Goleta City Council
June 2, 2026

Agenda Item C.1

CPMS PUBLIC HEARING
Meeting Date: June 2, 2026
TO: City Council
SUBMITTED BY: Peter Imhof, Planning and Environmental Review Director PREPARED BY: Lisa Prasse, Current Planning Manager
Mary Chang, Supervising Planner
SUBJECT: Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project with height and setback adjustments and Final EIR;
7925 Hollister Avenue (APN 079-210-059);
Case Nos. 22-0001-CDPH (in concept), 22-0009-DP-CUP,
and 22-0032-DRB

RECOMMENDATION

1. Conduct the public hearing.

2. Adopt Resolution 26-____ entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California: 1) Adopting Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, 2) Certifying the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024120923), 3) Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and 4) Approving Alternative 4 (Extended Bicycle Path) Development Plan 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.”

3. Adopt 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”

APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE
Sandpiper Golf Trust, LLC Steve Welton, SEPPS
280 Chestnut Avenue 1625 State Street, Suite 1
Westmont, Illinois 60559 Santa Barbara, CA 93101
1 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

JURISDICTION
The City is the lead agency for the project under CEQA and the City Council is the local decision-maker for the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the merits of the project. The Planning Commission reviewed the project in an advisory capacity and made a recommendation on April 27, 2026 that the City Council approve the project as evaluated by Final EIR as Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path. The City Council’s action is not appealable to another administrative body. However, since the project is located in the Coastal Zone, a Coastal Development Permit is required from the California Coastal Commission after the conclusion of the City’s discretionary review process. Should the City Council approve staff’s recommendation as part of this public hearing, staff would bring a project-related item back to Council for review relat ed to a proposed vacation or abandonment of City Right -of-Way (“ROW”) adjacent to the project site pursuant to the Streets & Highways Code . Any future consideration of a proposed ROW vacation, deemed to be in the public interest, would occur after the project applicant has obtained all required entitlements from all relevant agencies , including the California Coastal Commission. The proposed ROW vacation is not part of the approvals currently before the City Council as part of this public hearing.

BACKGROUND
Project Site Location and Land Use Designations
The approximately 193-acre project site is located at 7925 Hollister Avenue (Assessor’s Parcel Number 079-210-059). The site was previously part of the Ellwood Oil Field, which ceased operation in the 1960’s after more than 30 years of operation.

The Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan has applied an “Open Space/Active Recreation” land use designation to the project site. The project site’s zoning designation is “Commercial Entertainment and Recreation - Open Space/Active Recreation.” Allowed uses in this zone include open space and recreational facilities with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

The project site is located south of and adjacent to Hollister Avenue. A City ROW easement on Hollister Avenue is located north of and adjacent to the project site. As part of the proposed project, the applicant has requested that the City abandon 14,651 square feet of vacant ROW, which, if appr oved, would then be used by the project for access improvements and vehicle parking . Any proposed abandonment of City ROW requires separate discretionary approval by the City Council pursuant to California Streets and Highway Code Section 8335. Final approval of the City ROW abandonment would occur independently from the approval sought as part of this public hearing, and would return for consideration after the project applicant has obtained the required project-related Coastal Development Permit and other applicable agency approvals.

Existing Project Site Uses
The existing golf course was developed in 1972 prior to the enactment of the California Coastal Act (1976). The initial construction of the golf course was approved by the County 2 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

of Santa Barbara with the issuance of building and grading permits. The project site became part of Goleta when the City incorporated in 2002.

The project site is developed with the Sandpiper Golf Club, which includes a golf course, clubhouse, vehicle parking with 124 spaces, a comfort station (i.e., restroom) , and a maintenance yard that consists of buildings, trailers, sheds, and a fuel station.

The Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station is located on the northeastern portion of the project site adjacent to Hollister Avenue. The gas station building was originally constructed in 1929 and has been vacant since the 1960s. The building was designated as a hist oric landmark by the County of Santa Barbara in 1990 and is a City -designated Historic Landmark.

Project Objectives

The primary objectives of the project are listed below:

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.

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

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

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

6. Protect water quality and bluff stability by converting existing private septic systems to public sewers and utilizing sand capping to filter stormwater.

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.

Planning Commission Review

On April 27, 2026, t he Planning Commission conducted a public hearing regarding the proposed project. In addition to the extensive written public comments received, t hree people provided comments at the hearing . In general, the comments were in support of the project, but also expressed concerns regarding the construction of a Class I bicycle path adjacent to and extending east of the project site based on possible safety issues associated with the use of the path by electric bicycles. Another comment was provided related to the nomenclature used in the Planning Commission staff report and project EIR to identify the project site’s zoning designation. Within the Open Space/Active Recreation land use category, “Entertainment and Recreation – Outdoor Recreation” is an allowed commercial use with the approval of Conditional Use Permit and the speaker wanted that 3 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

noted. Th is clarification does not affect the determination tha t the proposed project requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.

At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 (1 recusal) to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed Environmental Findings pursuant to CEQA, certify the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project Final EIR, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and approve Project Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path.

The Planning Commission also voted 3-1-1 (one no vote, one recusal) to recommend that the City Council approve Project Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path, with a requirement that trees adjacent to the project site main access driveway be planted in such a manner as to not obscure views of coastal visual resources identified by General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy VH 1:1, which states:

VH 1.1 Scenic Resources . An essential aspect of Goleta’s character is derived from the various scenic resources within and around the city. Views of these resources from public and private areas contribute to the overall attractiveness of the city and the quality of life enjoyed by its residents, visitors, and workforce. The City shall support the protection and preservation of the following scenic resources:
a. The open waters of the Pacific Ocean/Santa Barbara Channel, with the Channel Islands visible in the distance.
b. Goleta’s Pacific shoreline, including beaches, dunes, lagoons, coastal bluffs, and open costal mesas.
c. Goleta and Devereux Sloughs.
d. Creeks and the vegetation associated with their riparian corridors. e. Agricultural areas, including orchards, lands in vegetable or other crop production, and fallow agricultural lands.
f. Lake Los Carneros and the surrounding woodlands.
g. Prominent natural landforms, such as the foothills and the Santa Ynez Mountains.

As part of its review, the Planning Commission acknowledged the beneficial visual aspects of the proposed project, specifically related to the undergrounding of power lines along Hollister Avenue adjacent to the project site. However, the Commission also noted that project’s proposed landscape trees coul d interfere with scenic views southward across the project site coastal mesa (item “g” of Policy VH 1.1). Of specific concern was a potential effect that new landscape trees could have on scenic coastal views to the south from the Cathedral Oaks/Hollister Avenue intersection, which aligns with a proposed project site entrance driveway . In response, staff has modified proposed condition of approval 74A to require that the Design Review Board (DRB) evaluate the Project’s proposed landscape plan and, if appropriate, require revisions that will minimize the project’s effects on scenic coastal views and ensure consistency with Policy VH 1.1. 4 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

When determining whether to accept the recommendation from the Planning Commission related to potential visual effects of the proposed landscape plan, or to approve the applicant’s landscaping design as proposed , the City Council and DRB should also consider other applicable General Plan policies, such as VH 4.9 (Landscape Design), VH

4.10 (Streetscape and Frontage Design) and VH 4.11 (f) (Parking Lots). These policies, which are included and evaluated in Attachment 2, Exhibit B (General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis) require adequate landscaping and parking lot trees be provided to enhance the appearance of a project site and to minimize the visual and heat island effects of parking lots.

Design Review Board Review

On January 27, 2026, the Design Review Board (DRB) conducted a preliminary review of the proposed project and recommended Preliminary Design approval to the Planning Commission and City Council. While the DRB unanimously recommended approval, DRB asked the applicant to consider refinements to the final design regarding:

 The proposed clubhouse building elevator tower.
 The clubhouse building windows to minimize bird strikes.  The use of colored concrete rather than decomposed granite for the on-site bicycle path.
 The timing of the restoration of the Barnsdale Gas Station Building in conjunction with the completion of the proposed golf course renovations; and potential site safety/maintenance conditions associated with the design of the clubhouse roof.

These items have been incorporated into Condition No. 73 in Exhibit D to Attachment 2.

After Council action, if the project is approved, the design of the project will return to DRB for Final Review.

Historic Preservation Commission Review

On February 26, 2026, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) determined that proposed modifications to the historic Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station and the Barnsdall Rio Grande Café portion of the Sandpiper project are consistent with the Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Structures. The HPC unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed project.

Native American Consultation

On February 28, 2024, shortly after the project’s application was deemed complete , the City of Goleta sent AB 52 consultation request letters to local Native American representatives identified by the Native American Heritage Commission , notifying them of the project in accordance with Government Code Section 65352. Native American tribes that were sent consultation letters include d the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians, Santa Ynez Band of C humash Indians, Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians, Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation , Chumash Council of Bakersfield, and Northern Chumash Tribal Council. In the consultation request letters, the City asked that the tribes respond within 30 days if they would like an opportunity to consult on the project. 5 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

The City received responses from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians, and the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation , all of which requested to visit the project site. Representatives of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians and Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians visited the project site on March 18, 2025 and September 5, 2024, respectively. The representatives requested t hat tribal cultural resources mitigation be applied to the project; that a Chumash representative participate in ground disturbance monitoring; and that project -related workers receive Workers Environmental Awareness Program training. These requests have b een included as proposed mitigation measures and conditions of approval. After repeated attempts to contact the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation , the City received no response. On May 15, 2025, the City notified the tribe that the consultation process was concluded.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Proposed Project Design

Construction and operation characteristics of the proposed project are summarized below.

New Clubhouse Building. The existing 9,305-square foot clubhouse would be demolished and replaced with a new 37,159-square foot, three-level building. The first above-ground level would be dedicated to golf operations and accessory uses, and the second story would be used for food and beverage services. The basement level of the clubhouse would be used for receiving materials and supplies , golf cart storage, and other support operations.

The above-ground portion of the clubhouse would have a glass elevator enclosed within a glass structure in the center of the clubhouse, sloped turf walls, and a turf roof. The majority of the new clubhouse would not exceed the Entertainment and Recreation – Outdoor Recreation Zone’s 25-foot height limit. However, a minor portion of the main roof structure would have a maximum height of 29 feet and the passenger elevator structure would have a maximum architectural projection height of 33 feet. The proposed maximum building heights are only slightly higher than the existing clubhouse, which has a maximum height of 28 feet 6 inches. The project applicant requests a Development Plan Adjustment to allow a portion of the proposed clubhouse building roof to exceed the 25- foot height limit. The 25-foot height exceedance of the proposed elevator tower is allowed by Zoning Ordinance Section 17.24.080, which allows elevator towers to exceed maximum building heights by 10 feet.

Golf Course Redesign. The proposed redesign of the 18 -hole golf course includes grading and rerouting selected fairways and holes, the conversion of the existing Hole 18 near the clubhouse to an event lawn , reducing the amount of concrete cart paths , and reducing the amount of irrigated turf from 125 acres to 62 acres. New non-turf areas would be planted with native or drought-tolerant landscaping.

The project also includes the removal of a concrete cart path, dry-weather crossing, and culvert from Devereaux Creek and associated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESHA). 6 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

A free-standing wood bridge would be installed beyond the top of the bank in this area, and proposed restoration activities include the re-establishment of the creek channel and planting of riparian vegetation.

Maintenance Facility . The existing 7,555 -square foot maintenance facility would be replaced with two structures totaling 7,476 square feet.

Comfort Station . An existing 290 -square foot comfort station (i.e., restroom) building would be replaced with a two-structure, 329-square foot facility that includes a restroom, refreshment center, and storage area. The new comfort station would be integrated into the project site landscape and would have gently sloped turf roofs.

Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station/Rio Grande Coffee Shop . The historic Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station would be restored and adaptively reused as part of a new café , named the Rio Grande Coffee Shop. The café would consist of two parts: the restored 349-square foot Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, which would serve as seating for the café; and a new 695-square foot café building designed to resemble a 1920’s gas station service bay. New outdoor seating covered by wooden trellises would be added to the west of the historic gas station building and on the eastern and western sides of the proposed café building. The café would have a total of 14 indoor seats and 32 outdoor seats. The project also includes a new 24 -foot-wide driveway that leads to a 14 -space parking area east of the new café building. The café would also include electric bicycle charging station designed to look like antique gas station pumps.

Project Site Parking. Existing parking lots on the project site are located at the clubhouse (124 spaces), the maintenance yard (10 spaces), and at the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station (5 spaces). The project would include the redesign of parking areas, such that the clubhouse parking lot and a nearby gravel over-flow lot west of the clubhouse, would have 135 spaces, the maintenance facility would have 10 spaces, and the Rio Grande Coffee Shop would have 14 spaces. In total, the project would provide 1 59 on-site parking spaces, resulting in an increase of 20 parking spaces compared to existing conditions.

Goleta West Sanitary District (GWSD) Service. The existing clubhouse and comfort station are served by septic tank systems, while the maintenance building was connected to the GWSD sewer system in 1972. The project proposes to connect the new clubhouse, comfort station, and Rio Grande Coffee Shop to existing GWSD sewer lines in Hollister Avenue. The on -site septic systems would be abandoned in accordance with Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services requirements.

GWSD would provide sewer services for the new structures through an Out of Area Service Agreement. To implement this project component, a change to GWSD’s Sphere of Influence would require approval by the Santa Barbara County Local Agency Formation Commission.

Hollister Avenue Right-of-Way Abandonment. The project includes a realignment of the Hollister Avenue right-of-way (ROW) adjacent to the project site. As proposed, the City would abandon approximately 14,651 square feet of ROW to the property owner and that area would be used for vehicle parking and project site access. The ROW area to be retained by the City is of sufficient size to accommodate potential future road 7 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

improvements at the Hollister Avenue/Cathedral Oak intersection . Any future improvements at this intersection would need to be added to the City Capital Improvement Program and undergo environmental review, etc., at the time funding becomes available.

Due to the configuration of the realigned ROW on the project site, eight (8) proposed vehicle parking spaces would encroach slightly into a required 10-foot-wide front yard setback, as measured from the proposed ROW alignment. The project applicant has requested a Development Plan Adjustment t o facilitate the proposed setback encroachment.

Hollister Avenue Improvements . The project would provide various improvements to Hollister Avenue and project site entrances, as well as landscape enhancements on both sides of Hollister Avenue. Proposed improvements inclu de but are not limited to the following:
 Improvements to the Hollister Avenue/Cathedral Oaks Road intersection.  Median, left turn lane, and curb and gutter improvements along Hollister Avenue.  Undergrounding of overhead utility lines along the project’s frontage of Hollister Avenue into a joint power and communications trench.
 Relocation of the existing bus stop and pocket approximately 200 feet east, across from planned Fire Station No. 10.
 Improvements to Hollister Avenue at the Rio Grande Coffee Shop.  Installation of pedestrian ramps and striping to create new crosswalks at the west and south legs of the Hollister Avenue/Las Armas Road intersection.  Reconstruction of the maintenance facility driveway access and striping for the addition of a left-hand turn lane to enter the maintenance yard.

Coastal Access . As proposed by the project applicant, a new sidewalk extending eastward from the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station would connect with an existing sidewalk at the northeast project site boundary . Also as proposed, the project would construct a “Type 4” path (i.e., a path with a decomposed granite surface) within Hollister Avenue ROW, which would extend westerly from the Rio Grande Coffee Shop to the proposed clubhouse parking lot. These proposed coastal access routes would serve as a segment of the De Anza coastal trail.

The project applicant also proposes to dedicate a lateral public access easement along the project site beach frontage above the mean high tide line.

Bell Canyon Open Space. The proposed project includes the dedication of an open space easement to a qualified land conservation entity of approximately five acres within Bell Canyon, which is located along the western edge of the project site. No access or other improvements are proposed for the Bell Canyon area . An existing unimproved and unmaintained beach access trail is located in the proposed dedication area.

Project Operation . The project would retain the existing golf course operating hours , which are 6:30 am to 8:30 pm seven days a week. The clubhouse and restaurant would 8 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

remain open until 10:00 pm and the bar would remain open until midnight. The Rio Grande Coffee Shop’s operating hours would be 6:30 am to 4:30 pm.

The golf course currently supports an average of 35, 368 rounds of golf per year. The project would reduce golf rounds to approximately 32,000 rounds per year by increasing the time between tee-offs. The proposed clubhouse and related facilities would be used for special events , similar to existing condition s. The project site currently hosts approximately 40 special events of various types and size s per year, including wedding receptions, corporate, and charity events. Special events would conclude by 10:00 pm.

Proposed lighting at the clubhouse, Rio Grande Coffee Shop, parking lots, and maintenance facility would consist of a combination of exterior path lights, bollard lights, down lights with tree straps, in -wall lights, under-step and handrail strip lights, a nd sign lighting at entries and directional signage. Exterior lighting would consist of downward, directed fixtures. Lighting for the project site would be designed to conform with Goleta Municipal Code Chapter 17.35.

Construction Characteristics . Project-related construction is anticipated to last approximately 18 months, starting in 2027. Construction staging and parking would occur on-site. Project grading would require approximately 86,500 cubic yards (CY) of soil cut and 56,000 CY of soil fill. After compaction and shrinking, the remaining soil (30,500 CY) would be distributed around graded areas to achieve the proposed golf course design.

Requested General Plan Amendment . A component of the original project application was a request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to study the removal of certain ESHA designations from the project site that are shown on General Plan Figure CE 4-1 (Special Status Species and ESHA) and Figure OS 3.5 (Open Space). On April 16, 2024, the City Council initiated the GPA, which consisted of the following:

 Removal of ESHA designations adjacent to Devereux Creek in areas where the creek is contained within a pipe.
 Removal of the golf course pond as designated ESHA.
 Removal of the special -status species designation (California red-legged frog, Rana draytonii) adjacent to the golf course pond.
 Adding purple needle grass (Nassella pulchra) to the southeast corner of the parcel as ESHA.
 Adding Santa Barbara honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata ) at the southeast property line as ESHA.
 Adding sage scrub adjacent to Devereux creek as ESHA.  Adding three special -status species designations (raptor nests) adjacent to Devereux creek.
 Adding wooly seablite (Suaeda taxifolia) and cliff malacthrix (Malacothrix saxatilis) within sage scrub in various locations as ESHA.
 Adding black walnut to ESHA within Bell Canyon.
 Adding a coastal wetland in the middle of site adjacent to the ocean as ESHA.

On November 19, 2024, the City Council amended General Plan Policy CE 1.5 (Corrections to Map of ESHAs) to eliminate the need for a General Plan amendment to 9 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

Figures CE 4 -1 and OS 3.5. The November 2024 amendment ma de the following revisions to General Plan Policy CE 1.5:

 Made it clear that ESHA boundary changes are not considered a General Plan Amendment for a project.
 Maintained that only the Planning Commission (or City Council, if the project would otherwise go to the City Council) has the authority to approve a project with ESHA boundaries that differ than those shown in the General Plan.  Included a commitment that the City will update the General Plan ESHA boundaries every five (5) years.
 Required a public hearing, with specific noti cing, for any project that includes a proposed ESHA map change.
 Required the Planning Commission (or City Council) make a specific finding regarding the ESHA boundaries for any project that includes a proposed ESHA map change.

When this amendment was adopted, the need for the project’s requested GPA became moot; however, the City Council is being asked to make a determination regarding the proposed ESHA boundary changes in accordance with the new language of General Plan Policy CE 1.5.

Alternative Project Design

The proposed Final EIR evaluated four alternatives to the proposed project, including Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path . Under Alternative 4, golf course renovations and new buildings would be developed similar to the proposed project. The only changes that would occur to the originally proposed project are related to the bicycle path that would be located along the south side of Hollister Avenue and adjacent to the project site.

Specifically, with the implementation of Alternative 4, the new path would be a 10- to 14- foot wide Class I (i.e., concrete) bicycle path rather than a path having a decomposed granite surface; and the new path would extend approximately 0.3 mile beyond the project site’s eastern boundary to connect with an existing Class I pathway located just west of Pebble Beach Drive.

There were two primary reasons for including Alternative 4 in the EIR’s evaluation of alternatives to the proposed project:

 The construction of decomposed granite path would present long-term maintenance responsibilities for the City.

 The extended bicycle path that would be constructed under Alternative 4 would expand and enhance public transportation opportunities on and adjacent to the project site, and provide connectivity to the existing bike path network, which would increase the project’s compliance with the City’s General Plan and the related Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

10 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

DISCUSSION

Staff is recommending approval of Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path for the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project. This recommendation is made because Alternative 4 would meet all of the proposed project’s objectives; would better support compliance with the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policies related to vertical beach access and active transportation when compared to the proposed project; and would also comply with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. The sections below provide additional detail regarding the merits of Alternative 4.

Alternative 4 Plan Consistency

Staff has prepared a General Plan consistency analysis that evaluates both the originally proposed project and Alternative 4. This analysis is provided as Exhibit B to Attachment

2. The General Plan consistency analysis, and the analysis provided below, demonstrate that Alternative 4 can be found consistent with the applicable requirements of the General Plan and the related requirements of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.

The Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies various bicycle and pedestrian improvements that are critical in creating a comprehensive alternative transportation network in the City. One of the identified improvement corrido rs is the “Goleta Loop,” which would establish a multi-use path around the City. It is envisioned that as part of this loop, a continuous route would be located along Hollister Avenue in the western end of the City, which would provide connections to UCSB, the coast, and other regional bikeways. In regard to the Sandpiper project site , the Hollister Avenue segment of the “Goleta Loop” would provide a bicycle route connection to the proposed Rio Grande Coffee Shop, which would have bicycle facilities , such a s electric bicycle charging stations. Conversely, the installation of a Type 4 path only on City ROW as proposed would not implement the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan to provide a continuous Class I pathway along Hollister Avenue in the vicinity of the project site.

As noted by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan , the General Plan recognize s the importance of bicycle and pedestrian travel and identifies alternative modes of transportation to reduce dependency on automobiles and to improve environmental quality and create “low stress” multi-use pathways. General Plan Policy TE 11 (Bikeways Plan) specifically relates to the development of a comprehensive bikeway system in the City, and the objective of this Policy is to “encourage increased bicycle use for commuting and recreation al purposes by developing an interconnected circulation system for bicycles that is safe, convenient, and within a visually attractive environment .” Other community-wide advantages to providing comprehensive alternative transportation opportunities identified by the BPMP include reduced vehicle miles traveled and associated reductions in air pollutants and greenhouse gases, enhanced health benefits and recreation opportunities, and safe commuting routes for persons that rely on the use of alternatives modes of transportation.

The construction of a b icycle path between Pebble Beach Drive and Cathedral Oaks would encourage alternative modes of transportation so that residents, especially families with children and seniors , from the Winchester Canyon and El Encanto Heights 11 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

neighborhoods can travel safely on a dedicated path to the Ellwood Mesa Open Space, Sperling Preserve, and access to existing vertical accessways to the Pacific Ocean; and would better support the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policies related to costal access and active transportation. Students from the Winchester Canyon and El Encanto Heights neighborhoods can also bike safely to Ellwood Elementary School. In turn, students from the Ellwood neighborhood would also have a safer bike path to get to Brandon Elementary School and Dos Pueblos High School. When compared to the originally proposed project, Alternative 4 would enhance compliance with General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policies OS 2.2 (Planned Vertical Accessways) and OS 2.4 (Mitigation of Impacts to Vertical Coastal Access) by facilitating lateral pedestrian connectivity along Hollister Avenue that improves public access for all Goleta residents to vertical access points toward the shoreline.

Alternative 4 would also enhance compliance with General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policies VH 3.5 ( Pedestrian-Oriented Design ), TE 1.1 ( Alternative Modes ), TE 2.3 (Diversion of Automobile Trips to Alternative Modes), and TE 10.4 ( Pedestrian Facilities in New Development) when compared to the originally proposed project by providing an extended bike path that connects existing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure instead of the Type 4 path that would only be located on City ROW along the project site.

Planning Commission Hearing

An issue that was raised during the Planning Commission ’s April 27, 2026 hearing was that the project’s originally proposed decomposed granite path is to serve as a sidewalk adjacent to Hollister Avenue within the City’s ROW. In this regard, staff recommends that Council implement the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and City engineering standards for sidewalks. First, a decomposed granite path would not be consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan , which was approved by the City as an Implementation Action required by the General Plan after three (3) years of public surveys and meetings. The construction of a Class I bi cycle path along the perimeter of the City along Hollister and Cathedral Oaks ( i.e., the “Goleta Loop”) was envisioned to address the public’s desire for a safe and more protected multi -modal path. Furthermore, Public Works opine d that a decomposed granite path would also not meet City sidewalk standards for the following reasons:
 There is no standard that allows a decomposed granite trail in public ROW adjacent to a roadway. At Planning Commission, the project applicant discussed an “extension of the De Anza trail .” The nomenclature of “trail” is for open space and unimproved areas (e.g.: in the Ellwood Mesa) , not adjacent to an arterial roadway. Public Works requires that improvements meet standards for sidewalks or multiuse paths adjacent to a roadway, which includes concrete sidewalk, curb, and gutter.
 Adjacent to the project site, Hollister Ave is classified as a “Principal Arterial .” According to General Plan Policy TE 3.3, c-6 – Design Standards “At a minimum, principal arterials shall include curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Principal arterials 12 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

may include landscaped medians and/or landscaped strips between curb and sidewalk.” The originally proposed Type 4 or decomposed granite trail does not meet these policy and design requirements.
 The use of decomposed granite to construct the originally proposed path does not meet the requirements of the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan , which envisions a bicycle path along the segment of Hollister Avenue adjacent to the project site.  The use of decomposed granite also poses issues for City compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). To not be out of compliance with the ADA, a decomposed granite path will require extensive and frequent maintenance .

Decomposed granite is not a hard surface and is prone to erosion during rain events and “rutting” when used during and after rain events. Frequent maintenance would be required to maintain the pathway with an even surface, for which the City has not budgeted.

The project applicant’s representative has stated it will comply with the City’s desire for a Class I bicycle path but prefer s the decomposed granite path. Several Planning Commissioners noted that they liked the “look” of the decomposed granite path. Public Works has opined that the Class I bicycle path can be constructed using permeable concrete, which can be colored to give the appearance of a decomposed granite path, rather than light gray concrete. The permeable concrete would also provide the benefit of facilitating drainage, which would filter stormwater runoff. The project applicant can propose the use of colored permeable concrete as part of its final bike path design after City entitlement.

Environmental Effects of Alternative 4

The Proposed Final EIR concludes that Alternative 4 would result in reduced transportation-related impacts by facilitating the use of alternative modes of transportation. Impact reducti ons would include but are not limited to actions , such as reducing transportation-related air emission, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions, and enhancing access to recreation facilities by providing a safe path that provides connections to beach access points at the Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperling Preserve.

Other community-wide advantages to providing comprehensive alternative transportation opportunities identified by the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan include reduced vehicle miles travelled and associated reductions in air pollutants and greenhouse gases, enhanced health benefits and recreation opportunities, and safe commuting routes for persons that rely on the use of alternatives modes of transportation.

Alternative 4 would have a somewhat increased short-term construction noise impact due to additional construction along Hollister Avenue that would place construction equipment closer to residences than would occur under the proposed project. Similar to the proposed project, however, Alternative 4 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI- 13 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

1 to ensure construction noise levels do not exceed Goleta’s 65 dBA construction noise standards. With the implementation of this mitigation measure, Alternative 4’s construction noise impact would be less than significant, similar to the proposed project.

Alternative 4 Zoning Consistency

Similar to the originally proposed project, Alternative 4 would result in the renovation of an existing golf course, the restoration of the historic Barnsdall gas station building, and would be a n outdoor recreation use that is consistent with uses allowed in the Open Space – Active Recreation (OS-AR) zone district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Alternative 4 would be consistent with applicable building coverage and vehicle parking requirements. All proposed structures to be located on the project site would be consistent with the setback requirements of the “OS-AR” zone district. The proposed encroachment of eight (8) vehicle parking spaces into the required front yard setback may be allowed with the approval of a Development Plan Adjustment, as described below. The proposed clubhouse building would predominately be consistent with the building height requirements of the “OS-AR” zone district, and the small portion of the building’s roof that would exceed 25 feet may be allowed with the approval of a Development Plan Adjustment, as described below.

Right of Way Realignment/Vacation Request

The project applicant has requested that the City consider the future abandonment of ROW along Hollister Avenue to be used by the property owner (applicant) for vehicle parking, landscaping and project site access. The amount of ROW area proposed to be abandoned by the City is 14,651 square feet. The ROW area proposed to be retained remains adequate to serve the project and accommodate potential future improvements at the Hollister Avenue/Cathedral Oak intersection . The proposed ROW abandonment would not affect public a ccess to or through the site and would not conflict with the implementation of Alternative 4. The approvals currently before the City Council as part of this public hearing do not include the City’s formal vacation of the City ROW . Any future vacation of the City’s ROW would require separate discretionary approval pursuant to the California Streets and Highways Code and would involve consideration relating the City’s ROW easement interest. If the City Council votes to approve staff’s recommendation as part of this public hearing, staff would subsequently return with a separate item for Council consideration regarding a proposed ROW vacation, after the project applicant has obtained required approvals from the California Coastal Commission and other applicable agencies.

Development Plan Findings

The project is subject to Development Plan With Adjustment Findings as required by Goleta Municipal Code Sections 15.59.030 and 17.59.040. The required Development Plan and Development Plan Adjustment Findings are presented in Attachment 2 and are summarized below.

14 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

As described above and in Attachment 2, with the implementation of mitigation measures identified by the proposed Final EIR, the project would be consistent with applicable policies of the Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan.

The Project site is adequate in size, shape, location, and physical characteristics to accommodate the intensity of Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path , as the Alternative would renovate but not result in substantial c hanges to the configuration of the existing golf course, and proposed new buildings would generally be located at or near the sites of existing structures that are to be replaced. The extended bicycle path would be located in existing Hollister Avenue ROW, which can accommodate the 10-14-foot-wide path that would be developed under this Alternative.

Environmental impacts of the proposed project and Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path have been fully analyzed, and the environmental impacts will be mitigat ed to the maximum extent feasible and to a less than significant level . Proposed mitigation measures are described in the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project Final EIR, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”).

Development Plan Adjustment Findings

The design of the project requires minor adjustments to zoning standards related to the maximum height of the proposed clubhouse building, and the project site’s required front yard setback. The requested height adjustment would apply to only small portions of the clubhouse building and in general would be similar to building height exceedances of the existing clubhouse building. The requested reduction in front yard setback would allow eight parking spaces to encroac h slightly into the setback area adjacent to Hollister Avenue. The requested adjustments would not result in or contribute to any potential inconsistency with the requirements of the General Plan.

Conditional Use Permit Findings

A Conditional Use Permit is required to allow the proposed golf course use within the Open Space/Active Recreation zone district. As summarized above and detailed in Attachment 2, the proposed project and Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path would be consistent with requirements of the Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan. In addition, with the implementation of mitigation requirements identified by the project’s Final EIR, the proposed project an d Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle path will not be injurious to the health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

The City of Goleta is the CEQA Lead Agency and determined that an EIR would be necessary to study the potential environmental impacts of the project. A Draft EIR was prepared and concluded that the project would not result in significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. The EIR also concluded that with the implementation of identified mitigation measures , the project’s potentially significant environmental im pacts associated with the following issue areas would be reduced to a less than significant level:

15 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

 Biological Resources
 Cultural Resources
 Geology and Soils
 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
 Hydrology and Water Quality
 Noise
 Tribal Cultural Resources
 Utilities and Service Systems

A Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared for the project and is included as Exhibit C to Attachment 1.

The Draft EIR was released for public review for 4 6 days from October 16 to December 1, 2025. In total, 46 written comment letters were received during the public comment period. Two (2) comment letters were from State agencies (Caltrans and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife); three (3) letters were from interested organizations, and 41 letters were from individuals. 32 of the letters from individuals indicated support for the project. During the public review period, the City held an Environmental Hearing Officer (EHO) meeting on November 6, 2025. One person provided comments in support of the project at the EHO meeting.

Alternatives Considered

Four (4) alternatives to the Project were evaluated in the Draft EIR. In addition to the mandatory “No Project” alternative, three (3) alternatives were evaluated that focus on reducing the project’s environmental impacts and providing enhanced compliance with Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Comprehensive Plan policy requirements, while still meeting most of the basic project objectives. The four alternatives evaluated include:

Alternative 1 : No Project. This alternative assumes that the proposed project is not approved and the Sandpiper Golf Club is not renovated. The existing conditions at project site would not be changed , and the golf course operations would continue unchanged compared to existing conditions.

Alternative 2: Clubhouse Renovation Only. Under t his alternative , only the existing clubhouse would be demolished and reconstructed, similar to the design of the proposed project. This alternative would not include golf course recontouring, replacement of the existing comfort station or maintenance facilities, restoration and adaptive reuse of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station or construction of the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, coastal access improvements, dedication of an open space easement in Bell Canyon, or Hollister Avenue improvements.

Alternative 3: Revised Site Plan . This alternative would consist of revising the site plan for the project to 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. The purpose 16 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

of this alternative is to reduce potential construction equipment vibrations and resulting impacts to the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station building.

Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path. As described above, this alternative would include the construction of a new clubhouse, comfort station, Rio Grande Coffee Shop, maintenance yard, golf course recontouring, dedication of lateral access easements, dedication of a conservation easement in Bell Canyon, and undergrou nding of existing utility lines, which would be the same as the proposed project. Additionally, Alternative 4 would include most of the Hollister Avenue improvements as described for the proposed project. However, rather than a Type 4 (decomposed granite s urface) path along the south side of Hollister Avenue, Alternative 4 would include a 10 - to 14-foot wide Class I (concrete surface) bicycle path within Hollister Avenue’s southern right-of-way, extending approximately from the Hollister Avenue and Cathedra l Oaks Road intersection to an existing Class I bicycle path just west of Pebble Beach Drive.

Compared to the proposed project and other alternatives, Alternative 2 (Clubhouse Renovation Only) would achieve some of the proposed project’s objectives and, due to a reduced construction footprint and schedule , was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 2 would only partially meet the proposed project’s objectives related to providing improved recreation and dining facilities and converting existing private septic systems to public sewers.

In conclusion, Alternative 4 would encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation and result in related reductions in energy use , would be consistent with Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policies related to encouraging alternative modes of transportation and coastal access, and would implement the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan related to active means of transportation. Therefore, staff recommends the adoption of Alternative 4.

Final EIR

Following the close of the Draft EIR public review period, a Final EIR was prepared. The Final EIR includes responses to the comments received regarding the Draft EIR, and related minor revisions to the text of the Draft EIR. None of the revis ed Final EIR text includes substantial new information that would require the recirculation of the Draft EIR.

The comments and the responses to comments are provided in Section 7 of the Final EIR. The Draft EIR and Final EIR are available on the City’s website at:
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/your-city/planning-and-environmental-review/ceqa-review.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies ten (10) days prior to the City’s Planning Commission consideration of the Final EIR and the Project.

CEQA Resolution

Attachment 1 to this staff report is a Resolution recommending certification of the Final EIR, adoption of CEQA findings, and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the Final EIR consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15090. 17 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

CONCLUSION

The proposed Final EIR sufficiently analyzes the potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project and identifies mitigation measures that would reduce each of the project’s potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The proposed Final EIR also evaluated the environmental impacts of four alternatives to the project, and examined the ability of each alternative to meet the project’s objectives.

The Final EIR concludes that potential environmental impacts of Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of the same mitigation measures identified for the proposed project. The Final EIR also concludes that Alternative 4 would fulfill each of the proposed Project’s objectives; result in enhanced compliance with GP/CLUP and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan policies; and would encourage the use of alternative transportation opportunities that contribute to reduced vehicle miles traveled and associated reductions in air pollutants and greenhouse gases .

Alternative 4 also provides enhanced health benefits and recreation opportunities by encouraging the increased use of alternative modes of transportation , increased access to existing coastal vertical and horizontal access routes, and safe commuting routes for persons that rely on the use of alternatives modes of transportation.

The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve Alternative 4 pending revisions to the project’s proposed landscaping plan to minimize the potential for obstructions of existing scenic coas tal views resulting from additional landscaping to be planted on the project site. As described in the Planning Commission Review section above, the project applicant will revise the project landscape plan as directed by the DRB should the City Council accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council certify the Final EIR, adopt the CEQA Findings, adopt the MMRP, and approve Alternative 4 , as outlined in the attached City Council Resolutions and their accompanying Exhibits.

PUBLIC NOTICE

On May 21, 2026, notice of the City Council hearing was published in the Santa Barbara Independent. On May 20, 2026, the notice was also mailed to residents and property owners within a 1,000-foot radius of the project site, and an electronic notification was sent to all interested parties as well. In addition, on May 18, 2026, the on-site notice was updated. The site has been posted with story poles since January 13, 2026.

FISCAL ANALYSIS

The processing costs associa ted with the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project have been and continue to be the responsibility of the applicant.

ALTERNATIVES:

If the City Council does not approve some or all components of the Project, possible case processing options include:
18 Meeting Date: June 2, 2026

1. Continue for additional information

2. Certify the EIR only; or

3. Express the intent to deny some or all components of the Project and direct staff to prepare findings for denial and continue the item to a date certain for action on the denial resolutions.

LEGAL REVIEW BY: Isaac Rosen, City Attorney

APPROVED BY: Robert Nisbet, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution 26-____ entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California: 1) Adopt ing Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, 2) Certify ing the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024120923), 3) Adopt ing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program , and 4) Approving Alternative 4 (Extended Bicycle Path) Development Plan 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 – Findings of Fact
Exhibit B – Sandpiper EIR Weblink: https://www.cityofgoleta.org/your- city/planning-and-environmental-review/ceqa-review/sandpiper-golf-course Exhibit C – MMRP

2. Resolution 2 6-___ 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

3. Staff Presentation

4. Applicant’s Presentation
19 ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution 26 -____ entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California: 1) Adopting Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, 2) Certify ing the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2024120923), 3) Adopt ing the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and 4) Approving Alternative 4 (Extended Bicycle Path) Development Plan 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 – Findings of Fact
Exhibit B – Sandpiper EIR Weblink : https://www.cityofgoleta.org/your- city/planning-and-environmental-review/ceqa-review/sandpiper-golf-course Exhibit C – MMRP

20 City Council Resolution 26-__, Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation Project

City Council Resolution No. 26-______
RESOLUTION NO. 26 -____.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GOLETA, CALIFORNIA : 1) ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL

FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT, 2) CERTIFYING THE SANDPIPER GOLF

COURSE RENOVATION AND NEW CLUBHOUSE PROJECT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH #2024120923),
3) ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM, AND 4) APPROVING ALTERNATIVE 4 (EXTENDED

BICYCLE PATH) DEVELO PMENT PLAN AND CON DITIONAL

USE PERMIT FOR THE S ANDPIPER GOLF COURSE
RENOVATION AND NEW C LUBHOUSE PROJECT AT 7925
HOLLISTER AVENUE GOL ETA; APN 079 -210-059; CASE NOS.
22-0001-CDPH (IN CON CEPT); 22-0009-DP-CUP; AND 22 -0032- DRB.

WHEREAS, on November 21, 2022, Mr. Steve Welton, of Suzanne Elledge Planning and Permitting, representative for the Property Owner, Sandpiper Golf Trust, LLC, (“Owner” submitted an application or the renovation of an existing golf course, and

WHEREAS the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project (the “Project”) proposes to demolish the existing golf course clubhouse and construct a new, multi-story clubhouse (2 above grade and 1 below grade) , construct additional parking spaces, make modifications to the existing 18 -hole golf course, make landscaping and irrigation improvements, replace existing maintenance facilities, replace an existing comfort station, construct the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, and reuse and restore the historic Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas station to provide seating and bicycle amenities for the Rio Grande Coffee shop, incorporate the new clubhouse and comfort station into the Sphere of Influence for the Goleta West Sanitary District (“GWSD”), vacate the Hollister Avenue rig ht-of- way from the City, dedicate a five-acre easement at Bell Canyon to a qualified land conservation entity; and make improvements along Hollister Avenue, including revised project site entry points, a new public trail, undergrounding of electrical and utility lines, bus stop relocation, make curb and sidewalk improvements, and request an adjustment to allow the maximum height of the proposed clubhouse building to be increased from 25 feet to 29 feet; and
WHEREAS a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to modif y Conservation Element Figure 4 -1 and Open Space Element Figure 3 -5 of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan was originally included as part of the application.

However, on November 19, 2024, the City Council changed the General Plan. As a result, the Sandpiper GPA is no longer needed; and
21 City Council Resolution 26-__, Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation Project

City Council Resolution No. 26-______
WHEREAS the proposed Project is located on a 193-acre site in the Coastal zone at 7925 Hollister Avenue, Assessor’s Parcel Number 079-210-059, in the City of Goleta, in Santa Barbara County California; and
WHEREAS the proposed Project requires approvals of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan with adjustments (22-0009-DP-CUP), Coastal Development Plan (in concept , 22-001-CDPH), design approval (22 -0032-DRB), Demolition Permit, Building Permit, Grading Permi t, and Encroachment Permit, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 21067 of the Public Resources Code, and section 15367 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.), the City of Goleta is the lead agency for the proposed Project; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, on December 26, 2024, the City sent to the Office of Planning and Research and each responsible and trustee agency a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) stating that an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse # 2024120923) would be prepared; and
WHEREAS nineteen (19) comment letters from five agencies and fourteen members of the public and organizations were received in response to the NOP; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21083.9 and State CEQA G uidelines Sections 15082(c) and 15083, the City held a duly noticed Scoping Meeting on January 15, 2025 , to solicit comments on the scope of the environmental review of the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS a Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) was prepared, incorporating comments received in response to the NOP; and WHEREAS the Draft EIR determined that mitigation measures were required to mitigate impacts to a less than significant level for the following resource areas: Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems; and WHEREAS the Draft EIR further concluded that the proposed Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; and WHEREAS, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15085, a Notice of Completion was prepared and filed with the Office of Planning and Research on October 16, 2025; and
WHEREAS, as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(a), the City provided Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR to the public at the same time 22 City Council Resolution 26-__, Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation Project

City Council Resolution No. 26-______
that the City sent Notice of Completion to the Office of Planning and Research, on October 16, 2025; and
WHEREAS, during the public comment period, copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices were available for review and inspection at City Hall, on the City’s website, and at the Goleta Valley Library Express and Goleta Community Center; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15087(e), the Draft EIR was circulated for at least a 45 -day public review and comment period from October 16, 2025 to December 1, 2025; and
WHEREAS, during the public review and comment period, the City consulted with and requested comments from all responsible and trustee agencies, other regulatory agencies, and others pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15086; and
WHEREAS, on November 6, 2025, the City held an Environmental Hearing Officer meeting, where one verbal comment was received; and WHEREAS the City received 46 written comment letters on the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided copies of its responses to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s consideration of the Final EIR; and WHEREAS the City released the Final EIR (“Final EIR”), which consists of the Draft EIR, all technical appendices prepared in support of the Draft EIR, all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, written responses to all written comment letters received on the Draft EIR, and technical appendices; and WHEREAS the “EIR” consists of the Final EIR and its attachments and appendices, as well as the Draft EIR and its attachments and appendices (as modified by the Final EIR); and
WHEREAS all potentially signi ficant adverse environmental impacts were sufficiently analyzed in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and WHEREAS all of the requirements of the Public Resources Code and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in connection with the preparation of the EIR, which is sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project have been adequately evaluated; and
23 City Council Resolution 26-__, Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation Project

City Council Resolution No. 26-______
WHEREAS the EIR prepared in connection with the Project sufficiently analyzes the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts, and the EIR analyzes four alternatives to the Project, including Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path (“Alternative 4”), examining the environmental impacts of each alternative as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet Project objectives; and WHEREAS Alternative 4 would include the construction of a new clubhouse, comfort station, Rio Grande Coff ee Shop, maintenance yard, golf course recontouring, dedication of lateral access easements, dedication of a conservation easement at Bell Canyon, and undergrounding of existing utility lines, which would be the same as the proposed Project. In lieu of the Type 4 trail along the south side of Hollister Avenue, Alternative 4 would include a 10 - to 14-foot Class I bicycle path within Hollister Avenue’s southern right -of-way, extending approximately from the Hollister Avenue and Cathedral Oaks Road intersection to an existing Class I bicycle path just west of Pebble Beach Drive, approximately 0.3 mile beyond the Project site’s eastern boundary; and
WHEREAS, in contrast to the Project, Alternative 4 would reduce the impacts to air quality, energy, greenhouse gases, land use, parks and recreation, and transportation through the encouragement of alternative transportation and corresponding reduction in automobile travel; and
WHEREAS Alternative 4 would increase public access to the Ellwood Mesa Open Space, the Sperling Preserve, the Pacific Ocean and related beach access points through a safe and wide path, and therefore better support the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policies related to vertical access and active transportation, and comply with the Ci ty’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, Alternative 4 would also meet all project objectives, and in fact further Project Objective 1. Improve coastal access for the public in the vicinity of the project site; and
WHEREAS the City has made certain findings of fact, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein, based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and the entirety of the administrative record for Alternative 4, which are incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS the City finds that Alternative 4’s environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in Section II of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS the City finds tha t Alternative 4’s environmental impacts that are identified in the EIR as less than significant with incorporation of mitigation measures are described in Section III of Exhibit A; and 24 City Council Resolution 26-__, Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation Project

City Council Resolution No. 26-______
WHEREAS the City finds that Alternative 4 has no significant and unavoidable environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level, as described in Section IV of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS the cumulative impacts of Alternative 4 identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section V of Exhibit A; and WHEREAS the potential significant irreversible environmental changes that would result from Alternative 4 identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VI of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS the existence of any growth -inducing impacts resulting from Alternative 4 identified in the EIR and set forth herein, are described in Section VII of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS alternatives to Alternative 4 that might further reduce the already less than significant environmental impacts are described in Section VIII of Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS all the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and necessary to reduce the potentially significant impacts of Alternative 4 to a level of less than significant are s et forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Exhibit B to this Resolution, attached hereto and incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the i nformation and data in the administrative record, including but not limited to the EIR, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS the EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project; and
WHEREAS no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the City and no additional information submitted to the City have produced substantial new information requiring recircul ation of the EIR or additional environmental review of the Project under Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
WHEREAS, at their hearing conducted on April 27, 2026, the Planning Commission of the City of Goleta voted 4-0-1 (one abstention) to recommend that the City Council certify the proposed Final EIR.

WHEREAS, on June 2, 2026, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing, at which time the City Council considered the entire administrative 25 City Council Resolution 26-__, Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation Project

City Council Resolution No. 26-______
record, Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), including staff reports and oral and written testimony from interested persons; and WHEREAS all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA:

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

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that it has been presented with the EIR, which it has reviewed and considered, and further finds that the EIR is an accurate and objective statement that has been completed in full compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that the EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City. The City Council declares that no evidence of new significant impacts or any new information of “substantial importance” as defined by State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5, has been received by the City after circulation of the Dr aft EIR that would require recirculation. Therefore, the City Council certifies the Final EIR based on the entirety of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby adopts the “CEQA Findings of Fact” which where were prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. Implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is hereby made a condition of approval of the Project. In the event of any inconsistencies between the Mitigation Measures set forth in the EIR or the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.

SECTION 5. Based upon the entire record before it, including the EIR, Findings of Fact, and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council approves Alternative 4.

SECTION 6. The documents and m aterials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at Goleta City Hall, located at 130 Cremona Drive, Suite B, Goleta, California 93117 . The custodian for these records is the City Clerk. This information is provided pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
26 City Council Resolution 26-__, Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation Project

City Council Resolution No. 26-______
SECTION 7. The City Council hereby directs City staff to cause a Notice of Determination to be filed and posted with the County Clerk and the State Clearinghouse within five working days of the adoption of this Resolution.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of ______June, 2026. ________________________________

PAULA PEROTTE
MAYOR

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________ __________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ ISAAC ROSEN

CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY

27 City Council Resolution 26-__, Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation Project

City Council Resolution No. 26-______

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.

CITY OF GOLETA )

I, DEBORAH S. LOPEZ, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 26 -__ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Goleta at a regular meeting held on the __ day of ______ 2026, by the following roll call vote of the Commission:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

(SEAL)

_________________________
DEBORAH S. LOPEZ

CITY CLERK

Exhibit A – Findings of Fact
Exhibit B –Link to the Final EIR
Exhibit C – MMRP

28 ATTACHMENT 1
Exhibit A
Findings of Fact

29 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____

EXHIBIT A

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (“CEQA”) requires that public agencies shall not approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report ( “EIR”) has been certified that identifies one or more significant adverse environmental effects of a project unless the public agency makes one or more written Findings for each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each Finding (State CEQA Guidelines [Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.], § 15091). This document presents the CEQA Findings of Fact made by the City of Goleta , in its capacity as the CEQA lead agency, regarding the Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation and New Clubhouse Project – Alternative 4: Extended Bicycle Path (“Alternative 4”), evaluated in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”) and Final Environmental Impact Report (“Final EIR”) for the Project.

SECTION I.

INTRODUCTION
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” Section 21002 further states that the procedures required by CEQA “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects.” Pursuant to section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, a public agency may only approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been c ompleted that identifies any significant environmental effects if the agency makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

1. Changes or alt erations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

As indicated above, section 21002 requires an agency to “avoid or substantially lessen” significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that 30 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
“substantially lessen” significant environmental impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002’s mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 [“CEQA does not mandate the choice of the environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to a n acceptable level”]; Las Virgenes Homeowners Fed., Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309 [“[t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level of insignificance . . . if such wou ld render the project unfeasible”].)
While CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts, an agency need not adopt infeasible mitigation measures or alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21002.1(c) [if “economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects on the environment of a project, the project may nonetheless be carried out or approved at the discret ion of a public agency”]; see also State CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.6(a) [an “EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible”].) CEQA defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable per iod of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.1.) The State CEQA Guidelines add “legal” considerations as another indicia of feasibility. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15364.) Pr oject objectives also inform the determination of “feasibility.” ( Jones v. U.C. Regents (2010) 183 Cal. App. 4th 818, 828 -829.) “‘[F]easibility’ under CEQA encompasses ‘desirability’ to the extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of t he relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.” (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; see also Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.) “Broader considera tions of policy thus come into play when the decision making body is considering actual feasibility[.]” ( Cal. Native Plant Soc’y v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 1000 (“ Native Plant ”); see also Pub.

Resources Code, § 21081(a)(3) [“economi c, legal, social, technological, or other considerations” may justify rejecting mitigation and alternatives as infeasible] (emphasis added).)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures. ( Leonoff v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, “[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced.” ( Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Boar d of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project’s environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be produced “to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as 31 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
environmental aspects are concerned.” Outside agencies (including courts) are not to “impose unreasonable extremes or to interject [themselves] within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken.” (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com. v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
32 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
SECTION II.

FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts of Alternative 4 are less than significant and t herefore do not require the imposition of Mitigation Measures.

A. AESTHETICS

1. Scenic Vistas
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-20, 6-49.) Explanation: Construction. The project site includes portions of Hollister Avenue (including a bicycle path along Hollister Avenue from Cathedral Oaks Road to Pebble Beach Drive) , a locally designated scenic corridor, and is in the vicinity of three locally designated scenic corridors (U.S. 101, Calle Real, and Cathedral Oaks Road). Existing views of the project site from U.S. 101, Calle Real, and most of Cathedral Oaks Road are obscured by intervening buildings (single -family residences), elevated topograp hy, and mature vegetation.

Construction of Alternative 4 would thus not substantially degrade views of scenic vistas from these three scenic corridors. The project site is in the vicinity of three publicly accessible scenic viewpoints (Sandpiper Golf Club, Hollister Avenue [East Devereaux Creek], and Hollister Avenue [West Devereaux Creek]). Furthermore, the project site is visible from recreational trails within Santa Barbara Shores Park, which offer views of the Goleta shoreline and Pacific Ocean.

Construction of Alternative 4 would be visible from public locations that offer views of City designated scenic vistas. Specifically, construction of the proposed clubhouse, maintenance facility, Rio Grande Coffee Shop, Hollister Avenue improvements, golf course recontouring, and installation of underground utility lines would be visible from the Hollister Avenue scenic corridor and related scenic viewpoints. Golf course recontouring would also be visible from Santa Barbara Shores Park. Construction activities wo uld include site preparation, grading, paving, utility trenching, and building construction, all of which would require heavy machinery and materials storage on the project site. Temporary construction features, such as scaffolding, construction trailers, or safety fencing, may also occur on the project site.
33 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Although construction activities would be visible to the public from the Hollister Avenue scenic corridor, scenic viewpoints, and Santa Barbara Shores Park, such visual impacts would be temporary.

Moreover, the phasing of construction activities would limit the duration and extent of visual degradation such that construction would not occur throughout the entire project site at one time.

Further, as a Condition of Approval 67, the City would require th at the construction site be screened with fencing during construction, which would reduce views of equipment and the construction sites from public viewing areas. Therefore, construction of Alternative 4 would not have a substantial adverse effect on a sce nic vista, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-16 through

4.1-17, 6-49.)
Operation. Views of the project site would be visible from public locations that offer views of City -designated scenic vistas, including the Hollister Avenue scenic corridor, scenic viewpoints, and Santa Barbara Shores Park.

Alternative 4 would include the removal of an oak tree within the Hollister Avenue ROW as well as the removal of 39 non-native trees generally located within the proposed parking areas at the new clubhouse and maintenance yard, and within the golf course playing areas. Alternative 4 includes the planting of 116 trees, resulting in a net increase of 65 trees on the project site. To offset the removal of the oak tree, the project would include the planting of a replacement 72-inch box oak on the project site. Eighty three (83) of the new trees would be planted within the new parking areas. Additional trees would be located along the western perimeter of the golf course to provide visual screening of the Venoco facility; near the Hollister Avenue/Cathedral Oaks Road intersection to soften views of the proposed clubhouse and parking areas; and at strategic locations within the golf course to soften views of the maintenance yard and Rio Grande Coffee Shop. The locations of new trees were selected to maintain existing views of the Pacific Ocean. The additi on of new trees along the western perimeter of the golf course, around the clubhouse, at the maintenance yard, and at the Rio Grande Coffee Shop would not interfere with public views of the Pacific Ocean because no views of the Pacific Ocean are visible from public roads at these locations. Further, the addition of new trees at the maintenance yard would screen the maintenance yard structures and fence from Hollister Avenue and improve existing views from the roadway. The addition of new trees at the clubhouse would be similar to the existing, vegetated conditions that surround the clubhouse, and would screen views of the new, paved parking areas from Hollister Avenue. Therefore, the addition of new trees would not 34 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
interfere with previous, unobstructed, scen ic views from public locations. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-17, 6-49.)
The undergrounding of the existing power lines would improve scenic views from Hollister Avenue of the Pacific Ocean by removing the existing obstruction. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-17, 6-49.) KVP 1 ( Santa Barbara Shores Park) : This location is at Santa Barbara Shores Park, south of Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperling Preserve. Northwestern-facing views of the golf course are visible from this viewpoint. However, the proposed clubhouse, comfort station, and Rio Grande Coffee Shop would not be visible from this viewpoint, and the proposed golf course layout would not result in a substantial change to the visual landscape. Alternative 4 would not result in a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas of the Santa Ynez Mountains or Goleta shoreline from Santa Barbara Shores Park. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-25, 6-49.)
KVP 2 (Hollister Avenue at Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station): This location is along Hollister Avenue, a locally designated scenic corridor, and is the location of the Hollister Avenue (East Devereaux Creek) scenic viewpoint. S outh-facing views of the proposed Rio Grande Coffee Shop, Hollister Avenue improvements, and
undergrounding of power lines would be visible from this viewpoint.

However, the proposed restoration of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station would improve the quality of views from Hollister Avenue, as the existing structure is aging and in a state of disrepair; the Rio Grande Coffee Shop would be visually and architecturally compatible with the restored historic Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station; the improvements along Hollister Avenue would not result in substantial changes to the visual landscape; and the addition of new vegetation and landscaping, and undergrounding of power lines, would result in a more cohesive and integrated visual landscape. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not result in a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas of the Goleta shoreline or Pacific Ocean visible from this portion of the Hollister Avenue scenic corridor or Hollister Avenue (East Devereaux Creek) scenic viewpoint. (Draft EIR, pp .

4.1-25, 6-49.)
KVP 3 (Hollister Avenue at Sandpiper Golf Club Golf Course) : This location is along Hollister Avenue, a locally designated scenic corridor, and is the location of the Hollister Avenue (West Devereaux Creek) scenic viewpoint. South-facing views of the existing project site are visible from this viewpoint. Features of Alternative 4 that would be visible from this viewpoint include golf course improvements, Hollister Avenue improvements, and the
35 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
undergrounding of power lines. However, the golf course improvements would add unintrusive wooden fencing along the project site and would not result in substantial changes to the visual landscape. The Hollister Avenue improvements would add greenery and a recreational pathway through the area, and the
undergrounding of power lines would remove visual clutter and provide unobstructed views of the golf course, distant coastal bluffs and Pacific Ocean. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not result in a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas of the Goleta shoreline or Pacific Ocean visible from this portion of the Hollister Avenue scenic corridor or Hollister Avenue (West Devereaux Creek) scenic viewpoint. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-25, 6-49.)
KVP 4 (Hollister Avenue/Cathedral Oaks Road Intersection) : This location is near the Hollister Avenue/Cathedral Oaks Road intersection. South-facing views of the existing project site are visible from this viewpoint. Features of Alternative 4 that would be visible from this viewpoint include golf course improvements, Holliste r Avenue improvements, the undergrounding of power lines, and the new clubhouse. However, the golf course improvements and Hollister Avenue improvements would not result in substantial changes to the visual landscape; the undergrounding of power lines would remove visual clutter and provide unobstructed views of the golf course, distant coastal bluffs and Pacific Ocean; and the new clubhouse would be visually integrated into the landscape via sloped turf walls and a turf roof that would match surrounding gr eenery.

Therefore, Alternative 4 would not result in a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas of the Goleta shoreline or Pacific Ocean visible from the Sandpiper Golf Club scenic viewpoint. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.1-25 through 4.1-26, 6-49.)
KVP 5 (Holliste r Avenue, Sandpiper Golf Club Clubhouse) : This location is along Hollister Avenue, a locally designated scenic corridor. South-facing views of the existing project site, including the clubhouse, are visible from this viewpoint. Features of Alternative 4 that would be visible from this viewpoint include the new clubhouse, Hollister Avenue improvements, and undergrounding of power lines.

However, the new clubhouse would include scenic features such as glass, turf walls, and a turf roof, which would complement the surrounding scenery; the proposed Hollister Avenue improvements would not result in substantial changes to the visual landscape; and the undergrounding of power lines would remove visual clutter and improve overall views of the Sandpiper Golf Course a nd clubhouse.

Additionally, visual impacts of the proposed Development Plan Adjustment request to allow parking within the front yard setback would be substantially similar to the existing conditions. Therefore, 36 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 4 would not result in a substant ial adverse effect on scenic vistas of the Goleta shoreline or Pacific Ocean visible from this portion of the Hollister Avenue scenic corridor . (Draft EIR, pp.

4.1-26, 6-49.)
As discussed in the above subsections , the proposed changes to existing visual conditions would remove visual clutter and overall would not obstruct existing scenic views, substantially change existing visual conditions associated with the golf course, or result in new structures that are incom patible with existing conditions.

Therefore, project operations would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-16 through 4.1-20, 6-49.)

2. Scenic Resources
Threshold: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-26, 6-49.)
Explanation: U.S. 101 is eligible for desig nation as a State Scenic Highway throughout Goleta, but is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway in the vicinity of the project site. The project site is approximately 430 feet south of U.S. 101. Buildings, topography, and vegetation obscure views of the project site and existing on -site development from vehicles travelling along U.S. 101. Therefore, there would be no impact on scenic resources within an eligible State Scenic Highway. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-26, 6-49.)

3. Visual Character
Threshold: Would the project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). I f the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-27 through 4.1-29, p. 6-50.) Explanation: Given that Alternative 4 would facilitate redevelopment in an urbanized area, the impact discussion of visual character and views is focused on consistency with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. The following subsections 37 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
describe Alternative 4’s consistency with applicable zoning and other regulations that govern scenic quality.

City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan
Alternative 4 would be consistent with the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan. For example, Alternative 4 would be consistent with Policies VH 1.1, Scenic Resources; VH 1.2, Scenic Resources Map; VH 1.3, Protection of Ocean and Island Views; VH

1.4, Protection of Mountain and Foothill Views; VH 1.5, Protection of Open Space Views; VH 1.6, Preservation of Natural Landforms; and VH 1.8, Private Views; as Alternative 4 would maintain or improve both public and private scenic views from or through the project site of the Santa Ynez Mountains, Goleta shoreline, Pacific Ocean, and Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperlin g Preserve. Alternative 4 would be consistent with Policies VH 2.1, Designated Scenic Corridors; VH 2.2, Preservation of Scenic Corridors; VH 2.3, Development Projects Along Scenic Corridors; VH 2.4, Public Improvements; and VH 2.5, Linkages between Scenic Areas; as the Alternative 4 would maintain or improve scenic views from the locally designated Hollister Avenue scenic corridor. Alternative 4 would be consistent with Policies VH 3.3, Site Design; VH 3.4, Building Design; VH 3.5, Pedestrian-Oriented Design; VH 4.9, Landscape Design; VH

4.10, Streetscape and Frontage Design; VH 4.11, Parking Lots; VH

4.12, Lighting; VH 4.14, Utilities; and VH 4.16, Green Building; as Alternative 4 would include visually appealing and unintrusive design, green building prac tices, and appropriate landscaping in all proposed improvements, including the clubhouse, comfort station, maintenance yard, Rio Grande Coffee Shop, golf course layout, associated parking lots, Hollister Avenue improvements, and coastal access improvements. Alternative 4 would be consistent with Policy VH 4.15, Site -Specific Visual Assessments, as visual simulations were used to evaluate the effects of the proposed redevelopment and impacts on scenic views. Alternative 4 would be consistent with Policy VH 5.5, Alterations to Historic Resources, and Policy VH 5.7, New Construction, as the proposed restoration and adaptive reuse of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station would meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the Rio Grande Coffee Shop would be aesthetically compatible with the existing historic building. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-27 through 4.1-28, 6-49.) Goleta Zoning Code
The project site is zoned as Open Space/Active Recreation. Allowed uses within this zone include community gar dens, government buildings, park and recreation facilities, passive open space, and 38 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
outdoor recreation (with a Conditional Use Permit). As the proposed redevelopment of the project site would consist of outdoor recreational facilities with associated recre ational and support structures, and the project applicant would be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit, Alternative 4 would thus be permitted in the Open Space/Active Recreation zone. Alternative 4 would be required to comply with development regul ations pursuant to Section

17.12.030 of the City’s Zoning Code. Alternative 4 would meet the development standards, including maximum lot coverage and maximum building height, of the Open Space/Active Recreation zone. Additionally, Alternative 4 would include a Development Plan Adjustment request to allow vehicle parking within the front yard setback; this proposed Adjustment would result in visual conditions that are substantially similar to existing conditions. The proposed maximum height of the clubhouse building would be 29 feet, which would be similar to existing conditions (under which the clubhouse has a height of 28 feet 6 inches) and visual impacts would be minimized due to the presence of existing mature vegetation surrounding the clubhouse. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-28, 6-49.) California Coastal Act
The project site is located in the Coastal Zone. Views of the Pacific Ocean through the project site are currently visible from public locations such as Santa Barbara Shores Park, Hollister Avenue, and the westernmost portion of Cathedral Oaks Road. Alternative 4 would not obstruct views of the Pacific Ocean from Santa Barbara Shores Park, as no structures would be visible from Santa Barbara Shores Park. In addition, the recontoured golf cours e would be similar to existing conditions, with the addition of more native plants as landscaping. Alternative 4 would improve views of the Pacific Ocean from Hollister Avenue and Cathedral Oaks Road (including from pedestrian facilities along the roadways ) due to the proposed undergrounding of power lines, which would provide clearer and unobstructed views of the Pacific Ocean and surrounding Goleta shoreline. Thus, Alternative 4 would protect scenic and visual qualities, including views of the ocean, ther eby adhering to Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-28, 6-49.) FAR Part 77
The project site is within the FAR Part 77 airspace surface for the Santa Barbara Airport (Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 2023). Heigh t restrictions for development on the project site, as identified by FAR Part 77, range from 361 feet to 411 feet as stipulated in the Airport Land Use Plan for the Santa Barbara 39 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Airport (Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 2023).

Proposed project improvements would have a maximum height of 33 feet and thus would not exceed the 361 - foot threshold. Therefore, Alternative 4 would be consistent with regulations for FAR Part 77 airspace surfaces. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-29 through 4.1-28, 6-49.) Alternative 4 would be consistent with applicable zoning and other regulations that govern scenic quality. Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-27 through 4.1-29, p. 6-50.)

4. Light and Glare
Threshold: Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-29 through 4.1-30, p. 6-50.) Explanation: Alternative 4 construction is not anticipated to occur during evening or nighttime hours in accordance with Section

17.39.070 of the City’s Zoning Code, which limits construction activities from Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Thus, Alternative 4 would not introduce new light sources to the project site during the construction time period. Alternative 4 would not include lighting to accommodate night play, as night play neither occurs under existing operational conditions nor is planned as part of Alternative 4 . Any new light sources would be related to the expanded clubhouse and parking lot areas and additional security lighting as needed. Consequently, the following discussion focuses on Alternative 4’s operational impact involving light and glare.

Light
Alternative 4 would introduce new sources of securi ty lighting from the proposed parking lot at the Rio Grande Coffee Shop once operational. Light sources associated with the clubhouse, clubhouse parking lots, comfort station, and maintenance yard, as well as lighting of the cart paths, would be similar to existing conditions and used for security purposes. Proposed lighting at the clubhouse, Rio Grande Coffee shop, parking lots, and maintenance yard would consist of a combination of exterior path lights, bollard lights, down lights with tree straps, in -wall lights, understep and handrail strip lights, and sign lighting at entries and directional signage. Exterior lighting would consist of downward, directed fixtures. Proposed path lighting associated with all proposed project structures would provide safety and security for guests and course personnel who enter or exit the property before dawn or after dusk. Proposed project lighting 40 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
would be designed in accordance with City standards, including the City of Goleta’s 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, an d sky glow (City of Goleta 2006).

Moving sources of light would come from the headlights of vehicles driving on roadways near the project site, such as Hollister Avenue, and entering or exiting the project site early in the morning and evening. While oper ation of Alternative 4 would involve vehicle travel, and thus potential light from vehicles, these lighting sources would be similar to existing conditions surrounding the project site, as residential and commercial vehicles are frequent in the area, given the site’s proximity to the U.S. 101 and Hollister Avenue/Cathedral Oaks Road interchange.

Alternative 4’s light sources would be similar to existing conditions.

New sources of light associated with the proposed parking lots and Rio Grande Coffee Shop wou ld be directed downwards, and all project-related lighting would comply with City regulations that aim to prevent over -lighting and light trespass. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not create a new substantial source of light that could affect daytime or nighttime views. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-29 through 4.1-30, 6-

49.)
Glare
Alternative 4 would introduce new sources of glare in the form of focused, intense light from sunlight reflecting on the glass surfaces of the clubhouse, comfort station, maintenance yard, and Rio Grande Coffee Shop, as well as from parked car windows within the new parking lots associated with the maintenance yard and Rio Grande Coffee Shop. However, the new clubhouse and comfort station would primarily feature turf elements, and the maintenance yard and Rio Grande Coffee Shop would be constructed with muted shades of stucco and tan, all of which would reduce substantial glare from the proposed buildings. Additionally, vegetative screening around the clubhouse and maintenance yard would reduce off -site impacts of glare from both the proposed structures and parked 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. Adjacent land uses include few glare -sensitive receptors (confined to single-family residences alon g Hollister Avenue, to the northeast), thus, the potential for glare -related impacts would be 41 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
limited. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-39, 6-49.)
Overall, potential impacts associated with the creation of a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.1-29 through 4.1-30, p. 6-50.)
B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES

1. Farmland Conversion
Thresholds: Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide significance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.17-1.)
Explanation: According to the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) California Important Farmland Finder, the project site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importation. Specifically, the project site is designated as Urban and Built -Up Land (DOC 2022), which is defined as land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 1 unit to 1.5 acres, or approximately 6 structures to a 10 -acre parcel. This designation is used for golf courses, among other developed land uses (DOC 2025). As such, Alternative 4 would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide significance to non-agricultural use. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.17 -

1.)

2. Agricultural Zoning
Thresholds: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.17-1.)
Explanation: The project site is zoned for open space and active recreation uses, and is not zoned for agricultural use. No agricultural land uses occur in the vicinity of the project site. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not have the potential to result in conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a William son Act contract. No impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.17-1.)

42 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____

3. Forestland Zoning
Thresholds: Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.17-2.)
Explanation: The project site does not contain forest land or timberland and is not zoned for Timberland Production. Development of Alternative 4 would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning of, forest land or land zoned for timberland production; and would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest land.

No impacts to forestland would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.17-2.)

4. Loss of Forest Land
Thresholds: Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.17-2.)
Explanation: The project site does not contain forest land or timberland and is not zoned for Timberland Production. Development of Alternative 4 would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning of, forest land or land zoned for timberland production; and would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest land.

No impacts to forestland would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.17-2.)

5. Conversion of Farmland or Forestland
Thresholds: Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non- forest use?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.17-2.)
Explanation: The project site does not contain forest land or timberland and is not zoned for Timberland Production. Development of Alternative 4 would not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning of, forest land or land zoned for timberland production; and would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest land. 43 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
No impacts to forestland would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.17-2.) C. AIR QUALITY

1. Air Quality Plans and Air Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-11 through 4.2-13.) Explanation: Alternative 4 does not propose any change to the project site’s existing land use that would result in substantial additional population growth in the project area, and therefore would not conflict with the land use assumptions utilized by SBCAG, which informs the 2022 Ozone Plan’s emissions forecast. Based on estimates from the Califor nia Department of Finance, in 2024, Goleta’s population is approximately 32,515 people (California Department of Finance 2024). Alternative 4 would result in approximately 21 additional employees, which could cause indirect growth; however, because these j obs would likely come from the local workforce, it is not expected that people would be required to relocate to Goleta. In a conservative scenario where all projected employees and their families were to relocate to Goleta, there would be a population grow th of 55 people,3 which would raise Goleta’s population to approximately 32,570 people4 when Alternative 4 is operational (California Department of Finance 2024). SBCAG’s growth forecast estimates that the population in Goleta would increase by 2,185 residents from the population of 32,515 residents to 34,700 residents by 2050. In addition, the growth forecast estimates that jobs would increase by 3,100 jobs from 27,970 jobs in 2030 to 31,070 jobs by 2050. Therefore, the addition of 21 employees and 55 new residents to Goleta would be within the SBCAG growth projections utilized within the 2022 Ozone Plan to forecast emissions (SBCAG 2019).

In addition, in accordance with standard practices in the City, the standard SBCAPCD fugitive dust control measures enforced through SBAPCD Rule 345 would be required for project implementation.

As Alternative 4 would be consistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan’s emissions forecast assumptions and would incorporate the standard fugitive dust control measures recommended by SBC APCD during construction activities, Alternative 4 would be consistent with the 2022 Ozone Plan. Therefore, Alternative 4 would have a less than significant impact related to conflicts with or obstruction of 44 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
implementation of the applicable air quality plan. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2- 11 through 4.2-13.)

2. Cumulatively Considerable Pollutant Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR , pp. 4.2 -13 through 4.2 -15, 6 -50 through 6-51.)
Explanation: Construction. Construction-generated emissions are temporary and short-term. Construction activities such as demolition, grading, construction worker travel to and from the project site, delivery and hauling of construction supplies and debris to and from the project site, hauling of import soil to the site, and fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment would generate emissions of O3 precursors (ROC and NOX), CO, SO2, and fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5).

Alternative 4 would extend the bicycle path from the project site’s eastern boundary to Pebble Beach Drive, and therefore would result in a small increase in criteria air pollutant emissions during construction compared to the proposed project. Under Alternative 4, approximately 0.49 acre of additional ground disturbance would occur, which is approximately 0.28 percent of the total anticip ated ground disturbance of 174.43 acres under the proposed project .

Alternative 4 ’s maximum annual construction emissions are 1.03 tons per year of reactive organic compounds, and 3.36 tons per year of nitrogen oxides, which do not exceed the applicable SB CAPCD thresholds of 25 tons per year. As such, Alternative 4 would not exceed the applicable SBCAPCD thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and this impact would be less than significant.

Operation. Operation of Alternative 4 would generate criteria air pollutant emissions associated with area sources (e.g., architectural coatings, consumer products, and landscaping equipment) energy sources (i.e., use of natural gas for space and water heating), and mobile sources (i.e., vehicle trips to and from the project site).

Alternative 4 would however reduce long -term criteria pollutant emissions by promoting alternative modes of transportation.

Specifically, the inclusion of a 10 - to 14 -foot Class I bicycle path within Hollister Avenue’s southern right -of-way would facilitate 45 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
increased use of bicycles and pedestrian travel. This enhanced connectivity to regional bike infrastructure and transit stops, including accommodation of an existing bus stop and a proposed bus stop near Cathedral Oaks Road, would reduce reliance on automobile travel and associated vehicle emissions. Therefore, operational impacts would be reduced when compared to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant because the emissions generated by the operation of Alternative 4 would not exceed the County’s operational thresholds used by the City of Goleta for this analysis. In addition, air pollutant emissions from vehicle trips would be reduced compared to existing conditions, corresponding with the reduction in total rounds of golf allowed annually compared to existing conditions.

Therefore, project operation would not contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2 -13 through 4.2 -15, 6 -50 through 6-51.)

3. Sensitive Receptors
Threshold: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than significant. (Dra ft EIR , pp. 4.2 -15 through 4.2 -16, 6 -50 through 6-51.)
Explanation: The closest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located adjacent to the east of the project site. Construction would not result in substantial increases in vehicle trips and therefore would not result in substantial adverse air quality impacts related to carbon monoxide. Construction activities including golf course contouring would occur between 210 and 1,800 feet away from existing residential areas and receptors. DPM, VOC, and NOx emissions during construction would not be concentrated in one area of the project site but would be spread over the entirety of the project site.

These emissions would be short-term, temporary, and cease following the completion of construction. Based on the existing wind patterns at the project site, with winds blowing primarily northeast to southwest, emissions would be carried away from sensitive receptors. Based on the distance of emissions to sensitive receptors, wind patterns on the project site, and temporary construction emissions that would not be concentrated in one area, construction of Alternative 4 would have a less than significant impact related to exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Operation of Alternative 4 does not involve the use of equipment that would increase TAC emissions at the project site and therefore would 46 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
not result in substantial adverse air quality impacts related to carbon monoxide. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-15 through 4.2-16, 6-50 through 6-51.)

4. Other Adverse Emissions
Threshold: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-16, 6-51.) Explanation: Alternative 4 would generate o il and diesel fuel odors during construction from equipment use. The odors would be limited to the construction period and would be intermittent and temporary.

Furthermore, these odors would dissipate rapidly with distance from in-use construction equipmen t. Accordingly, project construction would not result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors, that would adversely affect a substantial number of people.

Alternative 4 would include food preparation at the clubhouse restaurant and Rio Grande Coffee Shop. However, odors associated with food preparation would primarily be confined to the indoor dining areas of these project features. 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. Similar to construction rules, odors from activities at the maintenance facility (such as fueling) would be interm ittent, temporary, and these odors would dissipate rapidly with distance and be carried away from nearby development given the on -site wind patterns. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not result in emissions leading to odors that would adversely affect a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.2-16, 6-51.)
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-36 through 4.3-51, 6-52.) 47 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Explanation: Special-Status Plant Species
The following special -status plant species were observed on the project site: cliff malacothrix, red sand verbena, Santa Barbara honeysuckle, southern California black walnut, and woolly seablite.

Direct Impacts.

Alternative 4 would not involve ground disturbance or other construction activities within Bell Canyon, where red sand verbena and southern California black walnut occur. Additionally, recontouring of the golf course would not overlap with the existing location of woolly seablite along the coastal bluff. Therefore, no direct impacts to red sand verbena, southern California black walnut, and wooly seablite would occur.

Impacts from human presence du ring operation of the Sandpiper Golf Club, such as the trampling of special -status plant species, could occur. However, Alternative 4 would limit the overall number of golfers using the golf course, and would not change the existing hours of operation. The refore, Alternative 4 would not result in increased human presence such that it could lead to direct impacts to special-status plant species. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-36, 6-51 through 6-52)
Operation and maintenance (associated with the golf course) of Alternative 4 would be similar to existing conditions, as the proposed pathway would not require substantial long -term maintenance activity. Alternative 4 would restore approximately 2,831 square feet of riparian habitat ESHA. Therefore, operation and maintenance activities would have a less than significant impact on special-status plant species. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-37, 6-51 through 6-52) Special-Status Wildlife Species
14 special-status wildlife species were identified on the project site during surveys, or have been identified near the project site. The following analysis focuses on potential impacts to the invertebrate, fish, amphibian, reptile, and bird species previously identified on or near the project site. Burrowing owl, which is a California Species of Special Concern, was not observed during surveys of the project site.

Furthermore, the project site lacks suitable habitat for burrowing owl, and the potential for the species to occur is low. Consequently, impacts to burrowing owl are not addressed in the following analysis.

Crotch’s Bumble Bee . Crotch’s bumble bee has the potential to 48 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
occur on the project site, given the California Natural Diversity Database includes an occurrence of Crotch’s bumble bee
approximately 0.2 mile from the project site. However , the maintained nature of the project site limits available floral resources, burrows, and microhabitats that Crotch’s bumble bee might utilize.

Additionally, microhabitats, where available, are primarily located in areas near protected eucalyptus woodlan d (along the eastern boundary of the project site), as well as scrub and riparian habitat associated with coastal bluffs, Devereux Creek, and Bell Canyon Creek, where no construction activities are proposed. Alternative 4 would result in minimal new development and would not substantially change the biological setting of the project site, and impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee habitat would be less than significant.

Operation and maintenance of Alternative 4 would be similar to existing conditions. However, Alternative 4 would reduce the amount of irrigated turf from 125 acres to 62 acres, with a corresponding reduction in the amount of fertilizers and pesticides required for golf course maintenance. Golf course personnel would continue to manage turf to requir e the minimum amount of fertilizers and pesticides to maintain the golf course. Alternative 4 would involve the conversion of 63 acres of former golf course to native landscaping.

Therefore, operation and maintenance activities would have a less than significant impact on Crotch’s bumble bee. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3- 37, 6-51 through 6-52)
Globose Dune Beetle . The nearest occurrences of globose dune beetle are at the mouth of Tecolote Creek, approximately 0.3 mile west of the project site and 0.4 mile west of the golf course. Potential habitat on the project site is limited to areas well away from the golf course, specifically on the west side of Bell Canyon Creek lagoon.

The project site generally lacks the dune habitat suitable for this species, with the possib le exception of a small area west of Bell Canyon Creek lagoon, which is more than 200 feet from the golf course. Alternative 4 would not involve construction activities in Bell Canyon, and would thus not have the potential to impact globose dune beetle or its habitat. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-38, 6-51 through 6-52) Monarch Butterfly . Monarch butterfly has been observed on the project site. No project activities would occur within 200 feet of the monarch butterfly roost in Bell Canyon. No clustering or overwintering monarch butterflies were detected on the project site during the 2021 -2022 surveys. In the eastern portion of the project site, proposed storm drain, grading, replacement of an existing maintenance building, construction of the replacement cart paths, and sandcapping would occur within the western edge of the 49 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
eucalyptus windrow. The windrow is mapped as part of the Xerces Site #2747 but only provides marginally suitable temporary transitory habitat and is therefore not considered ESHA. These activities would occur in existing developed areas and would not require removal of or major impacts to these trees. Proposed sewer line trenching, grading, cart path replacement, and sandcapping would occur at the northern and western edge of the eucalyptus grove surrounding Devereux Creek, which is designated Monarch Butterfly Roosting Habitat ESHA. The sewer line would occur from the southern on-site portion of Devereux Creek to the proposed comfort station and would be routed or the alignment shifted to avoid removal of mature trees or major damage1 to their roots through applicant -proposed tree protection measures. None of the proposed activities within Monarch Butterfly Roosting Habitat ESHA would require removal of trees or vegetation contributing to monarch butterfly habitat.

Operation and maintenance of Alternative 4 would be simi lar to existing conditions. Alternative 4 would restore approximately 2,831 square feet of riparian and upland overwintering monarch butterfly habitat ESHA. Therefore, operation and maintenance activities would have a less than significant impact on monarch butterfly. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-38 through 4.3-39, 6-51 through 6-52)
Tidewater Goby. Tidewater goby occurs on the project site within Bell Canyon Creek. Habitat for tidewater goby is absent elsewhere on the project site. Alternative 4 would not result in direct impacts to tidewater goby, as the nearest activities to Bell Canyon Creek would consist of sandcapping, approximately 100 feet to the east.

Operation and maintenance of Alternative 4 would be similar to existing conditions. Operation and maintenan ce activities would have a less than significant impact on tidewater goby. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.3-39, 6-51 through 6-52)
California Red -legged Frog . Suitable habitat for California red - legged frog occurs on the project site within Bell Canyon, which is approximately 100 feet from proposed sandcapping activities.

Additionally, although the golf course pond and aquatic habitat in the unnamed wetland feature near the coastal bluff are not considered suitable breeding habitat for California red -legged frog, the sp ecies has been observed in these locations during the period when frogs are dispersing through habitats surrounding breeding ponds.

Alternative 4 would not involve activities that would directly affect aquatic habitat within Bell Canyon. Operation and mai ntenance of Alternative 4 would be similar to existing conditions. Operation and 50 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
maintenance activities would have a less than significant impact on California red-legged frog. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-39, 6-51 through 6-52) Southwestern Pond Turtle . Operation and maintenance of Alternative 4 would be similar to existing conditions. Operation and maintenance activities would have a less than significant impact on southwestern pond turtle. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-39 through 4.3-40, 6-51 through 6-52)
Cooper’s Hawk, W hite-Tailed Kite, and Other Raptor Species .

Operation of the replacement cart path would not result in substantial adverse effects to red -tailed hawk, as the cart path would not establish new human presence in the area but would maintain existing condition s of human travel in this location. Operation and maintenance of Sandpiper Golf Club under Alternative 4 would be similar to existing conditions. Operation and maintenance activities would have a less than significant impact on raptors. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.3-40, 6-51 through 6-52.)
Yellow Warbler and Other Special -Status Bird Species.

Operation and maintenance of Sandpiper Golf Club under
Alternative 4 would be similar to existing conditions. Operation and maintenance activities would have a less than significant impact on special-status bird species. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3 -49, 6-51 through 6- 52)

2. Riparian Habitat
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3 -51 through

4.3-55, p. 6-52.)
Explanation: Alternative 4 would be similar to existing conditions and would have a Class III, less than significant, impact on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities.

Indirect Impacts on ESHA and ESHA Buffers. Alternative 4 would not result in increased human presence during project operation and maintenance activities such that it could lead to indirect impacts to ESHA. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-51, 6-51 through 6-52.)
Direct Impacts on ESHA and ESHA Buffers. Direct impacts to riparian habitat types or sensitive natural communities designated as 51 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
ESHA and ESHA buffers would include the construction and operation of new structures or facilities within ESHA or ESHA buffers.

However, the proposed clubhouse, comfort station, maintenance facility, and Rio Grande Coffee Shop wo uld be located within currently developed areas. Construction of new features that could result in direct impacts to ESHA or ESHA buffers include the extension of the bicycle path and underground utility trenching on Hollister Avenue, storm drain outlet, c art path, and a sewer line, as well as proposed grading, sandcapping, and landscaping activities, as discussed in the following subsections.

Grading, Landscaping and Sandcapping. Alternative 4 would involve grading fo r recontouring and sand capping within the 100- foot ESHA and SPA buffers for Devereux Creek, where nonnative grasses (wild oats and annual brome grassland) would be replaced with the recontoured golf course. However, the existing nonnative grasses within the buffer are currently part of the go lf course.

Furthermore, the proposed daylighting of downstream portions of Devereux Creek, via removal of an underground culvert, would improve the overall biotic quality of Devereux Creek.

Grading and sandcapping would occur within Monarch Butterfly Roosting Habitat ESHA and ESHA buffer along the eastern boundary of the site. These activities are not anticipated to result in removal or major impacts to trees within the ESHA or alter the surface hydrology or remove native vegetation within the ESHA buffer, as the proposed activities would be limited to surface -level modifications that avoid tree root zones and alterations to drainage patterns.

Grading and sandcapping would also occur near the coastal bluffs and within the ESHA buffers for quailbush scrub and California brittle bush – ashy buckwheat scrub alliance, both of which are considered coastal bluff scrub/coastal sage scrub ESHA under the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan. However, the grading (recontouring) and sandcapping would pr omote infiltration of water, reduced waterlogging, and better root growth. Proposed activities would be consistent with the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy CE 5.3 and would avoid ESHA and occur within the ESHA buffer only in area s that are already existing golf course, and would remain turf or playable areas of the golf course.

Alternative 4 would involve the installation of native plants in all graded and sand capped areas that are not playable, pursuant to the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy CE 5.3.

Therefore, proposed grading, landscaping and sandcapping activities would have a less than significant impact on ESHA. (Draft 52 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
EIR, pp. 4.3-51 through 4.3-55, p. 6-52.)

3. Wildlife Movement
Threshold: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-57 through 4.3-59, p. 6-52.) Explanation: Noise. Operational noise levels would not exceed the City’s 65 - decibel noise standard and would be similar to existing conditions.

Impacts on wildlife movement from operational noise would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-59, 6-51 through 6-52.) Light. Alternative 4 construction is not anticipated to occur during evening or nighttime hours in accordance with Section 17.39.070 of the City’s Zoning Code, which limits construction activities from Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.. Thus, Alternat ive 4 would not introduce new light sources to the project site during the construction time period. Impacts on wildlife movement as a result of construction lighting would be less than significant.

Alternative 4 would introduce new sources of light from the proposed parking lots and Rio Grande Coffee Shop once operational. Light sources associated with the clubhouse, comfort station, and maintenance yard, as well as lighting of the cart paths, would be similar to existing conditions. Proposed lighting at the clubhouse, Rio Grande Coffee shop, parking lots, and maintenance yard would consist of a combination of exterior path lights, bollard lights, down lights with tree straps, inwall lights, under -step and handrail strip lights, and sign lighting at entries and directional signage. Alternative 4 lighting would be designed in accordance with City standards, including the City of Goleta’s 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 (City of Goleta 2006). Alternative 4 would not include lighting to accommodate night play, as night play neither occurs under existing operational conditions nor is planned as part of Alternative 4.

Therefore, impacts on wildlife movement as a result of operational project lighting would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-59, 6-51 through 6-52.)
53 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Human Presence . Construction of Alternative 4 would result in increased human presence, due to construction workers, at the project site. However, project construction is not anticipated to occur during evening or nighttime hours in accordance with Section

17.39.070 of the City’s Zoning Code, which limits construction activities from Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5 p.m.. Many wildlife species are nocturnal or crepuscular, and during the day, when construction activities wou ld occur, these animals are typically resting or hiding. Therefore, increased human presence during construction would be unlikely to substantially interfere with wildlife movement, and construction impacts would be less than significant.

Alternative 4 would consist of redevelopment of the Sandpiper Golf Club. Following implementation of Alternative 4, current land uses would remain the same. Alternative 4 would not result in increased human presence during project operation. Therefore, impacts on wildlife movement as a result of human presence would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-60 through 4.3-59, p. 6-52.)

4. Habitat Conservation Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-52.)
Explanation: The project site is not subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan (CDFW 2023).

Therefore, Alternative 4 would not conflict with these plans. N o impact would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 6-52.)
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Historical Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-14 through 4.4-18, p. 6-53.) Explanation: The maintenance yard structures are less than 45 years of age and thus ineligible for qualification as historical resources, the golf course is not eligible as a designated historic landscape, and the comfort station and clubhouse are not eligible as individual resources for the 54 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
NRHP, CRHR, or City of Goleta Landmarks due to a lack of significance and architectural merit. Consequently, the clubhouse, golf course, comfort station, and maintenance yard do not constitute historical resources for the purposes of C EQA analysis, and project improvements involving the clubhouse, golf course, comfort station, and maintenance yard would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.4-14 through 4.4-18, p. 6-53.)

2. Archaeological Resources
Threshold: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-18 through 4.4-22, p. 6-53.) Explanation: Operation. The study identified six cultural resources within the project site. These resources do not possess subsurface deposits or information substantial enough to address research questions regarding prehistoric/histo ric activities and technological practices (Langan 2025). Therefore, these resources neither meet the criteria of a significant resource or unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA, nor the criteria required to be eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. One previously identified, prehistoric
archaeological site (CA -SBA-3496) would not be subject to construction-related ground disturbance. Two previously identified prehistoric archaeological sites(CA -SBA-1321, and CA -SBA-3945), a prehistoric isolate (P-42-038647) and the two newly identified prehistoric archaeological sites (Dudek -Sandpiper-001 and Dudek - Sandpiper-002) would be subject to project -related ground disturbance; however, as these resources are not eligible for listing on the CRHR or NRHP or for consideration as a unique
archaeological resource, impacts to these resources as a result of project implementation would not be significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4- 18 through 4.4-22, p. 6-53.)

3. Human Remains
Threshold: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-22 through 4.4-23, p. 6-53.) Explanation: No human remains or prehistoric villages where human remains and/or cemeteries are kn own to exist within the project site. In the 55 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains during construction, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that all construction activities halt in the vicinity of the disco very and the County Coroner be contacted immediately.

The County Coroner would make a determination of origin and disposition of the human remains pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner would notify the NAHC, which would determine and notify a most likely descendant (MLD). The MLD would complete an inspection of the site within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. The MLD would be responsible for the ultimate disposition of the remains, as required by Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

Construction of the extended bicycle path area is located within disturbed right-of-way of Hollister Avenue and with lower potential to contain unknown human remains. With regulatory compliance, Alternative 4’s impact to human remains would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.4-22 through 4.4-23, p. 6-53.) F. Energy

1. Wasteful Use of Energy
Threshold: Would the Project result in potentially significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5 -9 through 4.5 -10, 6-53 through 6-54.)
Explanation: Construction. Alternative 4 would require demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, architectural coating, and installation of landscaping. Alternative 4 would also extend the bicycle path to Pebble Beach Drive.

Energy use during construction would be te mporary in nature and heavy-duty equipment used would be typical of similar -sized construction projects in the region. In addition, project contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of the 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 and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Heavy -duty equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equip ment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or 56 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
unnecessary fuel consumption. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to perform construction of Alternative 4 . Adherence to regulatory requirement s designed to reduce energy consumption would ensure the construction of Alternative 4 would not involve the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of energy, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-9, 6-53 through 6-54.) Operation. Operation of Alternative 4 would require energy use in the form of electricity, natural gas, and gasoline consumption.

Natural gas or electricity would be used for heating and cooling systems and kitchen facilities, and electricity would be used for lighting and appliances. Golf carts would be powered by electricity.

Gasoline consumption would be attributed to vehicular travel to and from the project site. Alternative 4 would be supplied electricity by SCE and natural gas by SCG.

Alternative 4 would comply with standards set in California Building Code Title 24, including solar-ready building requirements, which are specifically crafted so that buildings are required to be energy efficient and not consume energy in a wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary manner. These standards are also more stringent related to energy efficiency than the California Building Code standards applicable at the time the existing on-site structures were developed. Therefore, Alternative 4’s facilities would be designed to be more energy efficient than the existing on -site facilities.

Alternative 4 would meet CALGreen energy performance standards through compliance with mandatory requirements of the 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Furthermore, Alternative 4 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, the proposed design of the maintenance building allows for the installation of solar pan els on the roof which could contribute to renewable energy use on-site.

Under existing conditions, golf carts on -site are electric and would remain electric with implementation of Alternative 4 . Given that Alternative 4 would reduce the total amount of golf rounds available per year, energy use associated with the golf carts would not substantially increase energy demand compared with existing conditions.

Alternative 4 would comply with CALGreen standards and California Code of Regulations provisions which would minimize Alternative 4’s potential to result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary 57 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
consumption of vehicle fuels. With the implementation of applicable energy efficiency measures, operation of Alternative 4 would not substantially increase energy demand compared with existing conditions.

However, Alternative 4 would reduce long -term energy demand associated with transportation by promoting alternative modes of travel. Specifically, the inclusion of a Class I bicycle path within Hollister Avenue’s southern right -of-way would facilitate increased use of bicycles and pedestrian travel, reducing reliance on automobiles and associated fuel consumption. The extended bicycle path would connect to existing regional bike infrastructure and transit stops, including an existing bus stop near the Ellwood Mesa Open Space and a proposed bus stop near Cathedral Oaks Road, further supporting reduced automobile travel and fuel consumption and facilitating regional access to the proposed Rio Grande Coffee Shop, the Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperling Preserve, commercial areas east of the project site, and the University of California -Santa Barbara. Therefore, Alternative 4’s impact related to the wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary consumption of energy resources would be reduced when compared to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-9 through 4.5-10, 6-53 through 6-

54.)

2. Energy Efficiency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state of local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-10 through 4.5-11, p. 6-54.) Explanation: The City’s CAP, Strategic Energy Plan, General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, and Municipal Code contain measures intended to increase energy efficiency and expand the use of renewable energy in Goleta. Alternative 4 would comply with CALGreen and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which would result in increased energy efficiency for on-site facilities compared to existing conditions. Alternative 4 would obtain electricity from SCE. In accordance with SB 100, SCE is required to increase renewable energy procurement to 60 percent by 2030, and 100 percent by 2045. Accordingly, Alternative 4 would be supplied with renewable electricity in accordance with the requirements of SB 100. In addition, the proposed design of the maintenance building allows for the installation of solar panels on the roof, which would be consistent with the measures of the City’s CAP, Strategic Energy Plan, General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, and Municipal Code to expand 58 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
renewable energy infrastructure in Goleta. Alternative 4 would include the redesign of parking areas to support the golf course and associated uses, such that the clubhouse parking lot (including the existing main lot, as well as a new, decomposed granite overflow lot to the west of the clubhouse) would provide an additional 14 spaces and the Rio Grande Coffee Shop would provide an additional 9 spaces compared to existing conditions. Of the 23 net new spaces added from proposed project design, 18 (approximately 78 percent) would be EV charging spaces, which would enco urage the use of EVs and the reduction of vehicle fuel consumption. The project’s EV charging spaces would fulfil the requirements of the CALGreen intervening code update. Furthermore, the addition of EV charging spaces would comply with Section 15.12.050 of 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. Accordingly, Alternative 4 would not conflict with state or local EV parking requirements.

The City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan includes Policies TE

1.6, TE 7.2, and TE 7.12, which allow the City to require developers to provide improvements that reduce the use of single -occupancy vehicles, requires the City to co llaborate with the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District to ensure bus transit is reliable throughout Goleta, allows the City to require new or substantially renovated development to incorporate design measures to facilitate transit use. The City’s C AP includes measures such as requiring projects to dedicate land for bicycle trails, requiring projects along transit corridors to provide for transit access, and requiring preferential parking to commuters who carpool, vanpool, ride-share, or use alternatively fueled vehicles.

Alternative 4 would comply with the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policies TE 1.6, TE 7.2, and TE 7.12, through the relocation of the bus stop approved by the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District and surr ounding Hollister Avenue improvements to facilitate access to the bus stop. Alternative 4 would comply with the City’s CAP through inclusion of 52 bicycle parking spaces and bicycle amenities at the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, including construction of a 10-foot-wide Class I bicycle entrance with a bollard that would connect to an existing Class I bicycle path adjacent to Hollister Avenue east of the project site. These proposed bicycle amenities would encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation by project employees and the general public , which would reduce vehicle travel and associated fuel consumption. In addition, the continued use of electric -powered golf carts would provide alternatively fueled vehicles, and the reduction in total 59 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
rounds of go lf would correspondingly reduce the electricity consumption associated with golf cart travel on -site. These project design features would ensure Alternative 4 would not conflict with or obstruct the City’s CAP, Strategic Energy Plan, General Plan/Coastal L and Use Plan, or Municipal Code. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.5-10 through 4.5-11, p. 6-54.) G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Fault Rupture
Threshold: 1(a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-10, 6-54.) Explanation: The project site does not overlie an Alquist -Priolo Fault Zone; however, the southeastern portion of the project site overlies the More Ranch Fault, which is part of the Mission Ridge Fault System and is considered active . However, no structural developmen t (i.e., the proposed clubhouse, Rio Grande Coffee Shop, or comfort station) would occur on or within 50 feet of the More Ranch Fault. In addition, no proposed utility lines would cross the fault line.

Accordingly, Alternative 4 would comply with the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Safety Element Policy SE 4.4, which requires development to be located further than 50 feet to any active fault line but permits nonstructural development in such areas (City of Goleta 2006a). Development with in 50 feet of the More Ranch Fault is limited to fairways, greens, bunkers, and cart paths.

These project features do not require deep excavations or boring of large areas that could otherwise create unstable seismic conditions or stresses in the Earth’s crust leading to fault rupture.

Although the project site is partially intersected by the More Ranch Fault, Alternative 4 would not directly or indirectly cause the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault.

This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-10, 6-

54.)
60 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Threshold: 1(c) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-19, 6-54.) Explanation: Liquefaction potential at the proposed clubhouse, Rio Grande Coffee Shop, and comfort station is very low. Alternative 4 design would incorporate design measures required by the CBC which reduce the potential for substantial adverse effects due to liquefaction, including foundation design and soil compaction techniques. Because the potential for liquefaction for soils underlying the proposed clubhouse, Rio Grande Coffee Shop, and comfort station is very low, regulatory compliance with the CBC would be sufficient to minimize the risk of loss, injury, or death involving liquefaction on site. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-19, 6-54.) Threshold: 1(d) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-19 through 4.6-20, 6-54.) Explanation: The portions of the project site west of the golf course pond, along the bluff faces at the southern project site boundary, and sloped areas in the central portion of the project site are considered to have high landslide potential. However, Alternative 4 would not place structures in areas of high landslide potential or areas exceeding 20 percent grade. In addition, no development would occur along the bluff faces at the southern project site boundary. Only ac tivities related to the proposed golf course improvements (i.e., grading and rerouting, relandscaping, installation of turf and replacement of irrigation systems) would occur in areas west of the golf course pond and in sloped areas in the central portion of the project site with high landslide potential. While these activities would involve ground disturbing activities, the maximum cut slope on the golf course would be 11 feet, which would not result in substantial changes to the existing on-site slopes of the golf course. This cut slope height would also not exceed the 15-foot-tall threshold identified within the County of Santa Barbara’s 2024 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. Maximum on -site slopes from grading would be at a 4 horizontal to 1 vertical grade south of the clubhouse, which would ensure slopes gradually increase and would not exceed a grade of

1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical identified in the County of Santa Barbara’s 2024 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual.

Accordingly, the grading associated with golf course improvements 61 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
would not substantially increase the potential for a landslide to occur on the project site beyond existing conditions. Therefore, Alternative 4’s impact related to the risk of loss, injury, or death in volving landslides would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6 -19 through 4.6-20, 6-54.)

2. Soil Erosion
Threshold: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-20 through 4.6-21, 6-55.) Explanation: Construction. Grading operations would increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation; if grading activities occur during the rainy season, or in the event of heavy storms, soils from the site could be entrained, eroded, and transported off-site. Alternative 4 would result in a total of 174.92 acre of total ground disturbance. However, construction projects of one or more acres are subject to the requirements of the Construction Stormwater General Permit, which requires preparation and implementation of a SWPPP to control the discharges of pollutants, including sediment, into local surface water drainages. Examples of BMPs that may be implemented during construction include the use of geotextiles and mats, te mporary drains and swales, silt fences, and sediments traps. Erosion control practices may include the use of drainage controls such as down drains, detention ponds, filter berms, or infiltration pits; removal of any sediment tracked offsite within the sam e day that it is tracked; containment of polluted runoff onsite; use of plastic covering to minimize erosion from exposed areas; and restrictions on the washing of construction equipment.

In addition to the Construction Stormwater General Permit requirements, construction activities would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 15.09 of the City’s Municipal Code which requires preparation of an erosion and sediment control plan in order to obtain a grading permit. The City accepts a SWPPP in lieu of an erosion control and sediment plan, if the SWPPP contains the requirements of the City’s required elements of an erosion and sediment control plan identified in Section 15.09.290 of the City’s Municipal Code. As stated in Municipal Code Section 15.09.110, the City’s Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee would review the SWPPP as part of the grading permit application to ensure the City’s required elements of an erosion and sediment control plan are implemented within the SWPPP. Accordingly, t he SWPPP prepared for Alternative 4 would include information on 62 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
proposed practices that would be used during construction to retain sediment on-site, minimize erosion, and utilize vegetation for erosion control, as well as a summary of precautionary measures to be taken to ensure vehicle use does not result in erosion.

With mandatory implementation of the SWPPP and erosion control measures, construction of Alternative 4 would minimize the potential to cause substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-20 through 4.6-21, 6-54 through 6-56.)
Operation. Alternative 4 would include implementation of the same stormwater control infrastructure and site design BMPs as the proposed project to minimize erosion during operation. As with the proposed project, Alternative 4 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.

Alternative 4’s impact related to erosion would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-20 through 4.6-21, 6-55.)

3. Unstable Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on a geologic u nit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-55 through 6-56.) Explanation: Alternative 4 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. Alternative 4 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 encountered. Ther efore, construction of Alternative 4 would not result in substantial groundwater withdrawals that could result in subsidence on -site. Therefore, Alternative 4’s impact related to the risk of landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collap se would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-55 through 6-56.)

63 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____

4. Expansive Soils
Threshold: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-55 through 6-56.) Explanation: Alternative 4 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 for structural hazards associated with soil expansion. Alternative 4’s impact related to creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property related to expansiv e soil would be the same as the proposed project and would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-55 through 6-56.)

5. Septic Tanks
Threshold: Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternativ e waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 6-56.)
Explanation: Alternative 4 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 comfort station.

Alternative 4 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 4 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 the proposed project. (Draft EIR, p. 6-56.)
H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. Emissions Generation
Threshold: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
64 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7 -12 through 4.7-13, 6 -56 through 6-57.)
Explanation: Alternative 4 would slightly increase the scope of the proposed project’s construction activities. However, the increase in GHG emissions would be nominal given the small areas of additional construction activities (approximately 0.28 percent of the total project area) when amortized over 30 years. Alternative 4’s operation would include the same components as the proposed project and therefore generate the same GHG emissions as operation of the proposed project. Accordingly, the combined construction and o peration emissions of Alternative 4 would be slightly increased when compared to the proposed project, and would not result in substantial GHG emissions. Therefore, Alternative 4’s impacts related to GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Alternative 4 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 4 would include EV charging infrastruct ure that exceeds California Green Building Standards and City requirements for EV charging infrastructure.

Alternative 4’s proposed facilities would be designed in accordance with energy efficiency standards. Alternative 4 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 4 would also include the new water -efficient irrigation system which would reduce GHG emissions associated with water use. Impacts would remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.7-12 through 4.7- 13, 6-56 through 6-57.)

2. Emission Reduction Plans
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-56 through 6-57.) Explanation: Alternative 4 would reduce long -term GHG emissions by promoting alternative modes of transportation. The inclusion of a Class I bicycle path within Hollister Avenue’s southern right -of-way would facilitate increased use of bicycles and pedestrian travel, reducing reliance on personal vehicles and associated transportation emissions. 65 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 4 would include additional active transportation facilities when compared to the proposed project and therefore would encourage active transportation and the reduction of GHG emissions from vehicles to a greater extent than the proposed project. Thus, Alternative 4 would be consistent with applicable GHG reduction plans; impacts would be reduced when compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-56 through 6-57.) I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Hazardous Materials
Threshold: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine tra nsport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8 -15 through 4.8 -16, 6 -57 through 6-58.)
Explanation: Construction. Hazardous materials used during construction of Alternative 4 would be handled in accordance with the same regulations as the proposed project, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazar dous Waste Control Law, and California Code of Regulations Title 22. Construction of Alternative 4 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 4’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 4’s impact related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Operation. Alternative 4 operation would involve the continued use of the site as a golf course and associated facilities, including a restaurant, comfort station, and maintenance yard. The hazardous materials that would be utilized during operation of Alternative 4 would include the continued use of fertilizers, pesticides, and fungicides to maintain landscaping on the golf course, as well as fuels and engine oils to maintain vehicles and equipment used for golf course operations. The majority of hazardous materials used to operate the golf course would be stored in the maintenance yard, 66 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
which would include a roofed materials and landscape amendment storage area. Hazardous materials would be stored 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 to reduce risk of leaks and spills. Both agencies would conduct regular inspections, require ongoing reporting and annual employee training, and provide oversight regarding the proper storage of hazardous materials. Furthermore, all hazardous material transport, use, or disposal associated with Alternative 4’s operation would comply with existing hazardous materia ls regulations established by USEPA, 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.

With compliance with existing regulations governing transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, Alternative 4 would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment during operation.

Impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8 -15 through 4.8-16, 6-57 through 6-58.)

2. Hazards Near Schools
Threshold: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one - quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-24 through 4.8-25, 6-58.) Explanation: Operation. The Ellwood School is located within 0.25- mile of the proposed location of the maintenance yard where pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and petroleum products would be stored during operation. However, under existing conditions, the maintenance yard curr ently stores hazardous materials used for operation of the Sandpiper Golf Club, and Alternative 4 would not change the location of the maintenance yard. Furthermore, Alternative 4 would reduce the volume of hazardous materials needed for on -site operations , as Alternative 4 would involve reduction of irrigated turf from 125 acres to 62 acres, with a corresponding reduction in the amount of fertilizers and pesticides required for golf course maintenance.

The operational use of hazardous materials would be c arried out in accordance with all applicable and existing hazardous material regulations established by USEPA, State of California, County of 67 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Santa Barbara, and City of Goleta, which prescribe measures for the safe transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials to reduce risk of spills. With adherence to existing regulatory requirements, proposed project operation would not pose a significant hazard to existing or proposed schools within 0.25-mile of the project site due to the handling of haz ardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. As such, the operational impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-24 through

4.8-25, 6-58.)

3. Public Airports
Threshold: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-28 through 4.8-29, 6-58.) Explanation: The project site is also not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The airport nearest to the project site, the Santa Barbara Airport, is located approximately 2.4 miles east of the project site.

The project site is located outside of the safety and noise contours established within the Santa Barbara Airport Land Use Plan (Santa Barbara County Association of Governments 2023). The project site is located within Review Area 2 of the Santa Barbara Airport’s Airport Influence Area and the FAR Part 77 airspace surface. However, the maximum height of proposed development on the project site is anticipated to be 33 feet from grade; therefore, no proposed Alternative 4 components would exceed the 361 feet to 411 feet height restrictions established in FAR Part 77. Accordingly, Alternative 4 would not result in a safety hazard or excessive noise related to airport operations for people residing or working in the project area. This impact would be less than signifi cant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-28 through 4.8-29, 6-58.)

4. Emergency Plans
Threshold: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than significant (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-29, 6-58.) Explanation: The Santa Barbara County Multi -Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies United States Route 101 and Hollister Avenue as 68 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
evacuation routes (County of Santa Barbara 2023). Construction staging and parking would occur on the project site and therefore would not impair implementation of the Santa Barbara County Multi- Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The proposed improveme nts on Hollister Avenue would require encroachment into the right -of- way and temporary partial lane closures on Hollister Avenue, which could result in temporary disruptions to access on Hollister Avenue.

However, in accordance with Chapter 12.02 of the Ci ty’s Municipal Code, the project applicant would be required to maintain at least one safe crossing for vehicles and must implement measures to minimize disruption to existing traffic conditions. In addition, the project applicant’s construction contractor would be required to implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan during construction on Hollister Avenue. The Construction Traffic Management Plan would require implementation of traffic control measures and minimization of disruptions to critical access points at the project site for emergency service vehicles during construction on Hollister Avenue, which would be reviewed for potential safety concerns and approved by the Santa Barbara County Fire
Department and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Of fice. With implementation of the Construction Traffic Management Plan, proposed construction on Hollister Avenue would not result in interference with emergency response or evacuation.

Proposed project operations at the golf course and Rio Grande Coffee S hop would not involve closures on Hollister Avenue.

Operation of Alternative 4 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. Therefore, Alternative 4 operation would not result in impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-29, 6-58.)

5. Wildland Fires
Threshold: Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-30 through 4.8-31, 6-58.) Explanation: The project site is located within an LRA. The southeastern portion of the project site is within a Moderate FHSZ, and the western half of the project site is within a Moderate, High, and Very High FHSZ, ranging in severity from the center of the project site (Moderate) to the western boundary (Very High) (California Department of Forestry 69 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
and Fire Protection 2025). The northeastern and south central portions of the project site, totaling approximately 60 percent of the site, are not located within a FHSZ. Project compone nts located within High or Very High FHSZs include the renovated clubhouse, golf course improvements south and west of the clubhouse, and improvements to Hollister Avenue north of the clubhouse. When compared to existing conditions, Alternative 4 would not add new components or intensified development within a FHSZ. No construction would occur in Bell Canyon, which is the largest area of the project site within a Very High FHSZ zone.

During construction, there would be a temporary increase in human activity and potential ignition sources, including equipment that could create sparks, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materials on the project site. In accordance with California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 4442, equipment including earth -moving and portable construction equipment with internal combustion engines would be equipped with spark arrestors to prevent the emission of flammable debris from exhaust, when operating on any forest - covered, brush -covered, or grass -covered land. In addition, PRC Sections 4427 and 4431 specify standards for conducting construction activities on days when a burning permit is required, and PRC Section 4428 requires construction contractors to maintain fire suppression equipment during the highest fire danger period (April 1 to December 1) when operating on or near any forest -covered, brush-covered, or grass -covered land. These measures are designed to prevent accidental ignition and facilitate rapid response in the event of a fire. Adherence to these regulatory requi rements would minimize the risk of potential wildland fire during construction.

Proposed project design would be subject to the California Fire Code, which include safety measures to minimize the threat of fire, including ignition -resistant construction w ith exterior walls of noncombustible or ignition resistant material from the surface of the ground to the roof system and sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves and vents to prevent intrusion by flame or embers, automatic interior and exterior fire sprinklers, a robust water delivery system, fire apparatus access, and defensible space. Proposed project design would also be required to comply with Chapter 9, Fire Protection Systems, of the California Building Code, which includes specific standards re lated to exterior wildfire exposure, and CCR Title 14, which sets forth the minimum development standards for emergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing wildfire hazard s. The project site would primarily consist of golf course turf, and the project would add native plants for landscaping 70 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
purposes, both of which would have a low fire risk. Additionally, the proposed undergrounding of the power lines would reduce fire risk when compared to existing conditions. Furthermore, project operation would not introduce new activities that could substantially increase the risk of wildfires. With adherence to regulatory requirements, Alternative 4’s potential to expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.8-30 through 4.8-31, 6-58.)
J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. Water Quality Standards
Threshold: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9 -14 through 4.9 -19, 6 -59 through 6-60.)
Explanation: Operation. The hazardous materials that would be utilized during operation of Alternative 4 would include fertilizers, pesticides, fuels, and engine oils which would be stored in the maintenance facility during operation. During operation, oil leaks from vehicles traveling to and from the project site, oil leaks from on -site vehicles, the use of pesticides or fertilizers for landscape maintenance, the leaching of metals from roof and drains, or litter could be carried off -site during storm even ts and could result in p otential water quality impacts.

Proposed permanent Source Control BMPs include design of landscaping to minimize irrigation and runoff, specification of plants that are tolerant of soil -saturated conditions in landscaped self - retaining areas, selection of plants appropriate to site soils and slopes, posting of signage by inlets that prohibits dumping, and regular sweeping of the parking lot and access roads.

Proposed LID BMPs include six bioretention basins which would capture and treat stormwater runoff from the areas surrounding the clubhouse and maintenance facility prior to discharge to the golf course. These bioretention basins would minimize the amount of sediments discharged in stormwater during operation, thereby minimizing the potential to contribute to the turbidity impairment in Devereaux Creek. Stormwater within the extended bicycle path area would flow to the City’s storm drain system within Hollister Avenue.

The rest of the project site would remain self -treating due to substantial existing on-site landscaping and the minimal introduction 71 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
of impervious surfaces onsite and therefore would continue to treat stormwater on -site prior to discharge to surface waters. 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 entering Bell Canyon Creek and would
correspondingly minimize the potential to contribute to the E. coli impairments in Bell Canyon Creek compared to existing conditions.

The turf areas of the golf course would be sand-capped, which would create natural filtration below the golf course and help further filter stormwater discharged to the golf c ourse compared to existing conditions.

The septic systems that serves the existing clubhouse and comfort station would be abandoned in place in accordance with the requirements of the Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services, which, upon completi on, would reduce the potential for groundwater quality to be affected by sewage.

Alternative 4 would reduce the amount of irrigated turf from 125 acres to 62 acres, with a corresponding reduction in the amount of fertilizers and pesticides required for go lf course maintenance. Golf course personnel would continue to manage turf to require the minimum amount of fertilizers and pesticides to maintain the golf course.

A project -specific Turf and Pest Management Plan would be implemented which includes an Inte grated Pest Management approach to combat turf diseases and pest control based on weather patterns, seasonal observations, and historic data trends. This reduction in fertilizers and pesticide use would correspondingly minimize the amount of nitrate introd uced to the project site during operation compared to existing conditions and therefore would reduce the potential for project operation to contribute to the nitrate impairment in Bell Canyon Creek compared to existing conditions. In addition, the introduction of irrigation and nitrogen to surface waters can result in reduced dissolved oxygen levels in waterways (SWRCB 2019). The reduction in irrigated turf and associated fertilizers and pesticide use would therefore also reduce the potential for nitrogen to enter Devereaux Creek and reduce dissolved oxygen levels.

Alternative 4 includes a new irrigation system that would allow for uniform distribution of irrigation which would minimize potential water quality impacts related to overwatering. During operati on, soil moisture probes would be routinely utilized to assist in applicant of water to turf, resulting in less runoff of irrigation water. In addition, 72 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 4 includes sand-capping the turf areas of the golf course which involves placing a layer of sand beneath the turf that acts as a natural filtration system. This filtration layer would further help to capture and filter stormwater before it can reach underlying soil.

Drainage would be routed to the bioretention basins for further treatment, there by further reducing the potential for water quality degradation during operation.

The proposed maintenance facility would include a fenced and covered trash and recycling area, a roofed materials and landscape amendment storage area, a roof cart wash utili zing biodegradable soaps and a recycled water system, and pump equipment on a concrete slab. The majority of hazardous materials utilized to operate the golf course would be stored at the maintenance facility.

Hazardous materials would be stored in accorda nce 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 to reduce risk of leaks and spills. Both agencies conduct regula r inspections, require ongoing reporting, annual employee training, and provide oversight regarding the proper storage of hazardous materials to minimize potential degradation of water quality. In addition, stormwater from the maintenance facility would be directed to one of the six proposed bioretention basins which would ensure treatment of runoff from the maintenance facility. Regulatory oversight and implementation of LID BMPs on -site would ensure operation of the proposed maintenance facility would minimize the potential to result in degraded water quality.

Project operation would comply with Central Coast RWQCB requirements, City Municipal Code requirements, County
requirements related to fertilizer storage and implement Source Control and LID BMPs to reduce potential water quality impacts. With the implementation of Source Control and LID BMPs, operation of Alternative 4 would have a less than significant impact related to the violation of water quality standards or degradation of water quality. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-14 through 4.9-19, 6-59 through 6-60.)

2. Groundwater Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-19 through 4.9-20, 6-59.) 73 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Explanation: Subsurface investigations were conducted for soils up to the anticipated depths of construction for the comfort station, the clubhouse, and the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station. Subsurface investigations did not encounter groundwater underlying the existing clubhouse, Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, or comfort station. If groundwater or seasonal perched groundwater is encountered during excavation activities, temporary groundwater dewateri ng during construction may be required. 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. Therefore, construction of Alternative 4 would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies.

The project site currently has 144,490 square feet of imperv ious surface area. Alternative 4 would increase the amount of impervious surface areas by 12,250 square feet, for a total of 156,740 square feet across the project site. Impervious surfaces would constitute 1.9 percent of the total project site, which repr esents an increase in impervious surfaces of 0.2 percent of the site. Due to the high runoff potential of on -site soils, there is a low potential for groundwater infiltration on the project site under existing conditions. Given the limited infiltration pot ential of on -site soils (under both existing and post-project conditions) and the minimal amount of impervious surface increase generated by project development, Alternative 4 would not substantially decrease groundwater infiltration rates on - site or result in substantial interference to groundwater recharge.

Operation of Alternative 4 would not require groundwater extraction on the project site. However, water demand from the project would be met by GWD which sources its water, in part, from groundwater in the Basin. Alternative 4 would reduce the on -site water demand compared to existing conditions, resulting primarily from a reduction in irrigated turf area on the project site. GWD is subject to the adjudication requirements of the Wright Judgement, and Alternative 4 would not interfere with the management of the Basin in accordance with the Wright Judgement due to its water demands because GWD is only permitted to extract water in accordance with the allocations determined by the Wright Judgement. In add ition, based on the Preliminary Water Service Determination Letter issued for the proposed project , GWD has sufficient water available to support Alternative 4. Furthermore, GWD has anticipated adequate water supplies to be available through the year 2040 (GWD 2021).

Finally, existing regulatory measures requiring water conservation during times of drought prevent the overdraft of the Basin that GWD 74 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
would use to supply water demand of Alternative 4 . Therefore, Alternative 4 would not substantially decrease water supplies or conflict with or obstruct a sustainable groundwater management plan. This impact would be less than significant. . (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9- 19 through 4.9-20, 6-59.)

3. Erosion or Siltation
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious s urfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off-site?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9 -20 through 4.9 -21, 6 -60 through 6-61.)
Explanation: Construction. C onstruction activities would increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation. Construction activities would be required to comply with the Construction Stormwater General Permit, the City Municipal Code, as well as implementation of the required SWPPP and construction BMPs would minimize sediment discharge in stormwater runoff. With implementation of the SWPPP and construction BMPs, project construction would minimize erosion and siltation, and this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.

4.9-20, 6-60 through 6-61.)
Operation. The project site currently has 144,490 square feet of impervious surface area. Alternative 4 would nominally increase the amount of impervious surface areas , including the extension of the bicycle path. The remainder of the project site would consist of turf and landscaping, which would include drought -tolerant turf and installation of native plants. The drought -tolerant turf and native plants would require less water compared to existing conditions. In addition, Alternative 4 includes a smart irrigation controller system supported by an on-site weather station to manage irrigation usage, which would minimize the potential for soil erosion to occur due to overwatering. Due to the minimal amount of impervious surface increase, increased landscaping area, and reduced on -site water use, Alternative 4 would not substantially increase on -site erosion due to the addition of impervious surfaces.

Alternative 4 would include six bioretention basins which would capture and treat stormwater runoff from the areas surrounding the clubhouse and maintenance facility. The rest of the project site is self-treating due to substantial existing on -site landscaping and the 75 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
general lack of impervious surfaces and therefore is able to treat stormwater on-site prior to discharge into Devereaux Creek or Bell Canyon Creek. Treated water and high-flow bypass from the basins would be discharged to the golf course. The proposed bioretention basins have been sized to reduce the post-project peak runoff to less than the pre-project peak runoff for a 2-year to 100-year flood event.

Specifically, stormwater runoff would be reduced from 81.6 cubic feet per second to 80.9 cubic feet per second for a 2 -year storm event and from 426.3 cubic feet per second to 424.0 cubic feet per second for a 100-year flood event. Accordingly, stormwater discharge to the golf course would be reduced, which would therefore not increase erosion on-site. Therefore, project operation would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on -or off -site. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-20 through 4.9-21, 6-60 through 6-61.)
Threshold: 3(ii) Would the project substantiall y alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-21 through 4.9-22, 6-60.) Explanation: Construction. Construction would comply with the requirements of the Construction Stormwater General Permit, including the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP. The SWPPP would include construction BMPs to control and direct on -site surface runoff. Therefore, constr uction activities would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-21, 6-60 through 6-61.) Operation. Alternative 4 would have a nominal increase of impervious surface areas as compared to existing conditions. The bioretention basins would reduce stormwater flows by 0.7 cubic feet per second and 2.3 cubic feet per second for the 2 -year and 100 - year flood events, re spectively, as compared to existing conditions.

Because stormwater runoff from the project site would be reduced to below that of existing conditions, Alternative 4 would not result in off- site flooding. Additionally, the stormwater LID BMPs would be sized to collect and convey stormwater runoff on the project site to the golf course such that and increase in on -site flooding compared to existing conditions would not occur.
76 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 4 would include the removal of a culvert within Devereaux Creek, which would alter the drainage pattern of Devereaux Creek.

However, the culvert removal would improve Deveraux Creek’s flow conditions. Accordingly, the proposed culvert removal would not result in on or off-site flooding. In addition, Alternative 4 would include a free-standing wooden bridge with abutments; however, the free - standing wooden bridge with abutments would be located outside the top of the bank of Devereaux Creek and therefore would not result in changes to the drainage patterns of Devereaux Creek or on- or off- site flooding.

Overall, project operation would not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-21 through 4.9-22, 6-60.)

4. Runoff
Threshold: Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-21 through 4.9-22, 6-60.) Explanation: Operation. The proposed bioretention basins would reduce peak stormwater flows on -site compared to existing conditions. Because stormwater runoff from the project site would be reduced to below that of existing conditions, Alternative 4 would not result in an exceedance of the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems. Furthermore, the proposed basins would treat stormwater prior to discharge, ensuring operation of Alternative 4 would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. In addition, Alternative 4 would reduce the amount of irrigated turf from 125 acres to 62 acres, with a corresponding reduction in the volume of fertilizers and pesticides required for golf course maintenance.

This reduction in fertilizers and pesticide use would correspondingly minimize the amount of nitrate and chemicals introduced to the project site with the potential to enter stormwater runoff compared to existing conditions. Therefore, project operation would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-21 through 4.9-22, 6-60.) 77 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____

5. Flooding
Threshold: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, 4.9-24 through 4.9-25, 6-60.) Explanation: Flooding. The majority of the project site, including all developed areas, is located within Zone X, defined as an area of minimal flood hazard. The project site contains Zone AE flood zones and regulatory floodways along Bell Canyon Creek and Devereaux Creek. The coastline along the southern project site boundary is designated as Zone VE. All proposed structures would be located outside of designated special flood hazard areas. Therefore, proposed development would not impede or redirect flood flows onsite.

Furthermore, because Alternative 4 would direct stormwater flows similar to existing conditions, the introduction of fill material for Alternative 4 would not substantially alter offsite flooding or drainage.

While Alternative 4 involves removal of a culvert withi n the Devereaux Creek floodway, these changes would not impede or redirect flood flows but improve Deveraux Creek’s flow conditions.

Pursuant to Section 15.10.210(a) of the City’s Municipal Code, the project applicant would be required to provide certifica tion from a registered professional engineer to the City Engineer or designee that Alternative 4 would not increase the flood levels of the base flood discharged to Devereaux Creek. Accordingly, the proposed culvert removal would not increase flood flows i n Devereaux Creek. The proposed free -standing wooden bridge with abutments would be located outside the top of the bank of Devereaux Creek and thus would be located above the Devereaux Creek floodplain and floodway and would not impede or redirect the floo d flows of Devereaux Creek.

Because no structures would be placed within designated special flood hazard areas and the proposed culvert removal within the Devereaux Creek floodway would improve Deveraux Creek’s flow conditions, Alternative 4 would not sub stantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p.

4.9-24, 6-60 through 6-61.)
78 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Sea Level Rise. As a result of the Supreme Court decision regarding the assessment of the environment’s impacts on projects (California Building Industry Association [CBIA] v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD], 62 Cal. 4th 369 [No. S 213478] issued December 17, 2015), it is not considered the purview of the CEQA process to evaluate the impact of environmental conditions on a proposed project. CEQA is concerned with analyz ing, disclosing, and minimizing through mitigation measures the potential environmental impacts caused by a proposed project, but does not mandate the analysis of the potential for existing or future environmental conditions to result in impacts on a proposed project.

Sea level rise is an environmental condition; therefore, this discussion of sea level rise is provided solely for informational purposes.

It is unlikely that sea level rise would have a substantial influence within the floodplains and regulato ry floodways on the project site, given that both Bell Canyon Creek and Devereaux Creek have relatively steep water surface profile gradients adjacent to the project site. With a sea level rise of 6.6 feet, coastal flooding would be limited to the Bell Can yon area and the southwestern portion of the golf course, as most of the project site is elevated on an existing bluff above existing and projected future wave limits. A 6.6 -foot sea level rise is projected to result in bluff erosion and retreat that could move the existing bluffs north such that they align parallel, and in some areas encroach upon, the southern portions of fairways on the golf course. Bluff retreat is not projected to reach any proposed on -site structures. A 6.6 -foot sea level rise is also projected to result in shoreline retreat and erosion at Bell Canyon wash and the southwestern portion of the golf course. The bluff -adjacent golf course holes can remain functional while accommodating bluff retreat, and there is room within the golf cours e to accommodate alterations to the course in response to bluff retreat.

Overall, the project site would not be subject to substantial flooding due to sea level rise, and the golf course could accommodate future bluff retreat. (Draft EIR, 4.9-24 through 4.9-25, 6-60.)

6. Flood Hazard
Threshold: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-25 through 4.9-26, 6-60.) 79 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Explanation: Due to the absence of a large body of water, such as a reservoir, in proximity to the project site, the project site is not subject to inundation from seiche. The project site is not located within a dam inundation area.

The majorit y of the project site, including all developed areas, is located within Zone X, defined as an area of minimal flood hazard.

The project site contains Zone AE flood zones and regulatory floodways along Bell Canyon Creek and Devereaux Creek. An area of the w estern project site containing a putting green and the Bell Canyon open space area is designated as a Tsunami Hazard Area.

All proposed structures would be located outside of designated special flood hazard areas and tsunami hazards area, including the maintenance facility, which would store the majority of hazardous materials onsite. Hazardous materials would be stored in accordance with the requirements of the Santa Barara Public Health Department’s Consolidated Unified Program Agency Hazardous Material D ivision and the Santa Barbara County Agriculture Commissioner. Both agencies conduct regular inspections, require ongoing reporting, annual employee training, and provide oversight regarding the proper storage of hazardous materials to prevent the release of such materials. Adherence to storage requirements would minimize the risk of release of stored hazardous materials.

Because no structures are proposed within flood or tsunami hazard areas and because hazardous materials stored on -site would both be out side the inundation areas and stored in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, Alternative 4 would not risk the release of pollutants from project structures due to inundation. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-25 through

4.9-26, 6-60.)

7. Water Quality Control Plan
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-26 through 4.9-27, 6-60.) Explanation: Operation. Operation of Alternative 4 would not include activities that could release asbestos or lead -based materials or require groundwater dewatering or additional work within Devereaux Creek.

Operation of Alternative 4 would include the use of six bioretention basins to capture and treat stormwater runoff, and the reduction in fertilizer and pesticide u se during operation compared to existing conditions would correspondingly reduce the potential for pollutants 80 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
to enter Devereaux Creek, thereby resulting in less potential to result in pollutants in excess of water quality objective quantities identified in the Basin Plan and/or cause the beneficial uses of Devereaux Creek identified in the Basin Plan to be reduced. Therefore, impacts during operation would be less than significant.

The project site overlies the Goleta Basin, which is adjudicated and therefore not subject to the requirements of SGMA. GWD’s Groundwater Management Plan Goleta Groundwater Basin (2022) serves as the guiding document for GWD to manage groundwater in accordance with the Wright Judgement (GWD 2023). Alternative 4 would not adversely impact groundwater supplies, and Alternative 4 would not interfere with the management of the Basin in accordance with the Wright Judgement. GWD has anticipated adequate water supplies to be available through the year 2040 (GWD 2021). Existing regulatory measures requiring water conservation during times of drought prevent the overdraft of groundwater that GWD would use to supply the demand induced by Alternative 4 . Furthermore, Alternative 4 would reduce the current on -site water demand.

Therefore, impac ts related to conflicts with or obstruction of a sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.9-26 through 4.9-27, 6-60.) K. LAND USE AND PLANNING

1. Established Communities
Threshold: Would the Project physically divide an established community? Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-6, 6-61.)
Explanation: Alternative 4 would consist of renovation of the Sandpiper Golf Club and would not include new components, such as roads, that could physically divide an es tablished community. Alternative 4 would improve local connectivity through the construction of sidewalks and bicycle path extension along Hollister Avenue. There would be no impact.

The project site is primarily surrounded by open space land uses, with the Pacific Ocean to the south, Haskell’s Beach to the west, and Santa Barbara Shores Park to the east. Residential land uses are located across Hollister Avenue to the northeast and north, and are not directly adjacent to the project site.

Alternative 4 includes renovation of the Sandpiper Golf Club to provide an improved golf course, clubhouse, maintenance facility, 81 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
and comfort station, as well as adaptive reuse of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station. Alternative 4 would construct a sidewalk east of the Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station to connect with an existing sidewalk at the northeast project site boundary that provides access to Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperling Preserve; stripe a crosswalk across Hollister Avenue to provide coastal connectivity for residences on the north side of Hollister Avenue; and construct a Class I bicycle path within the Hollister Avenue right-of-way.

Furthermore, the project includes the dedication of lateral access along the beach frontage on the sand and along Hollister Avenue, and the dedication of five acres of the project site, to the west in the Bell Canyon area, for open space, conservation, and coastal access.

Therefore, Alternative 4 would improve connectivity within the local vicinity. Alternative 4 would renovate an existing golf course and does not include any new components (such as new roads) that could divide an established community. Renovation of the project site would not result in the physical division of an established community, and no impact would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.10-6, 6-61.) L. NOISE

1. Noise Standards
Threshold: Would the project generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ord inance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-13 through 4.11-15, 6-63.) Explanation: Stationary.

HVAC Units . Alternative 4 may include HVAC units on the new building, new café next to the restored Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, and comfort station. The HVAC noise level would be highest at the houses located off Sanderling Lane, with a noise level of 27 dBA. The noise levels would be well below the City’s 65 dBA CNEL standard. Due to the large distances between the HVAC units (i.e. 1,900 feet or greater), the additional noise from each HVAC unit would be negligible compared to the closest unit shown in the table and therefore combined noise levels from multiple HVAC units are not displayed.

Pump Station . The pump station, which would be located in the maintenance yard area and near the comfort station, would have noise levels that would be highest at the houses located off 82 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Sanderling Lane, with a noise level of 18 dBA. The noise levels would be well below the City’s 65 dBA CNEL standard.

Conversational Noise. Existing conditions at the project site include users of the golf course. Alternative 4 would not decrease the number of golfers on-site, as Alternative 4 would reduce the rounds of golf by incrementally increasing the time between tee -offs. This reduction in rounds would lead to decreasing noise from golfers.

However, Alternative 4 would add café users atthe Barnsdall Ri o Grande Gas Station, which may increase conversational noise in the area. Typically, a conversation between two people using a normal voice (not raised) at a distance of three feet is 60 dBA, and a raised voice at a distance of three feet is 66 dBA (Engin eering ToolBox 2005). Conversational noise levels would be well below the City’s 65 dBA CNEL standard.

Combined Operational Noise Levels . The combined noise levels from HVAC units at the clubhouse, comfort station, and restored Barnsdall Rio Grande Gas Station, pump station equipment at the maintenance yard and comfort st ation, and conversational noise, would be well below the City’s 65 dBA CNEL standard, and below the existing ambient noise levels. Therefore, operational noise from Alternative 4 would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11 -13 through 4.11-15, 6-61 through 6-63.)
Traffic.

Construction. Construction generates temporary worker, vendor, and soil import haul trips, and the number of trips vary by activity phase. Although the extended b ike path may require more construction days than Alternative 4 , the greatest number of construction vehicle trips would occur during the demolition phase, with 78 one -way trips between worker, vendor, and hauling trips.

Noise levels related to Alternative 4’s construction trips would increase by less than 0.1 dBA. Th erefore, Alternative 4 would not result in a traffic noise increase of 3 dBA or more, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-16, 6-61 through 6-63.) Operational Off-Site Traffic Noise.

Operation. Project operation would generate new vehicle trips that would increase noise levels on nearby roadways, such as Hollister Avenue and Cathedral Oaks Road. Noise levels related to the additional trips would increase by only 0.1 dBA. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not result in a traffic no ise increase of 3 dBA or more, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11- 83 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
16, 6-61 through 6-63.)

2. Vibration
Threshold: Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-17 through 4.11-18, 6-63.) Explanation: Construction. Construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration, such as pile driving, would not be used for project construction as those activities typically occur when a foundation of a is needed to be at a greater depth than typical projects (e.g., for marine projects or building on unstable soil). The greatest anticipated source of vibration during general project construction activities would potentially be from a vibratory roller.

Construction of the extended bike path under Alternative 4 would move construction equipment closer to residences, with a vibratory roller being potentially used within 30 feet of the residential structures on Elderberry Drive and Pebble Beach Drive,. This would equal a vibration level of approximately 0.17 PPV in/sec. at a distance of 30 feet. This vibration level would be well below the Caltrans vibration damage potential threshold for older structures of 0.5 PPV in/sec for transient sources. Therefore, temporary impacts associated with the vibratory roller (and other potential equipment) to off -site residential structures would be less than significant.

Operation. Operational activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vi bration include projects involving railroads and subways. Alternative 4 would not involve substantial vibration sources associated with operation such as this because operation of a golf course does not include these uses. Therefore, Alternative 4’s operational groundborne vibration and noise impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.11-17 through 4.11-18, 6-63.)

3. Airport Noise
Threshold: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-18, 6-63.) 84 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Explanation: The project site is located outside the 60 to 65 CNEL noise contour from Santa Barbara Airport, which is approximately 2.6 miles to the west (SBCAG 2023). This would be within the City’s “normally acceptable” recommendation for noise levels f or golf course uses, which is up to 70 CNEL. Therefore, construction workers building Alternative 4 or workers of the golf course would not be exposed to excessive airport noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.11-18, 6-63.)
M. PUBLIC SERVICES

1. Fire Protection
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-8 through 4.13-9, 6-64.) Explanation: Alternative 4 would not directly or indirectly generate population growth because Alternative 4 does not include residential development and proposed utility extensions would serve only the Sandpiper Golf Club. Alternative 4 would result in approximately 21 additional employees, which could cause indirect growth; however, because these jobs would likely come from the local workforce, it is not expected that people would be required to relocate to Goleta. In a conservative scenar io where all projected employees and their families were to relocate to Goleta, there would be a population growth of 55 people, which would raise Goleta’s population to 32,570 people. With approximately 214 firefighters, SBCFD provides a ratio of approximately 2.77 firefighters per 2,000 persons within its service population, which is above the City goal of one firefighter on duty 24 hours a day for every 2,000 persons (SBCFD 2023). The addition of 55 people to Goleta would maintain the existing SBCFD rati o of approximately 2.77 firefighters per 2,000 persons and thus not substantially diminish fire protection services such that new fire protection facilities would be needed.

The project site is located approximately 1.7 miles from County Station 11 and thu s firefighters would be able to readily respond to the demand for fire services at the project site. In addition, Fire Station 10 is planned to be constructed at 7952 Hollister Avenue, north of the project site. Alternative 4 would not change existing on- 85 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
site uses but would include a new clubhouse restaurant and the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, the operation of which could increase the demand for fire protection services in the unlikely event of a structure fire. However, proposed structures would be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the California Fire Code which would reduce the potential for fire to occur, thereby reducing the potential demand for fire services at the project site. Fire safety measures and equipment required by the California Fire Code, which would be incorporated into the project design, include use of fire - retardant building materials, inclusion of emergency water infrastructure (fire hydrants and sprinkler systems), and installation of smoke detectors and fire extinguishers.

The planned Fire Station 10, which has already undergone environmental review, would address existing service levels for fire protection facilities in Goleta and would help the SBCFD achieve their goal of 1 firefighter per 2,000 residents. Furthermore, SBC FD has indicated Alternative 4 would not pose a substantial constraint on fire department resources in the surrounding community (Tan 2025). Thus, the addition of Alternative 4 within the SBCFD service area would not result in substantial deficiencies to f ire protection services. In addition, pursuant to Chapter 17.70 of the Municipal Code, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees which would provide funding for expanded fire protection facilities, including environmental compliance and permitting for new facilities. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not substantially increase the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts and impacts wo uld be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.13-8 through 4.13-9, 6-64.)

2. Police Protection
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-9, 6-64.) Explanation: Alternative 4 would require approximately 21 additional employees, which could cause indirect growth; however, because these jobs would likely come from the local workforce, it is not ex pected that people would be required to relocate to Goleta. In a conservative 86 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
scenario, Alternative 4 could result in a population growth of 55 people. This population growth represents less than one percent of Goleta’s existing population, which is not anticipated to substantially alter the existing service ratios provided by the contracted Deputy Service Units such that an additional officer would be required in order to provide adequate public services. Furthermore, Alternative 4 does not include land use changes which would allow development such as housing that could require substantial additional police services. Alternative 4 would include a new clubhouse restaurant and the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, which may increase the need for police services at the project site. However, these features would marginally increase the use of the project site and would not require constant security. In addition, pursuant to Chapter 17.70 of the Municipal Code, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees which would provide funding for expanded police facilities, including environmental compliance and permitting for new facilities. Furthermore, the Santa Barbara County Sherriff’s Office City has stated Alternative 4 would not require the addition of new or expanded police facilities to provide adequate services to Goleta (Rivas 2025). Thus, Alternative 4 would not be expected to result in substantial additional police services or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities , the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. Alternative 4 would have a less than significant impact on police protection services. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-9, 6-64.)

3. Schools
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-9 through 4.13-10, 6-64.) Explanation: Alternative 4 would not directly generate population growth that would increase the number of students in GUSD or SBUSD because Alternative 4 does not include residential uses. Alternative 4 would require approximately 21 additional employees, which could cause indirect growth; however, because these jobs would likely come from the local workforce, it is not expected that people would be required to relocate to Goleta. In a conservative scenario, Alternative 4 could result in a population growth of 55 people which would require approximately 21 residential units based on the City’s average persons per household of 2.59 (Calif ornia Department of Finance 87 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
2024). Using a student generation factor of 0.2 students per residential unit per school district, Alternative 4 could generate approximately 4 students in GUSD and 4 students in SBUSD from indirect population growth (City of Goleta 2006a).

Alternative 4 would not cause GUSD or SBUSD schools to exceed capacity, thereby necessitating the construction of a new classroom.

Regardless, Alternative 4 would be required to pay state -mandated developer fees to fund the construction of sc hool facilities to accommodate students generated from new development projects.

Pursuant to Section 65995(3)(h) of the California Government Code (Senate Bill 50, chaptered August 27, 1998), the payment of statutory fees pursuant to California Education C ode 17620 “…is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of the impacts of any legislative or adjudicative act, or both, involving, but not limited to, the planning, use, or development of real property, or any change in governmental organization or reorganization.”
Because Alternative 4 would not substantially increase the amount of students in GUSD or SBUSD such that new or physically altered school facilities would be needed, impacts to schools would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13-9 through 4.13-10, 6-64.)

4. Parks
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered park facilities, need for new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-5 through 4.12-6, 6-63.) Explanation: Alternative 4 would not directly generate population growth because the Alternative 4 does not include residential development and proposed utility extensions would serve only the Sandpiper Golf Club. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not result in a need for additional parkland due to direct population growth. Construction workers may utilize adjacent parks and open space during break periods throughout construction of Alternative 4. However, construction would be temporary and the brief and periodic use of park facilities by construction workers would not result in long -term substantial increases in the accelerated deterioration of existing park facilities.

Employment opportunities associated with Alternative 4 may result 88 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
in an incremental increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. In a conservative scenario where the approximately 21 additional employees and their families relocated to Goleta, Alternative 4 could result in a population growth of 55 people. This population estimate is conservative as it assumes all additional employees and the families would relocate to Goleta and no existing Goleta residents would be included as part of the 21 additional employees. The addition of up to 55 people would result in a parkland ratio of 16.8 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which would not be a substantial reduction in parkland available to the residents of Goleta.

Under existing conditions, nearby parks and trails such as Sperling Preserve, Santa Barbara Shores Park, and Haskell’s Beach are used by the public. Alternative 4 would not result in substantial population increases such that substantial increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities would occur.

Alternative 4 would not increase the number of golfers or the number or size of special events held at the project site; however, Alternative 3 would increase the number of visitors at the clubhouse restaurant and Rio Grande Coffee Shop, which may increase the use of nearby parks and trails. Alternative 4’s inclusion of a restaurant and coffee shop would result in increased visitors to the project site, which may result in increased use of nearby parks and trails. However, this increase in use would be minimal and would not result in a substantial physical deterioration of recreational uses surrounding the project site.

Ultimately Alternative 4 would expand recreational opportunities in Goleta such that residents have additional options for recreation through the dedicati on of a lateral access easement for beach access and includes construction of a Class I bicycle path along Hollister Avenue.

Alternative 4 would facilitate 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 late ral beach access points offsite . Alternative 4 would increase ac cess to recreational facilities . Alternative 4 would not result in substantial deterioration of recreational facilities but more importantly, increase access to the Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperling Preserve and the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, Alternative 4’s impact related to recreational facilities would remain less than significant.
89 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Alternative 4 would 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 accelerated. Impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12-5 through 4.12-6, 6-63 through 6-64.)

5. Other Public Facilities
Threshold: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in orde r to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.13-11, 6-64.) Explanation: Alternative 4 would not directly induce direct population growth, and Alternative 4 ’s potential to indirectly result in population growth of approximately 55 people would not place substantial additional demand on library services or inhibit the ability for the Goleta Valley Library to maintain material circulation. Existing offsite library services during the temporary closure of Goleta Valley Library would be able to accommodate Alternative 4’s indirect population growth.

Once operations at the Goleta Valley Library facility restart, the renovated library facility would be sufficient to accomm odate the potential incrementally increased use and circulation needs that may result from indirect population growth due to Alternative 4 . In addition, pursuant to Chapter 17.70 of the Municipal Code, the project applicant would be required to pay development impact fees which would provide funding for expanded library facilities, including environmental compliance and permitting for new facilities.

Therefore, Alternative 4’s impact on the need for new or physically altered libraries would be less than sig nificant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.13- 11, 6-64.)
N. MINERAL RESOURCES

1. Regional, Statewide, and Locally-Important Mineral Resources Threshold: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
90 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally - important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, p. 4.17-2.)
Explanation: The California Geological Survey’s Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Concrete Grade Aggregates in the San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara Production-Consumption Region, California – South Half indicates the project site is primarily with in Mineral Resources Zone 3 (MRZ -3, California Geological Survey 2011).

MRZ-3 indicates that mineral resources deposits could be present and further evaluation is required. However, no known mineral resources of value to the region and the residents of the state are present on the project site. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. No impacts to known mineral resources would occur.

The project site does not include any existing mineral extraction activities, and no mineral extraction activities are planned in the City of Goleta. According to the City’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan, the historic Ellwood Oil Field, located w est of the project site, is the only extractive industry within the City (City of Goleta 2006).

However, this facility ceased operation in 2017. Alternative 4 would not interfere with any oil extraction activities located in the Ellwood Mesa area. Therefor e, Alternative 4 would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No impacts to locally important mineral resource recovery sites would occur. (Draft EIR, p. 4.17-2.)
O. RECREATION

1. Increased Use
Threshold: Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12 -5 through 4.12 -6, 6 -63 through 6-64.)
Explanation: Alternative 4 would not directly generate population growth because Alternative 4 does not include residential development and proposed utility extensions would serve only the Sandpiper Golf Club. 91 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Therefore, Alternative 4 would not result in a need for additional parkland due to direct population growth. Construction workers may utilize adjacent parks and open space during break periods throughout construction of Alternative 4 . However, construction would be temporary and the brief and periodic use of park facilities by construction workers would not result in long -term substantial increases in the accelerated deterioration of existing park facilities.

Employment opportunities associated with Alternative 4 may result in an incremental increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. In a conservative scenario where the approximately 21 additional employees and their families relocated to Goleta, Alternative 4 could result in a population growth of 55 people. This population estimate is conservative as it assumes all additional employees and the families would relocate to Goleta and no existing Goleta residents would be included as part of the 21 additional employees. The addition of up to 55 people would result in a parkland ratio of 16.8 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which would n ot be a substantial reduction in parkland available to the residents of Goleta.

Under existing conditions, nearby parks and trails such as Sperling Preserve, Santa Barbara Shores Park, and Haskell’s Beach are used by the public. Alternative 4 would not result in substantial population increases such that substantial increased use of existing parks and recreational facilities would occur.

Alternative 4 would not increase the number of golfers or the number or size of special events held at the project site; however, Alternative 4 would increase the number of visitors at the clubhouse restaurant and Rio Grande Coffee Shop, which may increase the use of nearby parks and trails. Alternative 4’s inclusion of a restaurant and coffee shop would result in increased visitors to the project site, which may result in increased use of nearby parks and trails. However, this increase in use would be minimal and would not result in a substantial physical deterioration of recreational uses surrounding the project site.

Ultimately Alternative 4 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 and includes construction of a Class I bicy cle path along Hollister Avenue.

Based on the discussion above, Alternative 4 would not substantially increase the use of existing park and recreational facilities such as 92 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Sperling Preserve, Santa Barbara Shores Park, or Haskell’s Beach such that a need f or new or physically altered park facilities would occur or physical deterioration of existing facilities would occur or be accelerated. Impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.12 -5 through 4.12 -6, 6 -63 through 6-64.)

2. Construction and Expansion
Threshold: Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12-6, 6-63 through 6-64.) Explanation: Alternative 4 involves modifications and routing revisions to an existing 18 -hole golf course, as well as modifications to on -site facilities. Alternative 4 also includes construction of sidewalks along Hollister Avenue to improve access to Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperling Preserve, construction of a Class I bicycle path along Hollister Avenue , and dedication of lateral access along beach frontage on the sand and along Hollister Avenue to improve coastal access to Ellwood Mesa Open Space and Sperling Preserve and Haskell’s Beach. Alternative 4 would not result in substantial deterioration of recreational facilities and furthermore would not necessitate new or expanded recreat ional facilities in addition to Alternative 4 ’s proposed recreational improvements. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not result in adverse physical effects on the environment due to new or expanded recreational facilities beyond the recreational improvements evaluated throughout this EIR. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.12 -6, 6-63 through 6-64.)
P. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. Population Growth and Displacement of Housing
Threshold: Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure?
Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere; and displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
93 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.17-2 through 4.17-3.) Explanation: Alternative 4 would not construct new housing or extend roads. While Alternative 4 would extend utility infrastructure to the new clubhouse, comfort station, and Rio Grande Coffee Shop, these extensions would serve only Alternative 4. Accordingly, Alternative 4 would not lead to direct growth due to residential development or indirect growth due to road or infrastructure extensions into undeveloped portions of Goleta. Alternative 4 would result in approximately 21 additional employees, which could cause indirect growth; howe ver, given the size of the city workforce and the relatively small number of jobs being created, these jobs would likely come from the local workforce. As such, it is not expected that people would relocate to Goleta because of Alternative 4. However, in a conservative scenario where all projected employees and their families were assumed to relocate to Goleta, there would be a population growth of 55 people,1 which would raise Goleta’s population to approximately 32,5702 people (California Department of Fi nance 2024). This population growth would account for approximately 2.5 percent of the total anticipated growth in Goleta by 2050. This growth would not exceed the Santa Barbara County Association of Government’s 2050 population forecast of 34,700 (Santa Barbara County Association of Government 2019). Therefore, Alternative 4’s potential to result in population growth is accounted for in regional growth forecasts, and Alternative 4 would not result in substantial unplanned population growth. Impacts related to population growth would be less than significant.

In addition, the project site is currently developed with the Sandpiper Golf Club, which does not include residential uses. Construction of Alternative 4 would not displace people or housing. Therefore , Alternative 4 would not necessitate the construction of replacement housing. No impacts related to displacement of people or housing would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.17-2 through 4.17-3.)

Q. TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC

1. Plans, Policies, and Ordinances
Threshold: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-64.)
94 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Explanation: Alternative 4 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 4 would add the proposed bicycle parking spaces and bicycle entrance to the Rio Grande Coffee Shop, and would include an extended bicycle path from Cathedral Oaks Road to Pebble Beach Drive, and would therefore provide additional facilities for bicycle and pedestrian travel. Alternative 4 would directly further the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, which identifies a need for the proposed multi-use pathway (City of Goleta 2018), and would thus result in full consistency with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan’s goals and policies when compared to the proposed project .

Furthermore, through the extension of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure that connects to an existing region -serving Class I bicycle path, Alternative 4 would further Policies VH 3.5 (Pedestrian- Oriented Design), TE 1. 1 (Alternative Modes), TE 2.3 (Diversion of Automobile Trips to Alternative Modes), and TE 10.4 (Pedestrian Facilities in New Development) to a greater extent than the proposed project because Alternative 4 would encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as walking and bicycles. The design for Alternative 4’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.

Alternative 4 would result in temporary lane, bicycle route, or sidewalk closures on Hollister Avenue and would include roadway impediments on Hollister Avenue during construction. Alternative 4 would require the same amount of employees as the proposed project, which would not substantially interfere with Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District operations. Accordingly, Alternative 4’s construction impact related to conflicts with transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 6-64.)

2. VMT
Threshold: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines sections 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 6-64 through 6-65.) Explanation: Alternative 4 would reduce golf rounds from an average of 35,368 rounds per year to approximately 32,000 rounds per year (a reduction of approximately 3,368 rounds, or 9.5 percent) due to an increase in the time between tee -offs, which would reduce the amount of vehicle trips and associated VMT generated by golfers to get to and from the project site to utilize the golf course and pro shop 95 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
compared to existing conditions. The Sandpiper Golf Course currently hosts approximately 40 special events per year, an d Alternative 4 would only provide upgraded facilities for these events, but would not affect the size or number of events currently held at the golf course and special events would remain unchanged when compared to existing conditions. Accordingly, Alternative 4 would not result in any VMT increases related to special events. The City’s VMT Guidelines state that the threshold of significance for VMT impacts for non-residential and non-work projects is any net increase in City VMT. The baseline City VMT metrics utilized as defaults within the City’s VMT analysis tools is based, in part, on existing VMT at Sandpiper Golf Course. Given that the overall use of the golf course, a recreational use, would decrease, the continued use of the golf course would not contribute to an increase in VMT.

Retail units on the project site would include the proposed restaurant in the clubhouse and the proposed Rio Grande Coffee Shop. These are appropriate for use in evaluating Alternative 4’s potential VMT impacts as these facilities would serve the public in addition to golfers and therefore are representative of the proposed facilities which have potential to result in VMT increases. The proposed clubhouse would result in a net increase of 5,433 square feet in restaurant space and the proposed Rio Grande Coffee Shop would result in a net increase of 1,905 square feet in restaurant space. The total net increase in retail space would be 7,338 square feet, which is less than the 10,000 square foot threshold for screening potential VMT impacts. The clubhouse restaurant and Rio Grande Coffee Shop would be accessible to the public in addition to golfers and therefore would serve the local community. These facilities are not large national restaurant chains, are not located in major co mmercial centers that attract regional clientele, and are not sized to serve a customer base that extends beyond the local community. Thus, these facilities are considered locally serving to the residents in the Goleta area.

Because Alternative 4 would decrease the number of golf rounds per year available for golfers, the use of the golf course and pro shop would not contribute to an increase in VMT. Because the proposed retail components of the project (clubhouse restaurant and Rio Grande Coffee Shop) would be both locally serving and be less than 10,000 square feet, Alternative 4 would result in a less than significant VMT impact in accordance with the City VMT Guidelines.

Therefore, Alternative 4 would have a less than significant impact on VMT and would not conflict with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). (Draft EIR, pp. 6-64 through 6-65.)
96 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____

3. Design Hazards
Threshold: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-12, 6-65.) Explanation: During construction of Alternative 4, 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 the immediate area. Alternative 4 would include construction in the right -of-way of Hollister Avenue and therefore would result in roadway impediments on Hollister Avenue.

Alternative 4 would include the same driveway configuration as the proposed project which would be designed in accordance with all applicable SBCFD standards to minimize line -of-sight disruptions and hazards between vehicles and pedestrians and vehicles and cyclists. Alternative 4 would not introduce new incompatible uses, such as farm equipment, to roadways, and Alternative 4’s uses would be th e same as existing on -site uses. Accordingly, Alternative 4’s impacts to increased hazards would be less than significant.

Operation of Alternative 4 would not introduce new incompatible uses, such as farm equipment, to roadways, and Alternative 4’s uses would be the same as existing on-site uses. Alternative 4’s driveway would be designed such that vehicles would have clear line -of-sight entering and exiting the project site which would minimize the potential for vehicle collisions with pedestrians or cycl ists.

Accordingly, project design would ensure Alternative 4’s impacts to increased hazards would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 4.14- 12, 6-65.)

4. Emergency Access
Threshold: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-13 through 4.14-14, 6-65.) Explanation: During construction, 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 in the immediate area. The proposed improvements on Hollister Avenue would require encroachment into the right -of-way and temporary partial lane closures on Hollister Avenue, which could result in temporary disruptions to access on 97 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Hollister Avenue. Temporary disruptions to access on Hollister Avenue could lead to delays in emergency access to the project site or other areas on Hollister Avenue where emergency services are needed.

In accordance with Chapter 12.02 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project applicant would be required to maintain at least one safe crossing for vehicles and must implement measures to minimize disruption to existing traffic conditions. Furthermore, implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan would require implementation of traffic control me asures and minimization of disruptions to critical access points at the project site for emergency service vehicles during construction on Hollister Avenue, which would be reviewed for potential safety concerns and approved by SBCFD and the Santa Barbara C ounty Sheriff's Office. With implementation of the Construction Traffic Management Plan, proposed construction on Hollister Avenue would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Operation of Alternative 4 would be comparable to existing conditions, which would not result in inadequate emergency access on Hollister Avenue. Furthermore, SBCFD indicated that Alternative 4 would not result in substantial impacts related to access (Tan 2025). Alternative 4 would be required to be designed in accordance with a pplicable SBCFD standards, including those that address minimum driveway width, signage and addressing, fire hydrants, fire sprinklers, and emergency access. SBCFD and the City would review and approve Alternative 4 design, which would ensure Alternative 4 would provide adequate egress for emergency access.

Compliance with applicable development standards would ensure Alternative 4’s impacts to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.14-13 through 4.14-14, 6-65.) R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultura l landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or b) A resource determined by the lead agency, 98 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to c riteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15-7 through 4.15-10, 6-65.) Explanation: Operation. Pursuant to the requirements of AB 52, the City conducted Native American consultation for the proposed project to identify potential concerns or issues associated with Native American cultural resources within the project vicinity. As part of the AB 52 consultation process, the City sent AB 52 consultation request letters to the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians, the
Barbareño/Ventureño Band of Mission Indians, the Chumash Council of Bakersfield, the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, and the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians on February 28, 2024, shortly after the project application was deemed complete. The City received requests from the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians, and the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation, all of which requested to visit the project site. Following a visit to the project site on March 18, 2025, the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians requested that tribal cultural resources mitigation measures be applied to the project requiring that a Chumash representative participate in ground disturbance monitoring, and that project-related construction workers receive Workers Environmental Awareness Program training. Following a visit to the project site on September 5, 2024, the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians confirmed they are comfortable with the level of the archaeological investigation and the mitigation measures proposed for tribal cultural resources. Multiple efforts to contact the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation were conducted between August and November 2024, and in May 2025, the City concluded consultation eff orts. During the AB 52 consultation process, no tribal cultural resources were identified by the Tribes on the project site.

The City conducted a Sacred Lands File search through the Native American Heritage Commission; results were received on February 13, 2024 and were positive, indicating there is a potential sacred site in the vicinity of the project site. Five prehistoric archaeological sites and one prehistoric isolate were recorded within the project site as part of the Phase I and Extended Phase I Archaeological Resources Assessment Report and determined to be ineligible for the CRHR (Langan 2025). Operation of Alternative 4 would be similar to the 99 Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
proposed project and existing conditions and impacts would be Class III, less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.15 -7 through 4.15 -10, 6-

65.)
S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Wastewater Treatment Requirements
Threshold: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-11 through 4.16-13, 6-66.) Explanation: Water. P roposed water infrastructure improvements include the following:
 Installation of a 4 -inch fire water service with backflow that would connect existing GWD infrastructure in Hollister
Avenue to the proposed clubhouse;
 Relocation of a 2 -inch potable water meter from the maintenance yard to serve the clubhouse;
 Connection of the new comfort station’s restroom water service to potable water lines;
 Installation of a new, 1-inch water service that would connect existing GWD infrastructure in Hollister Av enue to the Rio Grande Coffee Shop; and
 Relocation of an existing 6-inch recycled water meter for golf course irrigation in front of the maintenance facility.

The aging irrigation system associated with the existing golf course would be removed and replaced, which would improve the efficiency of the irrigation system and reduce water usage. Additionally, a smart irrigation controller system would be implemented to manage irrigation usage, supported by an on-site weather station.

Alternative 4 ’s water demand would be 150.7 AFY less than the water demand under existing conditions. Accordingly, Alternative 4 would not generate substantial water demand that would necessitate new or expanded water facilities in order to meet the demand anticipated by Alternative 4. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not 100
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
require new or expanded water facilities beyond the improvements evaluated throughout the Draft EIR. This impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-11, 6-66.)
Wastewater. Proposed wastewater infrastructure improvements include the following:
 Installation of a private, 6-inch gravity sewer lateral that would connect the proposed clubhouse to existing GWSD
infrastructure in Hollister Avenue;
 Installation of a grinder pump station and 1.25-inch force main lateral that would connect the new golf course comfort station to existing GWSD infrastructure along the eastern boundary of the property;
 Installation of a private, 6 -inch sewer lateral that would connect the Rio Grande Coffe e Shop to existing GWSD
infrastructure in Hollister Avenue;
 Utilize and extend the existing private, 6-inch sewer lateral to serve the proposed cart wash and maintenance facilities; and  Abandonment of the existing septic systems that serve the clubhouse and comfort station.

Alternative 4 would require a change to GWSD’s Sphere of Influence to include the clubhouse, Rio Grande Coffee Shop, and comfort station. This change would not necessitate additional wastewater conveyance infrastructure beyond what is pr oposed and evaluated throughout the Draft EIR.

GWSD has sufficient available capacity at the GSD WWTP to treat the anticipated wastewater generated by Alternative 4. Accordingly, new wastewater treatment facilities would not be required to accommodate Alternative 4 ’s anticipated wastewater demand.

Alternative 4 would not require new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities beyond the wastewater infrastructure improvements evaluated throughout th e Draft EIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-12, 6-66.) Stormwater. Most of the project site is self -treating, due to substantial existing on -site landscaping and the minimal amount of impervious surfaces. Alternative 4 would include the development of six bioretention basins which would treat and discharge water onto the golf course. The proposed stormwater drainage facilities would 101
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
be sized such that post -project peak runoff would be less than pre - project peak runoff for the 100 -year flood event. Because the proposed stormwater drainage facilities would allow for stormwater filtration and onsite infiltration, no additional stormwater infrastructure would be needed beyond the stormwater infrastructure included as part of Alternative 4. As a result, Alternative 4 would not require upgrades to stormwater infrastructure beyond what is evaluated within the Draft EIR. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.6-12, 6-66.)
Electric, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications Facilities .

Alternative 4 includes the undergrounding of overhead power and telecommunications lines via a joint trench that would run parallel to Hollister Avenue across the northern project site boundary. SCE and SCG would have sufficient electricity and natural gas supplies for Alternative 4, and Alternative 4 would not place a substantial demand on electricity and natural gas supplies due to wasteful energy consumption such that new or expanded off-site electrical or natural gas infrastructure would be needed. Similarly, Alternative 4 would use existing telecommunications facilities during operation and would not require upgrades to existing facilities or create a demand for service unable to be met by existing providers. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-13, 6-66.)

2. Water Supplies
Threshold: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Finding: No impact. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-13 through 4.16-14, 6-66.) Explanation: The project site, under existing conditions, has a gross water demand of approximately 302.3 AFY. Alternative 4 would result in a gross water demand of approximately 151.6 AFY, or 150.7 AFY less than the gross water demand under existing conditions (a 49 percent reduction). This reduction in demand is primarily a result of the 63 -acre reduction in irrigated turf on -site. Furthermore, the aging irrigation system would be removed and replaced, which would improve the efficiency of the irrigation system and reduce water usage. Similar to the existing irrigation system, the new irrigation system would continue to use recycled water and would consist of a combination of drip, rotor, or drip/rotor irrigation. Additionally, a smart irrigation controller system would be implemented to manage irrigation usage, supported by an on -site weather station. New turf installed would be drought -tolerant and landscaping on -site would 102
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
consist of native and coastal appropriate plants, which would reduce water usage. Under existing conditions, approximately 86 percent of irrigation used for the golf course is recycled water. Alternative 4 would continue to use a mix of recycled water and potable water for irrigation to minimize the demand of potable water for golf course irrigation. In addition, Alternative 4 includes a recycled water system at the maintenance facility. To minimize water use in restroom facilities, Alternative 4 would install low -flow fixtures and toilets consistent with the California Plumbing Code. These features would further reduce water use at the project site.

Furthermore, Alternative 4’s water demand from on -site structures (i.e., proposed clubhouse, maintenance building, comfort station, and Rio Grande C offee Shop) would be approximately 2.8 AFY, which is within the potable historic water credit of 3.3 AFY for the project site as determined by GWD. GWD reviewed Alternative 4 and issued a Preliminary Water Service Determination Letter, stating that GWD has sufficient water available to support Alternative 4 . In addition, when required by the GWD Board of Directors or District General Manager, the project applicant would be required to adhere to the water shortage restrictions during stages of drought, as se t forth in Goleta Water District Code Chapter 6.21.

Given that Alternative 4 would result in an overall reduction in water use at the project site, Alternative 4 would have sufficient water supplies available in normal, dry, and multiple dry years. No imp act would occur. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-13 through 4.16-14, 6-66.)

3. Wastewater Capacity
Threshold: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-14 through 4.16-15, 6-66.) Explanation: Employees and visitors at the project site would generate wastewater that would flow into GWSD’s conveyance system and be treated at the WWTP. Currently, the wastewater inflow to the WWTP is approximately 5.01 MGD, leaving
approximately 2.63 MGD of capacity available until the WWTP’s permitted capacity is reached. GWSD is entit led to receive approximately 0.93 MGD more wastewater flows than what GWSD customers currently produce (McCarthy 2025). Alternative 4 ’s anticipated wastewater generation is calculated consistent with the 103
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
wastewater generation factor of 100 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of habitable space used in the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Final EIR (City of Goleta 2006).

Under existing conditions, employees at the maintenance facility generate approximately 0.0008 MGD (760 gallons per d ay) of wastewater collected and treated by GWSD. Alternative 4 would generate approximately 0.005 MGD (4,603 gallons per day) of wastewater. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in a 0.005 MGD net increase in wastewater flows compared to existing conditions. A

0.005 MGD increase in wastewater flows represents approximately

0.5 percent of the 0.93 MGD capacity available for GWSD customers. The existing WWTP capacity would be sufficient to accept wastewater generated by Alternative 4. Therefore, Alternative 4 would be adequately served by the existing capacity of the GSD WWTP, and this impact would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-14 through 4.16-15, 6-66.)

4. Solid Waste and Solid Waste Laws
Threshold: (i) Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (ii) Will the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-15 through 4.16-18, 6-66.) Explanation: Operation. The generation of solid waste from operation of project components are calculated with the following generation rates from the County’s 2024 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual:
 Golf clubhouse restaurant, comfort station, and Rio Grande Coffee Shop: Eating and Drinking Establishment (0.0115
multiplied by the square footage of a project)
 Golf clubhouse (excluding the restaurant): General Retail and Miscellaneous Services (0.0057 multiplied by the square footage of a project).
 Maintenance facility: Warehouse (0.0016 multiplied by the square footage of a project).

Based on these factors, under existing conditions, the pr oject site generates approximately 75 tons of solid waste per year. Alternative 104
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
4 would result in gross 286 tons of solid waste generated per year. 2 Therefore, Alternative 4 would increase solid waste generation at the project site by 211 tons annually co mpared to existing conditions, which would be reduced to 105.5 tons per year with a 50 percent solid waste diversion rate. This amount of solid waste does not exceed the City’s project-specific threshold of 196 tons per year. As a result, operation of Alternative 4 would not result in excessive solid waste generation and would comply with solid waste management and reduction statutes. Therefore, Alternative 4’s impacts related to solid waste from operation would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.16-15 through 4.16-18, 6-66.)
T. WILDFIRE

1. Response Plans, Exacerbation of Wildfire Risks, Infrastructure Risks Threshold: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the Project substant ially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Would the project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, or thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuelbreak, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risks or that ma y result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Would the project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding, landslides, mud flows, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Finding: Less than significant. (Draft EIR, pages 4.17-3 through 4.17-5, 6-66) Explanation: The project site would primarily consist of golf course turf, and the project would add native plants for landscaping purposes, both of which would have a low fire risk. Alternative 4 would not substantially change the slope, winds, or other factors such t hat wildfire risks would be exacerbated. Alternative 4 would maintain the current land use of the site (golf course) and would not add new ignition sources such as campsites or overhead power lines. Alternative 4 would 105
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
underground the existing power lines, which would reduce fire risk when compared to existing conditions.

Project components located within High or Very High fire hazard severity zones include the renovated clubhouse, golf course improvements south and west of the clubhouse, and improvements to Hollister Avenue north of the clubhouse. When compared to existing conditions, Alternative 4 would not add new components or intensified development within a fire hazard severity zone. No construction would occur in Bell Canyon, which is the largest area of the project site within a Very High fire hazard severity zone.

During construction, there would be a temporary increase in human activity and potential ignition sources, including equipment that could create sparks, be a source of heat, or leak flamma ble materials on the project site. In accordance with California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 4442, equipment including earth -moving and portable construction equipment with internal combustion engines would be equipped with spark arrestors to preve nt the emission of flammable debris from exhaust, when operating on any forest - covered, brush -covered, or grass -covered land. In addition, PRC Sections 4427 and 4431 specify standards for conducting construction activities on days when a burning permit is required, and PRC Section 4428 requires construction contractors to maintain fire suppression equipment during the highest fire danger period (April 1 to December 1) when operating on or near any forest -covered, brush-covered, or grass -covered land. These measures are designed to prevent accidental ignition and facilitate rapid response in the event of a fire. Adherence to these regulatory requirements would minimize the risk of potential wildland fire during construction.

Project design would be subject t o the California Fire Code, which includes safety measures to minimize the threat of fire, including ignition-resistant construction with exterior walls of noncombustible or ignition resistant material from the surface of the ground to the roof system and sealing any gaps around doors, windows, eaves and vents to prevent intrusion by flame or embers, automatic interior and exterior fire sprinklers, a water delivery system, fire apparatus access, and defensible space. Project design would also be required to comply with Chapter 9, Fire Protection Systems, of the California Building Code, which includes specific standards related to exterior wildfire exposure, and California Code of Regulations Title 14, which sets forth the minimum development standards for e mergency access, fuel modification, setback, signage, and water supply, which help prevent loss of structures or life by reducing wildfire hazards. In addition, Alternative 4 would be constructed in accordance with the 106
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Santa Barbara County Fire Department’ s development standards which includes requirements for egress on private driveways, fire hydrant spacing and flow rates, automatic fire sprinkler systems, and automatic alarm systems (Santa Barbara County Fire Department 2022). Adherence to State and loca l regulations would ensure the installation of infrastructure associated with Alternative 4 would not substantially exacerbate fire risk.

The proposed improvements on Hollister Avenue (identified as an evacuation route under the City’s General Plan/Coasta l Land Use Plan) would require encroachment into the right -of-way and temporary partial lane closures on Hollister Avenue, which could result in temporary disruptions to emergency access through Hollister Avenue. However, in accordance with Chapter 12.02 of the City’s Municipal Code, the project applicant would be required to maintain at least one safe crossing for vehicles and must implement measures to minimize disruption to existing traffic conditions. In addition, the project applicant’s construction co ntractor would be required to implement a Construction Traffic Management Plan during construction on Hollister Avenue. The Construction Traffic Management Plan would require implementation of traffic control measures and minimization of disruptions to critical access points at the project site for emergency service vehicles during construction on Hollister Avenue, which would be reviewed for potential safety concerns and approved by SBCFD and the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office. Furthermore, adherenc e to applicable guidance documents such as the City’s Emergency Operations Plan (City of Goleta 2021) and the County’s Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan (County of Santa Barbara 2017) would minimize the potential for Alternative 4 to substantiall y impair emergency response and emergency evacuation. These documents provide direction for traffic control and management in emergency situations, and Alternative 4 would not preclude implementation of these plans (City of Goleta 2021; County of Santa Barbara 2017). During operation, Alternative 4 would add 21 employees to the project site, and a conservative estimate of 55 people to the city of Goleta. This population growth is accounted for in regional growth forecasts, and thus Alternative 4 would not add substantial, unplanned congestion to local roadways in the event of an evacuation during a wildfire. As a result, Alternative 4 would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan within an SRA or VHFHSZ.

The project site and adjacent areas are relatively flat and do not contain the steep topography necessary to induce substantial landslides or mudflows that would have the potential to result in significant impacts on the project site. In addition, runoff a nd 107
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
drainage changes would be minimized during construction and operation as Alternative 4 would be required to adhere to regulatory requirements which mandate implementation of erosion control measures. Alternative 4 must obtain coverage under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit and implement the provisions of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, including BMPs related to erosion control and sediment release. Alternative 4 must comply with the Central Coast Regi onal Water Quality Control Board Post -Construction Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region, which entails submittal of a Stormwater Control Plan. The Stormwater Control Plan would be reviewed and approved by the City which would e nsure erosion control measures are implemented during operation (City of Goleta n.d.). As a result, Alternative 4 would not result in substantial runoff, slope -instability, or drainage changes which could lead to post-wildfire flooding, landslides, or mud flows. Impacts related to wildfire would be less than significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.17-3 through

4.17-5, 6-66.)
SECTION III.

IMPACTS THAT ARE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION

INCORPORATED
The City Council hereby finds that Mitigation Measures have been identified in the EIR and these Findings that will avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The potentially significant impacts, and the Mitigation Measures that will reduc e them to a less than significant level, are as follows:

A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. Sensitive Species
Threshold: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than significant with mitigation. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3 -36 through

4.3-51, 6-52.)
Explanation: Construction of Alternative 4 has the potential to result in direct and indirect impacts to special -status plant and wildlife species. No special-status plant species have been documented within or adjacent to the extended bicycle path area, and the potential for their 108
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
occurrence is considered low due to the developed nature of the Hollister Avenue right-of-way and the dominance of ornamental and eucalyptus vegetation. However, there remains a limited possibility that previous ly undetected individuals could occur in small undeveloped patches at the southern edge of the roadway. If present, these could be subject to direct impacts from construction activities or indirect effects such as dust, chemical spills, or changes in water quality. Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur include monarch butterflies, California red-legged frogs, raptors such as Cooper’s hawk and white -tailed kite, yellow warblers, and other nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Tre aty Act and California Fish and Game Code. While no roosts or nests have been documented within the extended bicycle path area, suitable habitat exists to the south, particularly within eucalyptus groves designated as ESHA. Construction activities could re sult in temporary disturbances such as noise and human presence, but the alignment of Alternative 4 would avoid core habitat areas and would be confined to previously disturbed edges, reducing the likelihood of significant impacts. Alternative 4 would resu lt in similar direct and indirect impacts to special-status species related to habitat removal and degradation, when compared to the proposed project, 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.

Special-Status Plant Species
The following special -status plant species were observed on the project site: cliff malacothrix, red sand verbena, Santa Barbara honeysuckle, southern California black walnut, and woolly seablite.

Direct Impacts.

Alternative 4 would involve landscaping and ongoing landscaping maintenance within coyote brush scrub occupied by cliff malacothrix, along the coastal bluffs. Additionally, habitat destruction for Santa Barbara honeysuckle may occur, as the honeysuckle is located adjacent to the proposed water main along the project site’s eastern boundary. Potential damage to or removal of cliff malacothrix and Santa Barbara honeysuckle would constitute a potentially significant impact to special-status plant species.

As special-status plant surveys were last conducted in 2022, there is the potential for special -status plant species, such as cliff malacothrix, woolly seablite, and Santa Barbara honeysuckle, to occur in l ocations where not previously detected at the time of 109
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
construction. Ground disturbance or vegetation removal during construction, as well as trenching for the proposed water main from the comfort station to existing water infrastructure along the project site’s eastern boundary (where Santa Barbara honeysuckle is located), could consequently result in a potentially significant impact to special -status plants, if such plants have expanded into the proposed disturbance areas.

No special -status plant species have been documented within or adjacent to the extended bicycle path area, and the potential for their occurrence is considered low due to the developed nature of the Hollister Avenue right-of-way and the dominance of ornamental and eucalyptus vegetation. However, there remains a limited possibility that previously undetected individuals could occur in small undeveloped patches at the southern edge of the roadway. If present, these could be subject to direct impacts from construction activities or indirect effects such as dust, chemical spills, or changes in water quality. Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur include monarch butterflies, California red-legged frogs, raptors such as Cooper’s hawk and white -tailed kite, yellow warblers, and other nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code. While no roosts or nests have been documented within the extended bicycle path area, suitable habitat exists to the south, particularly within eucalyptus g roves designated as ESHA. Construction activities could result in temporary disturbances such as noise and human presence, but the alignment of Alternative 4 would avoid core habitat areas and would be confined to previously disturbed edges, reducing the l ikelihood of significant impacts. Alternative 4 would result in similar direct and indirect impacts to special-status species related to habitat removal and degradation, when compared to the proposed project, and would require Mitigation Measures BIO -1 thr ough BIO -10 to reduce potential impacts to special-status plant and wildlife species to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-36, 6-51 through 6-52.) Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts to special -status plant species may occur during project c onstruction. Indirect impacts would include water quality effects, chemical spills or vehicle leaks near special-status plants, or dust. These impacts would be potentially significant as there is the potential that water quality effects, chemical spills or vehicle leaks, and dust could degrade special -status plant species’ habitats such that mortality of special -status plant species occurs. (Draft EIR, pp.

4.3-37, 6-51 through 6-52.)
110
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Crotch’s Bumble Bee . Focused surveys conducted on the project site in June and July 2025 did not result in the identification of Crotch’s bumble bee. If Crotch’s bumble bee is present during ground disturbance or vegetation removal during the active season (typically spring to summer), it would likely be able to fly and escape harm. Outside of the active season, the Crotch’s bumble bee nests underground, where it would not be seen and at a greater risk of injury or mortality during ground -disturbing activities. Therefore, the possibility of inadvertently damaging a Crotch’s bumble bee during project construction activities is present. Grading, trenching, or vegetation removal during project construction could result in loss of individual bees or a nesting Crotch’s bumble bee col ony and these direct impacts would be potentially significant.

Indirect impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee could occur through vehicle maintenance and the potential for chemical leaks or spills outside developed areas to result in contamination that could affect individual Crotch’s bumble bees or their habitats. These impacts would be potentially significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3 -37, 6 -51 through 6 -

52.)Monarch Butterfly . Grading, construction of the replacement cart path that leads to a free-standing bridge over Devereaux Creek, and sandcapping would occur within the 100 -foot Monarch Butterfly Roosting Habitat ESHA buffer. Grading within the ESHA buffer would occur in two areas: a northern area, near the Hole 4 green and a southern area, near the Hole 5 fairway, which is closer to the historic roosting location. Grading and other proposed activities within the buffer are not anticipated to alter the surface hydrology or remove native vegetation that sustains the Monarch Butterfly Roosting Habitat ESHA eucalyptus stands. Proposed activities within the buffer would not introduce new development, but instead would recontour the existing golf course, install new plantings within existing maintained areas, and replace the existing cart pathway and structures. As Alternative 4 would involve trenching adjacent to eucalyptus trees in the Monarch Butterfly Roosting Habitat ESHA, Alternative 4 would have a potentially significant direct impact on monarch butterfly.

Alternative 4 would include construction activities within and adjacent to monarch butterfly/raptor roosting habitat ESHA and
riparian/marsh/vernal pool ESHA (as well as their associated 100 - foot buffers) along the southern edge of Hollister Avenue. These activities would include grading, paving, and installation of landscaping adjacent to eucalyptus groves designated as ESHA.

Although Alternative 4 would not introduce new development into 111
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
undisturbed habitat, it would result in minor encroachments into ESHA buffers and potential root zone disturbance. Alternative 4’s impacts to ESHA are not anticipated to be greater than those of Alternative 4 , because the bike path alignment is confined to previously disturbed areas and involves a low -impact use. While minor encroachment and temporary construction-related effects may occur, they are limited in scale and duration and do not introduce substantial new development into undisturbed habitat. Additionally, Alternative 4 would avoid removal of protected trees and significant impacts to Monarch Butterfly Roosting ESHA where feasible through project design. Furthermore, Alternative 4 would require Mitigation Measures HYD -1, BIO-2, BIO -3, BIO -4, BIO-6, BIO -7, BIO -8, and BIO-11 to reduce potential impacts related to riparian habitat, ESHA, and wetlands to a less than significan t level. Alternative 4’s impact related to riparian habitat, ESHA, and aquatic resources would be similar to Alternative 4 and would remain less than significant with mitigation.

Indirect impacts to monarch butterfly could occur through vehicle maintenance and the potential for chemical leaks or spills outside developed areas to result in contamination that could affect individual monarch butterflies or their habitats. These impacts would be potentially significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3 -38 through 4.3 -39, 6-51 through 6 -52.)Tidewater Goby . Tidewater goby occurs on the project site within Bell Canyon Creek. Habitat for tidewater goby is absent elsewhere on the project site. Construction-related indirect impacts could include water quality effects in Bell Canyon Creek due to chemical spills or sedimentation from construction activities.

These indirect impacts would be potentially significant. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3-39, 6-51 through 6-52.)
California Red-legged Frog. Grading activities have the potential to result in injury or mortality to California red -legged frog should individuals disperse across the golf course during project construction. Additionally, construction-related indirect impacts could include water quality effects, chemical spills in sensitive areas, dust, noise and vibration and construction worker presence, 2 if individual frogs are located on the golf course during project construction.

External lighting during project operation would be downcast, low - level lighting outside of ESHA buffers and dis tant from aquatic habitats. However, construction -related direct impacts and indirect impacts (including water quality effects, chemical spills, dust, and noise or vibration) would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures BIO -1 and BIO -2 would redu ce potential impacts to special-status plant species by requiring pre-construction 112
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation

City Council Resolution 26 - _____
special-status plant surveys and fencing around special-status plant habitat that would ensure avoidance of such habitat during construction activities. Specifically, Mitiga tion Measures BIO -1 and BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to special-status plant species, including cliff malacothrix, woolly seablite, and Santa Barbara honeysuckle. Mitigation Measures BIO3 and BIO -4 would reduce potential impacts to special-status species, both plant and wildlife, by requiring biological monitoring during construction, construction worker environmental awareness training, and implementation of best management practices that would minimize potential impacts to biological resources during construction. Mitigation Measures BIO-3 and BIO -4 would reduce potential impacts to all special -status species included in the analysis above. Mitigation Measures BIO -5 through BIO -10 would reduce potential impacts to special -status wildlife species, including nesting birds, by requiring pre-construction surveys and avoidance measures; monarch butterfly roost protection; and tree protection measures. Mitigation Measure BIO -5 would reduce potential impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee. Mitigation Measures BIO -6 and BIO -7 would reduce potential impacts to monarch butterfly. Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would reduce potential impacts to California red -legged frog and southwestern pond turtle.

Mitigation Measures BIO -8 and BIO -10 would reduce potential impacts to Cooper’s hawk, white-tailed kite, yellow warbler, and other raptor or nesting bird species.

Following the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BIO-10, Alternative 4’s impact involving a substantial adverse effect on special -status species or th eir habitat would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Draft EIR, pp. 4.3 -39, 6-51 through 6-52.)
Southwestern Pond Turtle. Southwestern pond turtle may occur in Bell Canyon Creek, upland habitat in Bell Canyon, or the golf course while dispersing to nest or take temporary shelter during winter. The golf course pond provides suitable aquatic habitat; however, the relatively steep slopes at the edge of the golf course and impenetrable em ergent vegetation near the mouth of Bell Canyon Creek may deter southwestern pond turtle from entering the golf course. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that southwestern pond turtle may be present on the golf course at the time of construction, and consequently could suffer injury or mortality from construction vehicles or equipment during proposed grading activities. Indirect impacts to southwestern pond turtle, should it occur on or adjacent to the golf course during project construction, could include water quality effects, chemical spills in sensitive areas, inadvertent destruction of habitats from construction equipment, 113
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
Sandpiper Golf Course Renovation