquatic
resources for landscaping purposes only.

The qualified biologist is responsible for:
 Preparing the HMMP.
 Submitting the HMMP to the Planning and
Environmental Review Director for approval
prior to construction.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Implementing all restoration and mitigation
measures described in the approved HMMP
during and after construction.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving the HMMP prior to
initiation of construction activities.

The project applicant shall retain
a qualified biologist to prepare
an HMMP prior to Zoning
Clearance for the grading
permit. The qualified biologist
shall submit the HMMP to the
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, for review and
approval prior to Zoning
Clearance for the grading
permit.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
HMMP prior to the start of
construction activities. The City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental
Review Director, or designee, shall
ensure compliance with the onsite
mitigation requirements and monitor
the restoration efforts throughout the
5-year monitoring period.

294
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 12 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 Specification of a 5-year monitoring period for all restoration areas.  Development of a plant palate for each restoration area (arroyo willow thicket/riparian, eucalyptus woodland, non-wetland waters of the United States and State) in keeping with the character and plant composition of the native community being restored.  Restoration for temporary impacts within monarch butterfly winter roosting habitat shall conform with requirements of the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan.  Defined attainable and measurable goals and objectives to be achieved through implementation of the HMMP.
 A restoration work plan that details methodologies, a restoration schedule, plant materials (seed), and implementation strategies. Performance standards for the restoration work plan shall include achievement of vegetation cover, species diversity, and soil stability standards.
 A detailed maintenance plan to include removal of invasive non-native species.  A monitoring plan that includes methods and analysis of results, goals for success or failure, and an adaptive management plan and suggestions for failed restoration efforts.  Restoration activities using native species from locally collected stock.

The qualified biologist shall submit the HMPP to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, for review and approval prior to initiation of construction activities.
 Conducting periodic site inspections to verify
implementation of HMMP requirements
during construction and restoration phases.

Cultural Resources
CUL-1: Architectural Monitoring for Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station The project applicant shall retain a Secretary of Interior’s Professionally Qualified architectural historian and/or the City’s Urban Historian (qualified historian) to ensure the project implementation utilizes the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and guidelines from the National Park Service including:
 Preservation Brief #9, The Repair of Historic Wood Windows  Preservation Brief #10, Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork  Preservation Brief #32, The Preservation and Repair of Historic Stuccowork  Preservation Brief #45, Preserving Historic Wood Porches The project applicant shall provide proof of retainment of the qualified historian to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance for the building permit for the renovation of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station. The requirement shall be referenced in the construction plans for the Rio Grande Coffee Shop intended for use by the construction contractor(s).

Prior to the start of renovation of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, the qualified historian shall review the replacements, materials, finishes, designs, colors, textures, and other visual qualities for consistency with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. During renovation of the Barnsdall Grande Gas Station, the qualified historian shall conduct weekly spot checks to monitor construction progress for consistency with the Standards for Rehabilitation. Monitoring may be increased or reduced as deemed necessary by the qualified historian with approval by the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee. The qualified historian shall have the authority to halt work if inconsistent with the Standards for Rehabilitation and develop a plan to revise the work for consistency with the Standards for Rehabilitation in consultation with the City and contractor(s).

Throughout the renovation of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, the qualified historian shall submit a weekly update to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director to document compliance. The update shall include date of monitoring, project progress, compliance or non-compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation, and necessary actions to ensure compliance with the Standards for Rehabilitation.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a Secretary of Interior’s
Professionally Qualified architectural
historian and/or the City’s Urban Historian
(qualified historian) prior to renovation of the
Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station.
 Providing proof of retainment of the qualified
historian to the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director (or designee).
 Including Mitigation Measure CUL-1 in the
construction plans for the Rio Grande Coffee
Shop intended for use by the construction
contractor(s).

The qualified historian is responsible for:
 Ensuring project implementation follows the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation and National Park Service
guidelines.
 Reviewing replacements, materials, finishes,
designs, colors, textures, and other visual
qualities prior to the start of renovation for
consistency with the Standards for
Rehabilitation.
 Conducting weekly spot checks during
renovation to monitor compliance with the
Standards for Rehabilitation (frequency may
be adjusted with City approval).
 Exercising authority to halt work if
inconsistencies are identified and developing
a corrective plan in consultation with the City
and contractor(s).

Prior to renovation of the
Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas
Station, the project applicant
shall retain a qualified historian.

The qualified historian shall
review project plans for
replacements, materials,
finishes, designs, colors,
textures, and other visual
qualities for consistency with the
Secretary of Interior’s Standards
for Rehabilitation prior to and
during renovation of the
Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas
Station. Proof of retainment
shall be provided to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director
prior to the issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the building permit
for the renovation of the
Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas
Station.

Throughout the renovation of the
Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, the
qualified historian shall submit a
weekly update to the City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental Review
Director to document compliance. The
update shall include date of
monitoring, project progress, and
compliance or non-compliance with
the Standards for Rehabilitation, and
necessary actions to ensure
compliance with the Standards for
Rehabilitation. The City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, shall review the
weekly updates.

295
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 13 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 Submitting weekly compliance updates to the
Planning and Environmental Review Director,

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Implementing the approved construction
plans and adhering to the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and
guidance provided by the qualified historian.
 Cooperating with the qualified historian
during weekly spot checks and any corrective
actions.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing proof of historian retainment prior
to Zoning Clearance for the building permit.
 Reviewing weekly compliance updates
submitted by the qualified historian.
 Approving any adjustments to monitoring
frequency as recommended by the qualified
historian.

CUL-2: Archaeological Monitoring
Prior to ground disturbance activities, the project applicant shall retain an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (qualified archaeologist) and has experience in California prehistoric and historic resources (experience within City of Goleta or Santa Barbara County preferred). The project applicant shall provide proof of retainment of the qualified archaeologist to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit. The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Plan), conduct archaeological monitoring, and address any inadvertent discoveries identified during project implementation (refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-4). The City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall review and approve the Plan prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit.

The Plan shall outline archaeological and Native American resource monitoring protocols, as well as a program for treatment and mitigation in the case of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources during project-related ground-disturbance. The Plan shall also provide for the proper identification, evaluation, treatment, and protection of any cultural resources in accordance with CEQA throughout the duration of the project. The Plan shall be incorporated and referenced in all grading and construction plans intended for use by the construction contractor(s).

The qualified archaeologist shall manage archaeological monitoring during initial ground disturbance activities, defined as construction-related earth moving of sediments from their place of deposition. This definition excludes movement of sediments after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by project-related construction. The qualified archaeologist shall oversee and establish monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter cultural deposits or material. The qualified archaeologist shall ensure all daily monitoring logs are maintained. The requirement for archaeological monitoring shall be noted on all demolition and grading plans. The qualified archaeologist shall prepare an archaeological monitoring report within 60 days following completion of ground disturbance, and shall submit the archaeological monitoring report to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, for review. The archaeological monitoring report shall document compliance with approved cultural resource mitigation measures, include all monitoring efforts, and include an appendix with the daily monitoring logs. The qualified archaeological The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a qualified archaeologist.
 Providing proof of retainment of the qualified
archaeologist to the City of Goleta’s Planning
and Environmental Review Director (or
designee) prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading permit.
 Ensuring the Plan is incorporated and
referenced in all grading and construction
plans intended for use by the construction
contractor(s).

The qualified archaeologist is responsible for:
 Preparing the Plan.
 Submitting the Plan to the Planning and
Environmental Review Director (or designee)
for review and approval prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance for the grading permit.
 Managing archaeological monitoring during
initial ground disturbance activities.
 Adjusting monitoring frequency based on
observed potential for encountering cultural
deposits.
 Maintaining daily monitoring logs.
 Preparing an archaeological monitoring
report within 60 days following completion of
ground disturbance.
 Submitting the final archaeological
monitoring report the City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental Review Director
Prior to ground disturbance, the
project applicant shall retain a
qualified archaeologist. The
qualified archaeologist shall
create a Plan, conduct
monitoring, and address any
discoveries during project
construction. Proof of
retainment shall be provided to
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director
prior to the issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading
permit. The Plan shall outline
monitoring protocols and
treatment for any discovered
cultural resources, ensuring
compliance with CEQA. The Plan
shall be referenced in all grading
and construction plans. The City
of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, shall review and
approve the Plan prior to the
issuance of Zoning Clearance for
the grading permit.

The qualified archaeologist shall
manage monitoring during initial
ground disturbance, adjusting efforts
based on the potential to encounter
cultural deposits. Daily monitoring logs
shall be maintained. The qualified
archaeologist shall prepare an
archaeological monitoring report,
documenting compliance and
monitoring efforts, and shall submit
the archaeological monitoring report to
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, for review, within 60 days
following completion of ground
disturbance. The qualified
archaeological shall submit the final
archaeological monitoring report to the
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director and the
Central Coast Information Center.

296
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 14
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
shall submit the final archaeological monitoring report to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director and the Central Coast Information Center. (or designee) and the Central Coast
Information Center.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Implementing all requirements of the
approved Plan.
 Cooperating with the qualified archaeologist
during monitoring and any necessary
adjustments to construction activities.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving the Cultural
Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent
Discovery Plan prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading permit.
 Reviewing the archaeological monitoring
report upon completion of ground
disturbance.
 Conducting periodic site inspections to verify
compliance with archaeological monitoring
requirements.

CUL-3: Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Training All construction personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding unanticipated discoveries of archaeological resources prior to the start of construction activities. A basic presentation shall be prepared and presented by the qualified archaeologist, or their designee, to inform all construction personnel working on the project about the archaeological sensitivity of the area. The purpose of the WEAP training is to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event archaeological resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the qualified archaeologist and if appropriate, Native American representative. If new construction personnel are added to the project, the crew foreman shall ensure the new personnel receive the WEAP training before starting work. The necessity of training attendance shall be stated on all demolition, grading, or construction plans and the project applicant shall maintain records demonstrating construction worker WEAP participation. The project applicant shall submit the records of construction worker WEAP participation to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director prior to construction activities and as- needed after the addition of new personnel.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a qualified archaeologist (or their
designee) to conduct WEAP training for all
construction personnel and monitors who are
not trained archaeologists prior to the start
of construction activities.
 Maintaining records of WEAP participation
and submitting these records to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) prior to construction
activities and as needed when new personnel
are added.
 Ensuring the necessity of WEAP training
attendance is stated on all demolition,
grading, and construction plans.

The qualified archaeologist (or designee) is
responsible for:
 Preparing and presenting a basic WEAP
training presentation.
 Conducting WEAP training for all construction
personnel prior to the start of work and for
any new personnel added during
construction.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Ensuring all construction personnel attend
WEAP training prior to starting work.

This measure shall be
incorporated into the grading,
demolition, and construction
plans and the WEAP shall be
provided on-site prior to and as-
needed during construction.

Records of construction worker WEAP
participation shall be kept on file with
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director for the
duration of construction.
297
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 15 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 Ensuring new personnel receive WEAP
training before beginning work on the
project.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and maintaining records of WEAP
participation for the duration of construction.
 Verifying that WEAP training requirements
are incorporated into demolition, grading,
and construction plans.

CUL-4: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
If unanticipated cultural resources are discovered during project-related ground disturbance activities, the following procedures shall be implemented:
 In the event that archaeological resources are unexpectedly encountered during ground- disturbing activities, the construction contractor(s) shall halt work within 50 feet of the find and contact the qualified archaeologist. The qualified archaeologist retained pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-2 shall immediately evaluate the resource.  If the resource is determined to be potentially significant, then the qualified archaeologist, project applicant, Native American monitor (if resources are Native American in origin), and City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall meet to discuss the significance of the find. At the meeting, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence by the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource.
 Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resource(s) shall be consistent with the Plan prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-2. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils, and/or re-burial within the immediate vicinity so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity. If avoidance is infeasible, then treatment shall be implemented pursuant to the Plan. The City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall make the final determination based on the provisions of CEQA with respect to archaeological resources and recommendations of the qualified archaeologist.
 Further ground disturbance, including but not limited to grading and trenching, shall not resume within the area of the discovery until the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, has determined the appropriate mitigation has been implemented pursuant to the Plan and the qualified archaeologist has notified the construction contractor(s) to resume work. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the 50-foot buffer area and shall be monitored by additional archaeological monitors, if necessary.
 If the resource proves to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources and significant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources related to the resource. The City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate. The qualified archaeologist shall submit the resulting documentation to the regional repository of the California Historical Resources Information System pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Ensuring the construction contractor and
qualified archaeologist retained under
Mitigation Measure CUL-2 are available to
respond to any inadvertent discoveries
during ground-disturbing activities.
 Coordinating with the qualified archaeologist,
Native American monitor (if applicable), and
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director (or designee)
to determine appropriate treatment
measures if cultural resources are discovered.

The qualified archaeologist is responsible for:
 Immediately evaluating any archaeological
resource encountered during ground-
disturbing activities within 50 feet of the find.
 If the resource is potentially significant,
following the protocol outlined in Mitigation
Measure CUL-4
 Providing evidence of compliance with this
measure to the Planning and Environmental
Review Director and CHRIS upon completion
of treatment or data recovery.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Halting work within 50 feet of any discovered
resource and contacting the qualified
archaeologist immediately.
 Ensuring no ground disturbance resumes
within the discovery area until the Planning
and Environmental Review Director
determines appropriate mitigation has been
implemented, and the qualified archaeologist
authorizes resumption of work.
 Continuing work outside the 50-foot buffer,
with additional archaeological monitors if
required.

If unanticipated cultural
resources are discovered during
ground disturbance, the
construction contractor(s) shall
halt work within 50 feet of the
find and contact the qualified
archaeologist. The qualified
archaeologist shall evaluate the
resource immediately. If the
resource is potentially
significant, the qualified
archaeologist, project applicant,
Native American monitor (if
applicable), and City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental
Review Director, or designee,
shall meet to decide on
appropriate mitigation.

Treatment and avoidance shall
follow the Plan from Mitigation
Measure CUL-2. The City of
Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, shall make the final
determination based on CEQA
provisions. Ground disturbance
shall not resume in the area until
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, has verified that
mitigation is implemented. Work
outside the 50-foot buffer shall
continue with additional
monitoring if necessary.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
data recovery plan (if applicable). The
qualified archaeologist shall submit
documentation to the California
Historical Resources Information
System. The qualified archaeologist
shall provide evidence of compliance to
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director and the
California Historical Resources
Information System upon completion.

298
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 16 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 The qualified archaeologist shall provide evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director and the appropriate California Historical Resources Information System Information Center upon completion of the data recovery plan detailing the significance of the resource and treatment findings.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving treatment
measures or data recovery plans for
discovered cultural resources.
 Making the final determination on mitigation
measures based on CEQA provisions and
archaeologist recommendations.
 Authorizing resumption of work within the
discovery area once mitigation is complete.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1: Geotechnical Design
The applicant’s project design engineer shall incorporate the recommendations listed below from the Site-Specific Hazards Study and Preliminary Foundation Investigation (Appendix F-1), Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Club House (Appendix F-2), and the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Comfort Station (Appendix F-3) into the project’s grading and building plans. The applicant shall submit the grading and building plans to the Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the grading and building permits for the project. The applicant shall also retain a licensed geotechnical professional approved by the Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee prior to the start of construction. The licensed geotechnical professional shall be responsible for ensuring proper implementation of the recommendations below and providing a report to the Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee certifying the recommendations below have been incorporated into project design and throughout construction prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy.

Grading (General)
The area to be graded shall be cleared of surface vegetation, including roots and root structures.

If, during the removal and scarification process, excessive root structures are encountered, these areas shall be deep ripped in two directions to the depth of the root structure, after which the disturbed soils and the roots shall be completely removed, and the resulting cavities shall be scarified and processed to receive fill in accordance with recommendations contained in this section.

If, during the grading operations, previously placed undocumented fill material is encountered, this fill material shall be removed under the direction of the project design engineer prior to commencement of the filling operations.

Removed surface soils and/or imported approved fill will be placed in loose lifts of approximately 6 inches, thoroughly mixed, moistened or dried to near optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction.

Rocks greater than 6 inches in size shall be removed from the soil being spread for compaction.

Import soils, if required for compacted fill, shall be granular, non-expansive soils which are equal to, or superior in quality to, the on-site soils as determined by the project design engineer prior to importation of the fill material to the site.

The compaction standard shall be the latest adoption of the ASTM D-1557 method of compaction.

Positive surface drainage shall direct water away from all slopes and away from the foundation system of the proposed structure.

Grading (Clubhouse)
In areas where compacted fill soil is to be placed, the area to receive the fill soil shall be prepared. In the area to be prepared, the loose topsoil and compressible surface soils shall be removed and observed by the project design engineer. Upon approval of excavation, The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a licensed geotechnical
professional (approved by the Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or designee)
prior to the start of construction to oversee
implementation of all geotechnical
recommendations and certify incorporation
into design and construction.
 Submitting grading and building plans
(Clubhouse, Comfort Station, and Rio Grande
Coffee Shop) that incorporate all
recommendations listed in Mitigation
Measure GEO-1.
 Ensuring the licensed geotechnical
professional provides a certification report to
the Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy, confirming
recommendations were implemented in
design and throughout construction.

The project design engineer is responsible for:
 Incorporating all geotechnical
recommendations into the grading,
foundation, pavement, and retaining wall
plans for each project element (Clubhouse,
Comfort Station, and Rio Grande Coffee
Shop).

The licensed geotechnical engineer is
responsible for:
 Overseeing implementation of all
recommendations during grading,
foundations, pavement, and retaining wall
construction.
 Inspecting footing excavations prior to
placement of reinforcing steel and forms.
 Advising on backfill compaction methods,
especially within sensitive wedges (1:1
zones), and issuing modified compaction
recommendations immediately if wall
rotation or instability is observed.

Grading and building plans shall
be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning and
Environmental Review Director
or designee before the City
issues a Zoning Clearance for the
grading and building permits.

The Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee
shall approve the licensed
geotechnical professional prior
to the start of construction. The
licensed geotechnical
professional shall submit the
report to the Planning and
Environmental Review Director
or designee certifying the
recommendations have been
incorporated prior to the
issuance of a certification of
occupancy.

Once during the grading phase of
construction, the Planning and
Environmental Review Director or
designee shall visit the project site to
confirm with the licensed geotechnical
professional that the construction
contractor is implementing the
applicable geotechnical
recommendations.

299
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 17 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
the exposed ground surface shall be scarified an additional 6 to 8 inches, moistened or dried to near the optimum moisture content, and compacted to 90 percent of the relative compaction.

The footings of the proposed structures shall be supported completely on firm undisturbed original ground. The structures shall not be supported over a cut/fill transition unless the foundation is engineered to account for the transition.

All fill slopes which are created during the grading operation shall be properly shaped to a maximum slope angle of 2 horizontal to 1 vertical, and compacted by rolling the sheepsfoot roller or similar compaction equipment over the slope face at vertical lift intervals of 30 inches or less.

Grading (Comfort Station)
The footings of the proposed structures shall be supported completely by a uniform thickness of non-expansive compacted soil. The structures shall not be supported over a cut/fill transition.

Beneath the proposed structures and for a minimum distance of 5 feet beyond the exterior perimeters, the loose topsoil and compressible surface soils shall be removed and observed by a representative of our firm. Upon approval of excavation, the exposed ground surface shall be scarified an additional 6 to 8 inches, moistened or dried to near the optimum moisture content, and compacted to 90 percent of the relative compaction. The minimum depth of removal shall be at least 12 inches below the bottom of the proposed footings.

Grading (Rio Grande Coffee Shop)
It should be noted gas tanks that were buried on the property have been removed and the resulting void was backfilled with an imported yellow sand. If these backfilled areas are located below the proposed structures, backfill soil shall be removed and replaced at 95 percent compaction.

The footings of the proposed structures shall either be supported completely by a uniform thickness of non-expansive compacted fill or the foundations shall be designed to penetrate the fill and compressible topsoil such that the structure is supported either completely over fill or completely on firm original ground. The structures shall not be supported over a cut/fill transition unless the foundation is engineered to account for the transition.

Beneath the proposed structures and for a minimum distance of 5 feet beyond the exterior perimeters, the loose topsoil and compressible surface soils shall be removed and observed by the project design engineer. Upon approval of excavation, the exposed ground surface shall be scarified an additional 6 to 8 inches, moistened or dried to near the optimum moisture content, and compacted to 90 percent of the relative compaction. The minimum depth of removal shall be at least 12 inches below the bottom of the proposed footings.

Foundations (General)
All footings shall contain a minimum of two No. 4 horizontal rebar; one placed in the base and one in the stem of the footing. The project design engineer shall specify the foundation steel reinforcement.

Concrete slab-on-grade floors shall be placed over a subgrade soil conforming to the Grading recommendations of this mitigation measure.

As a minimum, concrete slabs on grade shall be a full 4 inches thick and shall contain No. 3 rebar spaced 24 inches on center each way. The steel reinforcement shall be placed near the center of the slab. Concrete slabs on grade shall be doweled into all adjacent footings using No. 3 rebar spaced 24 inches on center. The traditional or conventional subgrade preparation below a concrete slab-on-grade floor is some variation of the following: A minimum 4- inch coarse, washed concrete sand layer is placed over the soil subgrade. A 10- mil or heavier impervious membrane is placed over the sand layer. These concrete slab-on- grade and sand layer recommendations shall be modified and/or eliminated as needed by the designers for surcharge loads, wheel loads, concentrated loads, or for moisture control.

The floor covering supplier or manufacturer will be contacted for their specifications for  Performing/overseeing R-Value testing (if
asphalt pavement selected) to size base and
asphalt thicknesses.
 Providing a certification report to the
Planning and Environmental Review Director
(or designee) prior to certificate of
occupancy, confirming full compliance with
the recommendations.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Implementing all grading, foundation,
pavement, and retaining wall measures in the
approved plans

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving grading and
building plans for conformance with
Mitigation Measure GEO-1 prior to issuance
of Zoning Clearance for the grading and
building permits.
 Approving the licensed geotechnical
professional prior to construction start.
 Receiving and reviewing the geotechnical
certification report prior to certificate of
occupancy.
 Conducting periodic site inspections to verify
implementation of geotechnical
recommendations during construction.

300
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 18 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
design features, which will result in a successful bond between the concrete slab and floor covering. Floor flatness and shrinkage crack control must be addressed by a competent contractor experienced in the skill of concrete placement. The owners or their agents shall inform those designing, building, and installing the concrete slab on grade and flooring of the performance and aesthetics expected.

The licensed geotechnical engineer shall be requested to inspect the footing excavation prior to placement of reinforcing steel and timber form boards.

Floor elevations located lower than the surrounding exterior grades are recommended to be protected from moisture intrusion. The project design engineer shall consider installation of features, such as waterproofing and French drains.

Foundations (Clubhouse)
These recommendations assume the undisturbed native soil will support the proposed footings. If the final graded conditions positions part of the building over the compacted fill soil, extended footings and/or a pile and grade beam foundation may be required over the fill sections. The footing depth below the lowest adjacent grade shall be minimum of 24 inches. The soil encountered at this depth must be firm, non-porous, undisturbed native soil and the footing excavation must penetrate at least 12 inches into the firm soil. An allowable soil bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot may be assumed for the 24 inch deep footing described above with a one-third increase for wind or seismic forces.

Specification No. 1 shall apply at the basement foundation elevation and at the basement level a 20% increase in allowable soil bearing is allowed for each additional 6 inches of depth below the lowest adjacent grade, up to maximum allowable soil bearing value of 3,000 pounds per square foot.

Isolated piers may be utilized and shall extend a minimum of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent ground surface.

If footings are to be located on, adjacent to, or within 10 feet of the top of a slope, these footings shall extend to such a depth so that the horizontal distance between the bottom outside edge of the footing and the face of the adjacent slope is a minimum distance of 10 feet The slope setback required by the CBC, Figure 1808.7.1, shall also apply.

Foundations (Comfort Station)
These recommendations assume a uniform thickness of compacted soil will support the proposed footings.

Isolated piers may be utilized and shall extend a minimum of 18 inches below compacted ground surface.

Based upon compliance with these recommendations, an allowable soil bearing value for compacted soil of 1,500 pounds per square foot for 12-inch-deep footings and 2,000 pounds per square foot for 18-inch-deep footings, with a one-third increase when considering wind or seismic forces, may be assumed.

Foundations (Rio Grande Coffee Shop)
These recommendations assume a uniform thickness of compacted soil will support the proposed footings.

Footings below two-story portions of the structure shall extend 18 inches below compacted ground surface.

Isolated piers may be utilized and shall extend a minimum of 18 inches below compacted ground surface.

Based upon compliance with the above recommendations, an allowable soil bearing value for compacted soil of 1,300 pounds per square foot for 12-inch-deep footings and 1,500 pounds per square foot for 18-inch-deep footings, with a one-third increase when considering wind or seismic forces, may be assumed.

Pavement (Clubhouse)
In the areas to be paved, the top loose surface soils shall be removed from below the proposed final soil subgrade elevation, moistened or dried to at or near the optimum 301
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 19 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
moisture content, and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with the top 9 inches being compacted to 95 percent relative compaction where pavement will be subject to vehicle travel or parking. The subgrade area shall be check rolled in order to detect isolated soft spots. Any areas found to be yielding under the wheel loads of the equipment shall be stabilized by removal and compaction.

The Class 2 aggregate base shall be recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction in accordance with the ASTM D-1557 test method. Asphalt concrete shall be placed only after the Class 2 aggregate base has been demonstrated to be firm and unyielding.

If asphalt pavement is selected for the finished pavement surface, an R-Value of the subgrade soil shall be performed by a licensed geotechnical professional in order to provide appropriate thickness of Class 2 aggregate base and asphalt concrete.

Maintenance to assist in reducing the potential for rapid deterioration of the asphalt paved areas shall include surface treatment approximately six months to one year after construction and approximately three years from the first treatment. Pavement conditions shall be reviewed at least once a year for cracks, puddling of surface water, and overall appearance. This review should be done in the fall such that cracks may be repaired which may otherwise allow moisture to pass through the pavement and weaken the subgrade.

For concrete slab on grade pavements the slab shall be a minimum of 5.5 inches thick and be placed over a 4 inch thick layer of compacted Class 2 base (at 95 percent relative compaction) and shall be reinforced with No. 3 rebar at 24 inches on center each way and placed at the mid-height of the slab thickness.

Pavement (Rio Grande Coffee Shop)
In the areas to be paved, the top loose surface soils shall be removed from below the proposed final soil subgrade elevation, moistened or dried to at or near the optimum moisture content, and compacted to 90 percent relative compaction with the top 9 inches being compacted to 95 percent relative compaction where pavement will be subject to vehicle travel or parking. The subgrade area shall be check rolled in order to detect isolated soft spots. Any areas found to be yielding under the wheel loads of the equipment shall be stabilized by removal and compaction.

The Class 2 aggregate base shall be recompacted to a minimum of 95 percent relative compaction in accordance with the ASTM D-1557 test method. Asphalt concrete shall be placed only after the Class 2 aggregate base has been demonstrated to be firm and unyielding.

If asphalt pavement is selected for the finished pavement surface, an R-Value of the subgrade soil shall be performed by a licensed geotechnical professional in order to provide appropriate thickness of Class 2 aggregate base and asphalt concrete.

Maintenance to assist in reducing the potential for rapid deterioration of the asphalt paved areas shall include surface treatment approximately six months to one year after construction and approximately three years from the first treatment. Pavement conditions shall be reviewed at least once a year for cracks, puddling of surface water, and overall appearance. This review should be done in the fall such that cracks may be repaired which may otherwise allow moisture to pass through the pavement and weaken the subgrade.

Retaining Walls (Clubhouse)
The following retaining wall recommendations assume a single wall on level ground or a slope of less than 25 degrees. If there is more than one retaining wall, creating a multilevel terraced condition, the upper footing must be at a depth that passes below a 50 percent sloping line projected up from the top of the footing of the retaining wall below.

Cantilevered: For cantilevered retaining walls, such as site walls and garden walls, which do not form part of the structure, the following shall apply:

The cantilevered retaining wall shall be designed assuming an active soil pressure equivalent to a fluid (EFP) whose weight is 35 pounds per cubic foot for level backfill conditions and 52 pounds per cubic foot for backfill slopes, which are constructed at an angle of up to 27 degrees. These values are based on Coulomb’s Equation and the following 302
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 20 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
assumed backfill soil values: internal angle of friction equal to 34 degrees, cohesion equal to 0, and a total unit weight of soil equal to 125 pounds per cubic foot. The EFP value does not include surcharge loads and is based on a free-draining condition. The free-draining condition must be created by placing the backfill specified in the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation for Proposed Club House.

Retaining walls may be designed using pseudostatic analyses based on a modified Seed Whitman (1970) approach. The need to apply the lateral seismic load is to be determined by the project design engineer or by the building code. The seismic earth force was estimated using the modified Seed Whitman (1970) method, assuming a horizontal peak ground acceleration of 1.142g, and assuming drained backfill conditions. The peak horizontal ground acceleration (PGAm) was determined in accordance with Section 1803.5.12 of the 2019 CBC, Paragraph 2.2. The seismic earth resultant force (ΔPae), acting on the stem of the retaining wall, may be estimated as ΔPae = 34.4H2. The resultant force (ΔPae) may be assumed to act at 0.33H above the base of the wall2. Kh = 0.765.

The bottom of the retaining wall footing shall extend a minimum distance of 24 inches below the lowest adjacent undisturbed natural grade or 12 inches into firm, undisturbed original ground (whichever is deeper) and shall be designed assuming an allowable soil bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot. For footings placed on slopes, the base of the toe or keyway placed at the toe shall extend to such a depth that there exists 10 horizontal feet between the bottom of the footing and the daylight line of the adjacent slope. The key may be placed adjacent to the downhill edge of the retaining wall footing in order to attain the recommended downhill grade footing embedment. The slope setback required by the CBC, Figure 1808.7.1, shall also apply.

A passive soil pressure equivalent to a fluid whose weight is 350 pounds per cubic foot and a coefficient of friction against sliding of 0.35 may be assumed for the footing excavation described in the recommendation above.

The use of equipment to compact soil within the wedge of backfill defined by a 1:1 line projected up from behind the retaining wall to the surface shall be limited to handheld rammer plate compactors, such as a Wacker BS 45Y. A string line shall be placed along the top of the wall to monitor possible rotation of the wall due to the compaction surcharge. If the wall begins to bow or lean away from the backfilling operations, the compaction process shall stop and the licensed geotechnical professional shall be notified immediately such that modified compaction recommendations can be given at that time.

The finish covering on the face of the wall, such as stucco or paint, may be adversely affected by moisture intrusion from the backfill through the back of the wall. To prevent this, the back of the wall and footing shall be waterproofed. All waterproofing and application of waterproofing shall be in accordance with the specifications of the product supplier.

Retaining wall backfill shall be a clean, coarse sand or gravel wrapped in a filter fabric. The gravel shall be separated from adjacent native soil by a filter fabric. The retaining wall shall be serviced by appropriately placed weep holes or a perforated drain. This drainage feature must include at least 2 cubic feet of gravel wrapped in filter fabric. Lower quality native backfill material may be utilized outside the triangular wedge, which extends upwards from the inside edge of the retaining wall and is a minimum width of 60 percent of the wall height at ground surface. The sand between the wall and native soil shall have a Sand Equivalent of 20 or greater and an Expansion Index equal to 0. To avoid excessive amounts of sand and gravel backfill, the construction contractor is prohibited to cut a vertical excavation 2 to 4 feet beyond the back of the retaining wall footing or stem. Cuts shall only occur to the point needed to install the drainpipe and slope the excavation back as specified.

It is assumed that the rough grade excavation behind the retaining wall is to be cut at a temporary slope angle of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical in order to comply with Cal-OSHA safety requirements.

All soil backfill shall be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. It should be noted, retaining walls designed assuming active soil conditions are anticipated to 303
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 21 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
deflect seasonally. In addition, surface features which obtain their support from retaining wall backfill materials are anticipated to express differential movement with respect to the retaining wall as the wall may be resting upon a thinner depth of fill or undisturbed original ground, and the surface features may be resting upon a considerable thickness of compacted fill, which has settlement characteristics differing from that of original ground.

The differential movement between the wall and slab patio may be undesirable. In order to hide or prevent such differential movement, an alternate design may be required, such as, but not limited to, placing a planter between the wall and slab, or connecting the slab to the wall, creating a retaining wall which is pinned at the top, not cantilevered.

Partially Restrained: For restrained or partially restrained retaining walls or cantilevered retaining walls which form a portion of the foundation system of the structure, the wall shall be designed as a braced wall utilizing at-rest pressures in accordance with the following recommendations:

The retaining wall shall be designed assuming an at-rest soil pressure equivalent to a fluid (EFP) whose weight is 60 pounds per cubic foot for level backfill conditions and 73 pounds per cubic foot for backfill slopes, which are constructed at an angle of up to 27 degrees.

These values are based on the same assumed conditions stated in Recommendation No. 1 under the Cantilevered section. The at-rest condition for a level backfill is based on the following equation: EFP=Koy where Ko=1-sin ɸ, y is the total unit weight of soil, and ɸ is the internal angle of friction.

The retaining wall footing shall conform to the Foundations recommendations and may be designed assuming an allowable soil bearing value of 2,000 pounds per square foot. For footings placed on or adjacent to slopes, the base of the toe or keyway placed at the toe shall extend to such a depth that there exists 10 horizontal feet between the bottom of the footing and the daylight line of the adjacent slope.

A passive soil pressure equivalent to a fluid whose weight is 350 pounds per cubic foot and a coefficient of friction against sliding of 0.35 may be assumed for the footing excavation described in the recommendation above.

The retaining wall shall be serviced by a perforated drain which is located a minimum of 12 inches below top of the adjacent interior concrete slab-on-grade floor.

Walls, foundations, and connections between walls and foundations forming interior finished rooms of the structure shall be waterproofed by the proper application of a moisture barrier. All waterproofing products shall be applied in strict conformance with the manufacturer's recommendations.

It is assumed that the rough grade excavation behind the retaining wall is to be cut at a temporary slope angle of 1 horizontal to 1 vertical in order to comply with Cal-OSHA safety requirements.

Footings located near the retaining wall stem and in the zone of the granular backfill material shall extend through the retaining wall backfill, shall be supported on the firm underlying undisturbed ground, and below a 1 horizontal to 1 vertical line projected upward from the base of the wall; whichever is deeper. As an alternative, the footing can be designed to span across the backfill area and be supported by footings able to receive the reaction load of the spanning member. This may include tying into the retaining wall for support, if that portion of the retaining wall has been designed to receive the additional load.

Retaining wall backfill shall include 2 cubic feet per linear foot of wall of 3/8- to 1- inch gravel placed around a 4-inch perforated rigid PVC drainpipe. The perforations of the pipe shall be placed down at the positions of 5 and 7 o'clock. A filter fabric shall separate the gravel from the other backfill soils.

Retaining wall backfill above the drainpipe shall be a clean, coarse sand or gravel, creating an inverted triangular wedge. Lower quality native backfill material may be utilized outside the triangular wedge which extends upwards from the outside edge of the pipe/gravel at the base of the retaining wall and is a minimum width of 60 percent of the wall height at ground surface. Clean, coarse sand is acceptable when the Sand Equivalent is greater than 304
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 22 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
20 and the Expansion Index equals 0. To avoid excessive amounts of sand and gravel backfill, do not allow the excavation contractor to cut a vertical excavation 2 to 4 feet beyond the back of the retaining wall footing or stem. Cut only to the point needed to install the drainpipe and slope the excavation back as specified.

The use of equipment to compact soil within the wedge of backfill defined by a 1:1 line projected up from behind the retaining wall to the surface shall be limited to handheld rammer plate compactors, such as a Wacker BS 45Y. A string line shall be placed along the top of the wall to monitor possible rotation of the wall due to the compaction surcharge. If the wall begins to bow or lean away from the backfilling operations, the compaction process shall stop and the licensed geotechnical professional shall be notified immediately such that modified compaction recommendations can be given at that time.

The project design engineer designing the retaining wall shall address the following conditions:

When a retaining wall is backfilled without a top restraint, such as a wood floor diaphragm, the stem of the retaining wall acts as a cantilever.

Depending on the rigidity of the top restraint, the wall may act as a beam spanning between the top and bottom points, reversing the tension side of the stem to the front of the wall as opposed to the back as in the case of a cantilever condition.

Structure members deflect when loaded. The users guide to the widely used computer program RetainPro recommends the deflection of the wall be checked because the program does not calculate deflection. Refer to Section 9 titled “Related Design Considerations” in the manual titled “Basics of Retaining Wall Design”, Page 50. As an estimate, the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute (CRSI) manual estimates concrete reinforced stems of cantilevered retaining walls will deflect a horizontal distance at the top of the wall equal to the height of the wall divided by 240. The appropriate deflection equation and values corresponding to load, condition, and material shall be employed to determine the deflection corresponding to the lateral loads recommended herein such that appropriate connections, tiebacks, bracing, or construction joints can be placed within the structural design to properly account for the deflection. The total deflection may not occur during the backfilling operation, but rather sometime after the frame structure is built over and adjacent to the retaining wall.

Adjacent Loads (General)
Where footings are placed at varying elevations, the effect of adjacent loads will be calculated using the widely published Formulas for Stresses in Semi-infinite Elastic Foundations or the Boussinesq figures and equations for both vertical and horizontal surcharge loads.

Settlement (General)
It is the intent of the recommendations contained in this report to achieve angular distortions of approximately 1/480. A total settlement of approximately 1 inch or less is anticipated for foundations supported on the undisturbed native soil and approximately 1 percent to 1.5 percent of the fill height is the anticipated total settlement at areas where compacted fill soil is placed in accordance with the Grading measures provided in this mitigation measure. The soil bearing values and estimated settlements contained in this report are preliminary and can be modified after the foundation and grading plans are substantially complete.

GEO-2: Paleontological Resources Impact Plan and Monitoring Prior to the commencement of any grading activities, the project applicant shall retain a qualified professional paleontologist as defined in the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources (2010). The qualified professional paleontologist shall prepare a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program consistent with the guidance provided in the Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources.

The Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee prior to the issuance of a The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a qualified professional
paleontologist prior to commencement of
grading activities.
 Providing proof of retainment to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review
The Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee
shall approve the
Paleontological Resources
Impact Mitigation Program prior
to the issuance of a Zoning
Clearance for a grading permit.

The qualified professional
The Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee shall
review and approve the form provided
by the qualified professional
paleontologist certifying WEAP training
was completed. The Planning and
Environmental Review Director or
designee shall confirm the qualified

305
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 23 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
Zoning Clearance for a grading permit. The Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
 Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training. The qualified professional paleontologist shall conduct WEAP training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction staff. A basic presentation shall be prepared and presented by the qualified professional paleontologist to inform all construction personnel working on the project about the paleontological sensitivity of the area. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event paleontological resources or unique geologic features are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include halting construction and resource assessment. If new construction personnel are added to the project, the construction contractor shall ensure the new personnel receive the training before starting work. The qualified professional paleontologist shall ensure construction personnel sign a form affirming they received WEAP training. The qualified professional paleontologist shall submit this form to the Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee.
 Monitoring. The qualified professional paleontologist shall identify the locations on the project site where paleontological monitoring is required. The qualified professional paleontologist, or a paleontological resource monitor designated by the qualified professional paleontologist, shall observe initial grading and drilling activities on-site in areas underlain by late Pleistocene marine terrace deposits, the Sisquoc Formation, and the Monterey Formation. No monitoring is required for ground disturbing activities in areas of artificial fill, subject to the discretion of the qualified professional paleontologist.  Discovery of Paleontological Resources. In the event that fossils are unearthed during grading, the qualified professional paleontologist or designated paleontological resource monitor will temporarily halt and/or divert grading activity within a 50-foot radius of the find to allow for recovery of the resource.
 Fossil Salvage. The qualified professional paleontologist shall salvage (i.e., excavate and recover) the fossil to protect it from damage/destruction. Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or micro vertebrates from paleontologically sensitive deposits. After the fossil(s) is (are) salvaged, construction activity may resume.  Fossil Preparation and Curation. Fossils shall be identified to the lowest (i.e., most- specific) possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection along with all pertinent field notes, photos, maps, and data required by the curating institution.

Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the qualified professional paleontologist.  Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities (or laboratory preparation and curation of fossils, if necessary), the qualified professional paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods employed; an overview of project geology; and, if fossils were discovered, an analysis of the fossils, including physical description, taxonomic identification, and scientific significance. The report shall be submitted to the City’s Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee and, if fossil curation occurred, the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

Director (or designee) prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance for the grading permit.
 Ensuring the PRIMP is incorporated into
construction plans and implemented during
grading.

The qualified paleontologist is responsible for:
 Preparing a PRIMP consistent with SVP
guidelines.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Ensuring all personnel attend WEAP training
prior to grading and that new personnel
receive training before starting work.
 Halting work immediately within 50 feet of
any fossil discovery and notifying the
paleontologist.
 Complying with all fossil recovery and
monitoring requirements outlined in the
PRIMP.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving the PRIMP prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading
permit.
 Reviewing WEAP training records and final
paleontological mitigation report.
 Conducting periodic site inspections to verify
compliance with paleontological monitoring
and fossil recovery protocols.

paleontologist shall conduct
WEAP training prior to the start
of ground-disturbing activities
and submit the signed form to
the Planning and Environmental
Review Director within 24 hours
following the completion of
WEAP training. The qualified
professional paleontologist or
designated paleontological
resource monitor shall observe
initial grading and drilling
activities throughout
construction on-site in areas
underlain by late Pleistocene
marine terrace deposits, the
Sisquoc Formation, and the
Monterey Formation. If a fossil is
discovered, the qualified
professional paleontologist shall
submit the Final Paleontological
Mitigation Report to the
Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee
within 90 days of completion of
salvage and preparation. If
curation occurred, the qualified
professional paleontologist shall
also submit the Final
Paleontological Mitigation
Report to the Santa Barbara
Museum of Natural History.
professional paleontologist or
designated paleontological resource
monitor observed grading and drilling
activities. The Planning and
Environmental Review Director or
designee shall review and approve the
Final Paleontological Mitigation Report,
if applicable.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1: Asbestos Containing Materials Abatement
Prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance associated with the demolition permit, the project applicant shall prepare an asbestos abatement plan addressing the items/topics listed below.

The asbestos abatement plan shall be reviewed and approved by SBCAPCD. Proof of SBCAPCD approval shall be provided to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee. During project construction and demolition activities, the project applicant shall follow the measures outlined in the asbestos abatement plan, which shall be undertaken by The project applicant is responsible for:
 Preparing an Asbestos Abatement Plan
addressing all required topics prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance associated with
the demolition permit.

The project applicant shall
prepare the asbestos abatement
plan, obtain SBCAPCD’s
approval, and contract with an
abatement contractor prior to
the issuance of Zoning Clearance
The City of Goleta’s Director of
Planning and Environmental Review, or
designee, shall verify SBCAPCD has
approved the asbestos abatement plan
prior to the issuance of Zoning
Clearance. The City of Goleta’s Director

306
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 24 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
properly trained and licensed asbestos contractors currently registered with Cal/OSHA and/or OSHA (herein referred to as “abatement contractors”). Abatement contractors shall be selected and vetted by the project applicant and reviewed by SBCAPCD ten working days prior to starting demolition as part of the Notification for Renovation and Demolition Form ENF-28 submittal. Project-specific requirements to be addressed in the asbestos abatement plan include the following:
 Disturbance activities shall be performed only by abatement contractors using appropriate controls to prevent fiber emissions during the removal process. This may include, but is not limited to, the use of wet methods (water mist), negative pressure containment, high efficiency particulate air filtration, and other engineering controls, as deemed appropriate, to keep fibers from being dispersed in accordance with current federal, State, and local regulations. Presumed asbestos containing roofing materials shall be sampled by abatement contractors prior to demolition to determine proper handling and disposal requirements.
 Windows with trace (defined as less than 1 percent) asbestos in putty shall be removed intact to avoid disturbance of the putty, if possible. Other materials with trace asbestos shall be point counted to determine the asbestos concentrations; if asbestos concentrations are not determined, these materials shall be managed as ACMs.  Workers performing removal shall be properly protected to prevent exposure, including the use of respiratory protection with high efficiency particulate air filtration, protective suits, or other protective equipment deemed necessary by abatement contractors.

Disturbance of greater than 100 square feet of any ACMs or asbestos-containing construction materials must be performed by trained and licensed abatement contractors.  Asbestos containing waste materials must be properly contained and transported for off- site disposal at a permitted landfill or disposal facility. Friable asbestos with greater than 1 percent asbestos content is considered hazardous waste per current federal and State regulations and must be transported and disposed of using proper manifest documentation. Non-friable asbestos is categorized as non-hazardous, asbestos containing waste and can typically be disposed to the local Class III landfill with prior approval from landfill operators. As noted, materials with less than 1 percent total asbestos can be disposed of as construction debris if proper lab analysis is provided.  Proper removal techniques must be followed to prevent the dissemination of asbestos fibers. All required notification and permitting shall be administered by the abatement contractor, and proper completion shall be verified by the City’s Director of Planning and Environmental Review.
 If suspect materials are found during site work, the area shall be isolated, and any suspect materials tested to confirm or deny the presence of asbestos, lead, or other hazards, as determined appropriate by the abatement contractor.
 Submitting the Asbestos Abatement Plan to
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control
District (SBCAPCD) for review and approval.
 Providing proof of SBCAPCD approval to the
City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental
Review Director (or designee) prior to
demolition.
 Retaining and vetting properly trained and
licensed asbestos abatement contractors
registered with Cal/OSHA and/or OSHA.
 Submitting contractor information to
SBCAPCD ten working days prior to
demolition as part of the Notification for
Renovation and Demolition Form ENF-28.
 Ensuring all measures outlined in the
approved Asbestos Abatement Plan are
implemented during demolition and
construction activities.

The asbestos abatement contractor(s) is
responsible for:
 Implementing the provisions of the Asbestos
Abatement Plan during construction
activities.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Coordinating with asbestos abatement
contractors to ensure compliance with the
approved Asbestos Abatement Plan.
 Halting work and isolating areas if suspect
materials are encountered until testing and
clearance are completed.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing proof of SBCAPCD approval of the
Asbestos Abatement Plan prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance for the demolition permit.
 Verifying proper completion of asbestos
abatement measures during demolition and
construction activities.

associated with the demolition
permit.
of Planning and Environmental Review,
or designee, shall spot-check
compliance with the asbestos
abatement plan during demolition
activities and verify compliance
documentation following the proposed
project’s demolition activities.

HAZ-2: Lead-Based Paint Abatement
Prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance associated with the demolition permit, the project applicant shall prepare an LBP abatement plan. This plan can be combined with the plan required in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. The LBP abatement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee.

During proposed project construction and demolition activities, the project applicant shall follow the measures outlined in the LBP abatement plan. These requirements shall be undertaken by properly trained contractors that utilize lead-safe work practices (or “abatement contractors”). Abatement contractors shall be selected and vetted by the project applicant and reviewed by the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director.

Prior to abatement, the applicant shall notify CDPH of lead-based abatement activities through submittal of CDPH Form 8551, and provide evidence of the notification to the City of Goleta’s The project applicant is responsible for:
 Preparing an LBP Abatement Plan prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance associated with
the demolition permit.
 Combining the LBP Abatement Plan with the
Asbestos Abatement Plan required under
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, if desired.
 Submitting the LBP Abatement Plan to the
City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental
The project applicant shall
prepare the LBP abatement plan,
notify CDPH, and contract with
an abatement contractor prior
to the issuance of Zoning
Clearance associated with the
demolition permit.

The City of Goleta’s Director of
Planning and Environmental Review, or
designee, shall approve the LBP
abatement plan and verify CDPH has
been notified prior to the issuance of
Zoning Clearance. The City of Goleta’s
Director of Planning and Environmental
Review, or designee, shall check the
abatement contractor’s monitoring log
to ensure project-specific

307
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 25 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee. Project-specific requirements of the LBP abatement plan include the following:
 Any disturbance by abatement contractors that might generate dust or create a lead exposure hazard shall be performed by lead-trained workers using lead-safe work practices. Lead safe work practices include appropriate containment, wet methods, and use of hand tools or similar methods that will minimize the generation of airborne dust emissions and potential lead hazards.
 To prevent lead exposure hazard due to the generation of lead dust and debris, lead- painted components (e.g., windows, doors, baseboards) or similar lead-containing items shall be removed intact and segregated from the overall waste stream by abatement contractors.
 Lead-containing waste is classified as hazardous waste if total lead concentration exceeds 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (or parts per million) or if soluble lead concentration exceeds

5.0 milligrams per liter. Proper waste characterization testing or waste profiling shall be conducted prior to disposal of lead containing waste. If practicable, lead wastes shall be segregated to minimize the volume of possible hazardous waste. If lead-containing and non-lead waste materials are comingled during demolition, composite samples of representative waste shall be analyzed by a certified lab to determine proper disposal requirements.

Review Director (or designee) for review and
approval prior to demolition.
 Notifying the California Department of Public
Health (CDPH) of lead-based abatement
activities by submitting CDPH Form 8551 and
providing proof of notification to the
Planning and Environmental Review Director
(or designee).
 Selecting and vetting properly trained
contractors that utilize lead-safe work
practices for all LBP abatement activities.

The abatement contractor(s) is responsible for:
 Implementing the provisions of the LBP
Abatement Plan during construction
activities.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Coordinating with abatement contractors to
ensure compliance with the approved LBP
Abatement Plan.
 Ensuring all demolition and removal activities
follow lead-safe work practices to prevent
lead exposure hazards.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving the LBP Abatement
Plan prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for
the demolition permit.
 Reviewing proof of CDPH notification (Form
8551) prior to demolition.
 Conducting periodic inspections to verify
compliance with lead-safe work practices
during demolition and construction activities.
recommendations are enacted during
proposed project demolition activities.

HAZ-3: Corrective Action Plan/Soil and Groundwater Management Plan Revision Prior to commencement of grading activities at the project site, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant approved by Santa Barbara County EHS to revise the existing CAP/SGMP prepared for the project site such that the CAP/SGMP addresses potential contamination in the maintenance yard, and addresses Santa Barbara County EHS’s comments on the CAP/SGMP. The revised CAP/SGMP shall address:

1. On-site handling and management of impacted soils or other impacted wastes (e.g., stained soil, and soil or groundwater with solvent or chemical odors) if such soils or impacted wastes are encountered;

2. The notification process if an unknown well or leaking well is discovered (e.g., notification of the Santa Barbara County Petroleum Unit, as well as the California Department of Conservation Geologic Energy Management Division); and,

3. Specific actions to reduce hazards to construction workers and off-site receptors during the construction phase.

The CAP/SGMP must establish engineering controls and soil management practices to ensure construction worker safety, ensure the health of future workers and visitors, and prevent the off-site migration of contaminants from the proposed project. These measures and practices shall include, but are not limited to:

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a qualified environmental
consultant approved by Santa Barbara
County Environmental Health Services (EHS)
prior to commencement of grading activities.
 Providing proof of Santa Barbara County EHS
approval of the CAP/SGMP to the Planning
and Environmental Review Director prior to
construction activities.
 Implementing the approved CAP/SGMP
during demolition, grading, and construction
at the project site.

The qualified environmental consultant is
responsible for:
 Establishing engineering controls and soil
management practices to ensure worker
Prior to commencement of
construction and grading
activities at the project site, the
project applicant shall retain a
qualified environmental
consultant approved by Santa
Barbara County EHS to revise the
existing CAP/SGMP prepared for
the proposed project. The
project applicant shall submit
proof of Santa Barbara County
EHS’ approval of the CAP/SGMP
to the City of Goleta’s Planning
and Environmental Review
Director prior to construction
activities. The project applicant
shall implement the CAP/SGMP
The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review the CAP/SGMP
and have the authority to propose and
include modifications prior to submittal
to Santa Barbara County EHS. Once
Santa Barbara County EHS has
reviewed the CAP/SGMP, the City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee shall verify
Santa Barbara County EHS’ approval of
the CAP/SGMP and that Santa Barbara
County EHS’s comments on the
CAP/SGMP have been appropriately
addressed by the qualified
environmental consultant. The City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental
Review Director, or designee, shall

308
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 26 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 Stockpile management, including stormwater pollution prevention and the installation of best management practices.
 Proper disposal procedures of contaminated materials.  Investigation procedures for encountering known and unexpected odorous or visually stained soils, other indications of hydrocarbon piping or equipment, and/or debris during ground-disturbing activities.
 Monitoring and reporting.
 An environmental health and safety plan for contractors working at the project site that addresses the safety and health hazards of each phase of site construction activities with the requirements and procedures for employee protection.  The environmental health and safety plan shall outline proper soil handling procedures and health and safety requirements to minimize worker and public exposure to hazardous materials during construction.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall review the CAP/SGMP and have the authority to propose and include modifications prior to submittal to Santa Barbara County EHS. Santa Barbara County EHS shall review and approve the CAP/SGMP prior to construction (demolition and grading) activities at the project site. The project applicant shall submit proof of Santa Barbara County EHS’s approval of the CAP/SGMP to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director prior to construction activities.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall verify Santa Barbara County EHS’s approval of the CAP/SGMP and shall review the final CAP/SGMP prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit. The project applicant shall implement the CAP/SGMP during demolition, grading, and construction at the project site. safety and prevent off-site migration of
contaminants.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Implementing all measures outlined in the
approved CAP/SGMP during demolition,
grading, and construction.
 Following the environmental health and
safety plan and soil handling procedures to
minimize worker and public exposure to
hazardous materials.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Verifying Santa Barbara County EHS approval
of the CAP/SGMP prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading permit.
 Conducting periodic site inspections to
confirm implementation of CAP/SGMP
measures during construction.
during demolition, grading, and
construction at the project site.
review the final CAP/SGMP prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance of
construction or grading permits, and
shall review project construction plans
to ensure applicable recommendations
from the CAP/SGMP are integrated
into construction plans.

HAZ-4: Sub-slab Vapor Mitigation System
Where soil vapor is known and is identified to be present at chemical concentrations exceeding regulatory screening thresholds for sub-slab/soil vapor intrusion, the project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) or other qualified person to prepare a Sub-slab Vapor Mitigation System Design for the proposed project. The plan shall include, but is not limited to, design specifications, material specifications, installation requirements, and monitoring requirements.

Santa Barbara County EHS shall review and approve the Sub-slab Vapor Mitigation System Design prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for building permits. The project applicant shall incorporate a sub-slab vapor barrier into the project’s building plans, the implementation of which shall prevent the potential for soil vapor VOCs from migrating to indoor air. The project’s building plans, which shall include engineering measures or institutional controls, shall be submitted by the qualified environmental consultant to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance for building permits.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Retaining a qualified environmental
consultant (PG, PE, or other qualified person)
to prepare a Sub-slab Vapor Mitigation
System Design if soil vapor concentrations
exceed regulatory screening thresholds for
vapor intrusion.
 Incorporating the approved sub-slab vapor
barrier and any engineering measures or
institutional controls into the project’s
building plans.
 Submitting the building plans (including
vapor mitigation measures) to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance for building permits.

The qualified environmental consultant is
responsible for:
 Preparing the Sub-slab Vapor Mitigation
System Design consistent with regulatory
requirements and best practices.
 Submitting the design to Santa Barbara
County Environmental Health Services (EHS)
for review and approval prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance for building permits.
 Providing the approved design and building
plans to the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director (or designee).

The project applicant shall retain
a qualified environmental
consultant (PG or PE) or other
qualified person to prepare a
Sub-slab Vapor Mitigation
System Design for the proposed
project prior to construction.

The project applicant shall
incorporate a sub-slab vapor
barrier during construction.

Santa Barbara County EHS shall review
and approve the Sub-slab Vapor
Mitigation System Design prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance for
building permits. The qualified
environmental consultant shall submit
the project’s building plans, which shall
include engineering measures or
institutional controls, to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental
Review Director, or designee, prior to
the issuance of Zoning Clearance for
building permits.

309
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 27
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Implementing the approved Sub-slab Vapor
Mitigation System during building
construction in accordance with design
specifications and installation requirements.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing the building plans to confirm
incorporation of the vapor mitigation system
prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for
building permits.
 Verifying Santa Barbara County EHS approval
of the Sub-slab Vapor Mitigation System
Design.
 Conducting periodic inspections to ensure
proper installation and compliance with
approved design.

HAZ-5: Groundwater Disposal
If disposal of contaminated groundwater is required during construction of the proposed project, Santa Barbara County EHS shall be consulted to determine if the treated groundwater can be disposed of through one of their waste discharge permit options. Based on the concentrations of chemical constituents of contaminated groundwater, an individual NPDES permit and/or waste discharge requirements may be required to be obtained for dewatering activities. If disposal of contaminated groundwater is required, proof of consultation with Santa Barbara County EHS and compliance with Santa Barbara County EHS’s disposal requirements shall be submitted to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Consulting with Santa Barbara County EHS if
disposal of contaminated groundwater is
required during construction.
 Determining, in coordination with EHS,
whether treated groundwater can be
disposed of under an existing waste
discharge permit option or if an individual
NPDES permit and/or waste discharge
requirements must be obtained for
dewatering activities.
 Submitting proof of consultation with Santa
Barbara County EHS and evidence of
compliance with EHS disposal requirements
to the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director (or designee)
prior to disposal activities.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Implementing disposal procedures in
compliance with Santa Barbara County EHS
requirements and any applicable permits.
 Coordinating with the project applicant and
consultant to ensure proper handling and
disposal of contaminated groundwater.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing proof of consultation with Santa
Barbara County EHS and verifying compliance
with disposal requirements prior to
construction activities involving groundwater
disposal.

If dewatering is required, the
project applicant shall consult
with Santa Barbara County EHS
and provide proof of
consultation and compliance
with EHS’s disposal
requirements to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director
prior to the issuance of Zoning
Clearance.

If disposal of contaminated
groundwater is required, the City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental
Review Director, or designee, shall
verify consultation with Santa Barbara
County EHS and compliance with Santa
Barbara County EHS’s disposal
requirements has occurred prior to the
issuance of Zoning Clearance.
310
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 28 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 Conducting periodic inspections to confirm
adherence to approved disposal procedures
during construction.

HAZ-6: Well Access for Service or Reabandonment
The property owner shall grant access to all wells located on the project site to any public agency or legal inheritor of the wells for the purposes of inspection, maintenance, service, or reabandonment such that future remediation or abandonment of existing wells is not impeded by project-related redevelopment. This access shall be maintained in perpetuity and shall not be restricted by any physical or legal barriers resulting from project construction or operation.

The property owner is responsible for:
 Granting unrestricted access to all wells
located on the project site to any public
agency or legal inheritor of the wells for
purposes of inspection, maintenance, service,
or re-abandonment.
 Ensuring this access is maintained in
perpetuity and is not impeded by project-
related redevelopment.
 Preventing any physical or legal barriers that
could restrict access to wells during or after
project construction and operation.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Ensuring project design and construction
activities do not create physical barriers that
restrict future access to wells.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Verifying that project plans and final site
design maintain permanent access to wells
prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance and
during site inspections.

Prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading
permit, the project applicant
shall provide documentation to
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director
demonstrating that the property
owner has agreed to grant
access to all wells on the project
site to any public agency or legal
inheritor of the wells for the
purposes of inspection,
maintenance, service, or
reabandonment. This
documentation shall also
reference the indemnification
provisions outlined in the
Condition of Approval.

The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall verify that the required
documentation has been submitted
and that it includes provisions for both
access and indemnification prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance for the
grading permit.

HAZ-7: Regulatory Agency Notification and Oversight
Given the project site is listed as an open Santa Barbara County EHS Cleanup Program Site (EHS case #375) and a closed LUST Cleanup Site (EHS case #51238, Central Coast RWQCB case #213), the EHS case #375, EHS case #51238, and Central Coast RWQCB case #213 shall continue to be utilized for agency oversight of assessment and remediation of the project site.

The project applicant shall submit the following documents to the Santa Barbara County EHS project manager of the open Cleanup Program Site case, and the Santa Barbara County EHS and Central Coast RWQCB project managers of the closed LUST Cleanup Site case. The Santa Barbara County EHS project manager and Central Coast RWQCB project manager shall review and approve the following documents prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit at the project site:
 Current development plan (e.g., architectural drawings and project description) and any modifications to the development plan
 All environmental assessment documents completed for the project site, including the Environmental Impact Report for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project (this EIR)
 All future hazardous material reports completed for the project site Upon submittal of the listed information, and in accordance with the regulatory agency’s voluntary oversight agreement, the regulatory agency may require additional actions such as:
development of subsurface investigation workplans; completion of additional soil, soil vapor, and/or groundwater subsurface investigations; installation of soil vapor or groundwater monitoring wells; soil excavation and off-site disposal; completion of human health risk assessments; and/or completion of remediation reports or case closure documents.

The project applicant shall retain a qualified environmental consultant (PG or PE) to conduct any required subsurface soil, soil vapor, groundwater investigations, or human health risk The project applicant is responsible for:
 Continuing regulatory oversight under EHS
case #375 and EHS case #51238 / RWQCB
case #213.
 Submitting the current development plan,
environmental assessment documents, and
future hazardous materials reports to Santa
Barbara County EHS and RWQCB prior to
Zoning Clearance for grading.
 Retaining a qualified environmental
consultant (PG or PE) to complete any
required investigations, monitoring well
installations, risk assessments, or
remediation actions per agency direction.
 Providing proof of agency approvals (EHS and
RWQCB) for all required documents and
actions to the City before Zoning Clearance.

The qualified environmental consultant is
responsible for:
 Preparing and implementing agency-
approved workplans for subsurface
investigations, monitoring wells, soil
Prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading permit
at the project site, the project
applicant shall submit the
abovementioned documents to
the Santa Barbara County EHS
project manager of the open
Cleanup Program Site case, and
the Santa Barbara County EHS
and Central Coast RWQCB
project managers of the closed
LUST Cleanup Site case. Prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance for
the grading permit, the project
applicant shall also retain a
qualified environmental
consultant to conduct any
required subsurface soil, soil
vapor, groundwater
investigations, or human health
risk assessments in accordance
with a sampling plan that shall
be reviewed and approved by
Santa Barbara County EHS or the
Central Coast RWQCB.

If required workplans, investigations,
or other mitigation actions require
regulatory agency remediation reports
or case closure documents, the
qualified environmental consultant
shall submit these documents to the
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director or
designee for review and approval prior
to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the
grading permit.

311
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 29 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
assessments in accordance with a sampling plan that shall be reviewed and approved by the regulatory agency. In the event the regulatory agency identifies the need for installation of soil vapor or groundwater monitoring wells to reduce potential hazards to the public or the environment, the project applicant shall identify soil vapor or groundwater monitoring wells on the final project plans for review and approval by the regulatory agency. In the event the regulatory agency identifies the need for soil excavation and off-site disposal to reduce potential hazards to the public or the environment, the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall review the final grading plans to ensure soil excavation and off-site disposal are included, and shall approve the final grading plans prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit. If required workplans, investigations, or other mitigation actions require regulatory agency remediation reports or case closure documents, the qualified environmental consultant shall submit these documents to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, for review and approval prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit. The project applicant shall also provide proof of Santa Barbara County EHS’s and Central Coast RWQCB’s approval of the current development plan, environmental assessment documents, hazardous material reports, and additional workplans, investigations, human health risk assessments, remediation reports, or case closure documents (as applicable) to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit. excavation, risk assessments, and
remediation reports.
 Submitting remediation reports or case
closure documents to the City for review
prior to Zoning Clearance.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Implementing approved investigation,
excavation, and disposal measures shown on
final plans.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing grading plans if soil
excavation/disposal is required.
 Verifying receipt of agency approvals and
remediation documentation prior to Zoning
Clearance.

Santa Barbara County EHS and the Central
Coast RWQCB are responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving the current
development plan, environmental
assessment documents, and future
hazardous materials reports.

Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-1: Dry Season Construction in Devereaux Creek
Prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit, the project applicant shall include within the construction contract the requirement that work related to culvert removal and bridge installation and maintenance at Devereaux Creek must occur during the dry season (June 1 to October 15) when water flows are low. The construction contractor shall only conduct work related to culvert removal and bridge installation/maintenance at Devereaux Creek during the dry season.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Including in the construction contract the
requirement that culvert removal and bridge
installation/maintenance at Devereux Creek
occur only during the dry season (June 1–
October 15) when water flows are low.
 Submitting construction plans with this
requirement to the City prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance for the grading permit.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Performing all culvert removal and bridge
installation/maintenance activities only
during the dry season (June 1–October 15).

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing construction plans to confirm
inclusion of the dry season restriction prior to
Zoning Clearance.
 Conducting site inspections to verify
compliance during construction.

The construction contract shall
be reviewed and approved by
the Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee
prior to the issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading
permit. During construction, the
construction contractor shall
schedule culvert removal and
bridge installation to occur
during the dry season. The
construction contractor shall
provide the Planning and
Environmental Review Director
with a minimum of a 7-day
notice for when culvert removal
and bridge installation are
scheduled to occur.

The Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee shall visit
the site during scheduled culvert
removal and bridge installation to
confirm such activities are taking place
during the dry season.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 a

The qualified environmental consultant
is responsible for:
 a

The construction contractor is
responsible for:
 a

The Planning and Environmental
Review Director (or designee) is
responsible for:
 a
Noise
NOI-1: Construction Noise Reduction
312
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 30 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
The construction contractor shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to the City of Goleta Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a grading permit/demolition permit. The Construction Noise Control Plan shall specify the noise reduction measures to be implemented during project construction that uses heavy-duty equipment within 400 feet of residences, which may include improvements to the golf course (e.g., grading of the course), maintenance yard, Barnsdall area, and Hollister Avenue to ensure noise levels do not exceed 65 dBA at nearby sensitive receptors at the nearest residences. The measures specified in the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included on the building and grading plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. Measures in the Construction Noise Control Plan may include, but would not be limited to, the following:
 Prior to the start of and for the duration of construction, the contractor shall properly maintain and tune all construction equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations to minimize noise emissions.
 Prior to use of any construction equipment, the contractor shall fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer.
 Staging and delivery areas shall be located as far as feasible from existing residences.  Installation of temporary sound barriers/blankets to break the line of sight between construction equipment and residences within 400 feet of heavy-duty equipment operation. The barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least 1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier.  To the extent consistent with applicable safety regulations, trucks operating with reverse motions alarms shall be outfitted with SAE J994 Class D or equivalent alarms (ambient- adjusting, or “smart alarms” that automatically adjust the alarm to 5 dBA above the ambient near the operating equipment), or switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.  A construction notification sign shall be posted at the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City of Goleta’s and the contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise complaint.
 If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, either City code enforcement or a contractor-retained and Goleta-approved noise consultant shall conduct noise measurements at the properties that registered the complaint. The noise measurements shall be conducted for a minimum of one hour to determine if noise levels are compliant with City’s 65 dBA standard. The consultant shall prepare a letter report for code enforcement summarizing the measurements, calculation data used in determining impacts, and potential measures to reduce noise levels to the maximum extent feasible.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Including the requirement for a Construction
Noise Control Plan in the construction
contract.
 Submitting the plan to the City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental Review Director
(or designee) for review and approval prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance for
grading/demolition permits.
 Ensuring the plan is incorporated into
building and grading plans.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Preparing the Construction Noise Control
Plan specifying measures to keep noise less
than 65 dBA at nearby residences within 400
feet during heavy equipment use.
 Implementing the measures of the
Construction Noise Control Plan.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving the Construction
Noise Control Plan prior to Zoning Clearance.
 Verifying incorporation of noise measures
into construction plans.
 Reviewing complaint response reports and
conducting site inspections for compliance.

The Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee
shall approve the Construction
Noise Control Plan prior to
issuance of the zoning clearance
for the grading
permit/demolition permit. The
measures specified in the
Construction Noise Control Plan
shall be included on the building
and grading plans.

The City shall monitor compliance with
the requirements of the Construction
Noise Control Plan periodically during
construction and shall promptly
investigate and respond to all noise
complaints.

NOI-2: Construction Vibration Reduction Measures
Prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance for grading and building permit, the City of Goleta Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee shall verify that the construction plans include the following requirements:
 For paving activities within 42 feet of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, a static roller shall be used in lieu of a vibratory roller.
 For grading and earthwork activities within 20 feet of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, off-road equipment shall be limited to 100 horsepower or less.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Including the requirements of Mitigation
Measure NOI-2 in the construction plans and
contract prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for grading and building permits:

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Implementing the requirements of Mitigation
Measure NOI-2 during paving and grading
activities near the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas
Station.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:

The Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee
shall confirm the requirements
are included on the grading and
building permits prior to the
issuance of Zoning Clearance for
grading and building permits.

The City shall monitor compliance with
the requirements of the vibration
reduction measure periodically during
grading and construction activities
within 50 feet of Barnsdall Rio Grande
Gas Station.

313
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 31
Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 Verifying that these requirements are
included in the construction plans prior to
Zoning Clearance.
 Conducting site inspections to confirm
compliance during construction.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TCR-1: Native American Monitoring
At least 30 days prior to the commencement of project-related ground-disturbing activities, including, but not limited to, site clearing, grubbing, trenching, and excavation, the project applicant shall secure a tribal monitoring agreement with Native American Tribes. Should more than one of the Tribes wish to provide monitoring for the project, they may do so on a rotating basis to provide equal representation onsite during ground-disturbing activities. The tribal monitoring agreement shall be consistent with the processes and procedures outlined in the Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Plan) prepared under Mitigation Measure CUL-1, and the project applicant shall submit the tribal monitoring agreement to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director prior to the commencement of project-related ground-disturbing activities. The Native American monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt ground-disturbing activities to allow recovery of cultural resources, in coordination with the qualified archaeologist retained under Mitigation Measure CUL-2. The project applicant shall notify the retained Native American monitor(s) of scheduled ground disturbance at least five business days in advance. Work may proceed if the retained Native American monitor(s) are unavailable at the time of ground disturbance. Native American monitoring may be reduced or terminated in consultation with the project applicant and the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, as warranted by conditions such as encountering bedrock, the presence of fill soil, or negative findings during initial ground disturbance. The Native American monitor(s) shall maintain monitoring logs throughout project-related ground-disturbing activities and submit the monitoring logs to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director after each phase of construction (e.g., site clearing, grubbing, trenching) has concluded.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Securing a tribal monitoring agreement with
Native American Tribes at least 30 days prior
to ground-disturbing activities (e.g., clearing,
grubbing, trenching, excavation).
 Submitting the agreement to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review
Director before work begins.
 Notifying the Native American monitor(s) at
least five business days in advance of
scheduled ground disturbance.
 Coordinating with the qualified archaeologist
to ensure monitoring follows the Cultural
Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent
Discovery Plan (CUL-1).

The Native American monitor(s) is responsible
for:
 Monitoring ground-disturbing activities and
maintaining monitoring logs.
 Submitting logs to the City after each
construction phase (e.g., clearing, trenching).
 Having authority to temporarily halt or
redirect work to allow recovery of cultural
resources, in coordination with the qualified
archaeologist.
 Participating on a rotating basis if multiple
Tribes request monitoring.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Allowing access for Native American monitors
during ground-disturbing activities.
 Complying with any temporary work
stoppages or redirections requested by
monitors.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving the tribal
monitoring agreement prior to ground
disturbance.
 Verifying receipt of monitoring logs after
each construction phase.

At least 30 days before ground-
disturbing activities begin, the
project applicant shall secure a
tribal monitoring agreement
with the Native American Tribes.

The agreement shall align with
the Cultural Resource
Monitoring and Inadvertent
Discovery Plan from Mitigation
Measure CUL-2 and shall be
provided to the City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental
Review Director prior to the
commencement of project-
related ground-disturbing
activities. The project applicant
shall notify the Native American
monitor(s) at least five business
days before ground disturbance.

Work can proceed if the Native
American monitor(s) are
unavailable.

The Native American monitor(s) shall
maintain monitoring logs throughout
project-related ground-disturbing
activities and submit the monitoring
logs to the City of Goleta’s Planning
and Environmental Review Director
after each phase of construction has
concluded. Monitoring logs shall be
kept on file with the City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental Review
Director for the duration of
construction.

TCR-2: Final Disposition of Unanticipated Tribal Cultural Resources Inadvertent discoveries of archaeological resources found during construction shall be immediately evaluated by the qualified archaeologist (retained under Mitigation Measure CUL- The project applicant is responsible for: Inadvertent discoveries of archaeological resources during
The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
314
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 32 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
2) for their potential to qualify as tribal cultural resources, and shall be treated in accordance with the Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan (Plan) prepared under Mitigation Measure CUL-2. The appropriate treatment method, which may include one or more of the following treatments, shall be determined by the qualified archaeologist in consultation with the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, and the Native American monitor(s). The qualified archaeologist shall provide the data recovery plan prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-4 to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, for review and approval prior to initiation of the appropriate treatment.
 Preservation-in-place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.
 Reburial of the resources in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The measures for reburial may include the following in accordance with the Plan: a) measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity; b) reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human remains are excluded; c) any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate; and d) listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the data recovery plan prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-4.
 If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible, then the resource(s) may be curated in a culturally appropriate manner as described in the Plan prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-2 at a Santa Barbara County curation facility that meets the California Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources, ensuring access and use pursuant to these guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director by the project applicant. No destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human remains shall be permitted. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the data recovery plan prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-4.
 Ensuring the qualified archaeologist (retained
under CUL-2) and Native American monitor(s)
are available during ground-disturbing
activities to address inadvertent discoveries.
 Providing the data recovery plan (prepared
under CUL-4) to the City for review and
approval prior to treatment of any discovered
resources.

The qualified archaeologist is responsible for:
 Immediately evaluating any inadvertent
discovery for potential qualification as a tribal
cultural resource.
 Determining appropriate treatment in
consultation with the City and Native
American monitor(s).
 Including treatment details and results in the
data recovery plan and submitting evidence
of curation (if applicable) to the City.
 Ensuring no destructive or invasive testing on
sacred items, burial goods, or Native
American human remains.

The Native American monitor(s) is responsible
for:
 Participating in treatment decisions and
ensuring cultural appropriateness of reburial
or curation.

The Planning and Environmental Review
Director (or designee) is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving the data recovery
plan prior to implementation of treatment.
 Verifying receipt of curation documentation
when applicable.
construction shall be
immediately evaluated by the
qualified archaeologist for their
potential to qualify as tribal
cultural resources and treated
according to the Cultural
Resource Monitoring and
Inadvertent Discovery Plan from
Mitigation Measure CUL-2. The
qualified archaeologist shall
provide the data recovery plan
prepared pursuant to Mitigation
Measure CUL-4 to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, for review and
approval prior to initiation of the
appropriate treatment.
designee, shall consult with the
qualified archaeologist and Native
American monitor(s) to determine the
appropriate treatment process. The
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall also review and
approve the data recovery plan prior to
initiation of the appropriate treatment.

The qualified archaeologist shall submit
evidence of completion of the
appropriate treatment method, to the
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director within
30 days of completion.

Utilities and Service Systems
UTIL-1: Additional Diversion Requirements
Demolition debris generated by removal of the existing concrete golf cart paths shall be recycled at a minimum 98 percent diversion rate. All other materials (non-concrete materials) shall be recycled at a minimum 65 percent diversion rate. The project applicant’s Waste Management Plan, required in accordance with Chapter 8.10, Article IV of the City’s Municipal Code, shall include a measure that requires the construction contractor to recycle all concrete debris from the existing concrete golf cart path removal. The Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the City Director of Public Works or designee for review and approval prior to the start of construction. During construction, the City Director of Public Works or designee shall assign a monitor to inspect the project site on a quarterly basis to ensure the requirements of the Waste Management Plan are being implemented. In addition, the project applicant shall retain proof of 98 percent diversion rate of the demolition waste generated from the concrete golf cart paths via waste tonnage data, supported by original or certified photocopies of receipts and weight tickets on other records of measurement from recycling companies, deconstruction contractors, and/or landfill and disposal companies, and submit these to the City Director of Public Works or designee for review and approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

The project applicant is responsible for:
 Preparing a Waste Management Plan.
 Submitting the Waste Management Plan to
the City Director of Public Works (or
designee) for review and approval prior to
construction start.
 Retaining proof of diversion rates (receipts,
weight tickets, certified records) and
submitting to the City prior to issuance of the
certificate of occupancy.

The construction contractor is responsible for:
 Recycling all concrete debris from golf cart
path removal and meeting diversion
requirements for other materials.

The project applicant shall
prepare and submit the Waste
Management Plan to the City
Director of Public Works or
designee prior to the start of
construction. The project
applicant shall submit proof of
achieving a 98 percent diversion
rate of the demolition waste
generated from the concrete
golf cart paths to the City
Director of Public Works or
designee following the
completion of construction. The
City Director of Public Works or
designee shall review and
approve the applicant-provided
A monitor chosen by the Director of
Public Works Department, or designee,
shall inspect the project site on a
quarterly basis from the start of
construction activities. The City
Director of Public Works shall review
diversion documentation prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

315
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 33 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
 Implementing measures outlined in the
approved Waste Management Plan during
construction.

The City Director of Public Works (or designee)
is responsible for:
 Reviewing and approving the Waste
Management Plan prior to construction.
 Assigning a monitor to conduct quarterly site
inspections to verify compliance.
 Reviewing diversion documentation prior to
issuing the certificate of occupancy.

proof prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.

316
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 34
This page intentionally left blank.
317
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution 26-___ entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, approving Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path Development Plan with height and setback adjustments, and Conditional Use Permit for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project at 7925 Hollister Avenue Goleta; APN 079-210-059; Case Nos. 22-0001-CDPH (in concept); 22-0009-DP-CUP; and 22-0032- DRB”

Exhibit A – Plans
Exhibit B – GP/CLUP Consistency Analysis
Exhibit C – Zoning Consistency
Exhibit D – Conditions of Approval
Exhibit E –Notice of Determination

318
City Council 26-__, Attachment 2
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation Project