Agenda packet — Santa Barbara City Council, April 30, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

access to Christian practices for the native population. The exact location of this chapel and community is unknown.

By the Rancho or Anglo‐Mexican Period, ca. A.D. 1830‐1870, California had become part of the Republic of Mexico and mission lands began to be confiscated by the Mexican government and then granted or sold for farming and ranching. Numerous ranchos, with a focus on cattle, were developed. In 1850, California became the thirty‐first U.S. state. Eventually, a long period of drought forced a shift from ranching to farming and more commercial types of land uses. This marked the beginning of the American/Early Twentieth Century Period, A.D. 1870‐1940. In the Goleta area, changes included the establishment of a whaling camp at the mouth of the Goleta Slough, construction of Hollister Avenue, the Southern Pacific Railroad and the La Patera Train Station, and the operation of a lemon packing plant and a slaughterhouse.

Impact CR-3: Cultural resources in the Goleta area, and especially in proximity to Goleta Slough, are numerous and include prehistoric and historic‐era Native American sites as well as historic‐era resources dating back to the late 1800s. Fifteen archaeological sites are recorded within or partially within Airport property; at least four of these sites have been determined to be eligible or appear to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and are considered to have moderate or high sensitivity to pre‐historic resources and historic Native American values. Twelve archaeological sites have been recorded within 500 feet of the Airport; none are considered eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR at this time.

Overall, the improvements recommended by the proposed Project would not require the disturbance of archaeological sites that have been determined to be eligible or appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP or CRHR. These sites have been mapped as “high” archaeological resource sensitivity zones identified in the Master Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport (MARA) (City of Santa Barbara, 2009).

There is one area of recommended future Terminal and apron expansion that is mapped as a “moderate” sensitivity zone; however, the two hangars are outside of this area. There is no evidence that the site contains any human remains. Standard Conditions of Approval Applicable to Project include procedures for the unanticipated discovery of human remains.

Result CR‐3: Proposed Projects located within a moderate sensitivity zone of the MARA could have project‐specific or cumulative impacts on cultural resources protected by Federal, State or City laws and guidelines. These impacts would be Class II, Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

Mitigation Measure for Cultural Resources CR-3.

CR/mm‐3: The City’s Standard Condition of Approval regarding “Unanticipated Archaeological Resources Contractor Notification” shall be implemented for the proposed Project.

Conclusion: The previous EIR evaluated areas of sensitivity, and the two hangars are outside of the “moderate” sensitivity zone. In addition, the City’s Standard Condition of Approval Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 8 ends

regarding “Unanticipated Archaeological Resources Contractor Notification” shall be implemented as necessary for all projects. No additional mitigation is required.

Historic Resources: There are eight potentially historic buildings at the Airport, representing two different themes in the developmental history of the City, County, and Airport: early aviation (1928–1942) and World War II mobilization (1942–1946).

Option 4 sub-options a) and b) are both compromises that simultaneously satisfy the goals of the Airport and meets historic preservation compliance. Option 4 would involve the careful and strategic dismantling of Hangar 248 to reuse the building’s historic materials in adaptive reuse to rehabilitate Hangar 249. Option 4 would follow the Secretary of the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards where possible; however, altering Hangar 249 for use as anything other than an airplane Hangar has the potential to negatively impact the property’s historic integrity of association and feeling if character-defining features related to the building’s historic use are not retained. Further, there would only be one hangar as opposed to two. Regardless of the future location or use, loss of Hangar 248 would be a Class I Significant Environmental Impact.

Option 4 under both sub-options a) and b) would involve the total loss of Hangar 248, yet the Hangar 248 materials that would be salvageable would be reused in rehabilitating Hangar 249 wherever possible. The rehabilitation of Hangar 249 using salvaged materials resulting in its stabilization and continued use would serve as an overall positive counterbalance (mitigation) to the loss of Hangar 248. Loss of one Hangar 248, which is nearly identical in appearance and design to the Hangar 249 that would be retained and rehabilitated, is preferable to the total loss of both historic hangars.

Option 4 is a more sustainable Project, as this approach would reuse material that would typically be discarded as waste following demolition. Rather than using entirely new material, the rehabilitation of Hangar 249 would be completed using as much of the salvaged historic fabric of Hangar 248 as possible, preserving much of the historical value.

NRHP Criterion A through D. As the buildings retain historic integrity, the General Western Hangars appear to be eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A for their association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of aviation history. The period of significance is 1931–1942, covering the time the hangars served as an airplane factory, flying school, host to United Airlines, and contributor to the incremental development of aviation at the Santa Barbara Airport.

It does not appear that the hangars are significant under National Register Criterion B, C, or D.

CRHR Criterion 1 through 4. Constructed in 1931, the hangars represent the first permanent buildings at the airport site. As discussed in detail in the EIR, Appendix E, the subject hangars are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California aviation history and appear to be significant under CRHR Criterion 1.

The hangars do not appear to be significant under CRHR Criterion 2, 3 or 4.

Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 9 ends

NRHP & CRHR Integrity Assessment. Although the setting of the hangars has been altered, a historical contemporary would recognize the buildings as they exist today. Due to the loss of the associated administration building and the shifting of airport activities, the buildings suffer a moderate loss of integrity of setting, but overall, the hangars retain good integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

City of Santa Barbara Landmark Eligibility Evaluation. As the hangars appear to be eligible for listing on the NRHP and CRHR, the hangars are also eligible for listing as City Landmarks under the following City Criteria: 3a. Its character, interest or value as a significant part of the heritage of the City, the State, or the Nation; and 3e. Its exemplification as the best remaining architectural type. 4. Any structure, site or object meeting any or all the criteria provided for the National Register of Historic Places and the California Historical Landmark list. The hangars are currently listed as Potential Historic Resources for the City.

Impact CR-1. The Hangars 248 and 249 appear to be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A and CRHR under Criterion 1 for their association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of aviation history. The hangars are also eligible for listing as City Landmarks for their architectural merits. As such Hangars 248 and 249 are historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. The hangars are located within the San Pedro Creek floodway. Various treatment options available to the City for the structures were previously evaluated in the EIR. A summary has been included as follows for clarity in the differences between the prior four Options analyzed in the previous EIR and the new Option 4’s sub-options a) and b) as the impacts are similar and relevant. As such, under Option 1, leaving the hangars in the floodway without taking proper measures to protect them from flood events would result in Class I Significant Environmental Impact to historic resources under the NHPA due to “neglect of property that causes deterioration”. Option 2, the City may choose to leave the structures in the floodway, but attempt to restore them and protect them from future flood events, the structures would remain unusable due to their hazardous location. Under Option 3, includes relocating both of the hangars out of the San Pedro Creek floodway, which would result in adverse impacts as well due to “removal of property from its historic location;” however, as discussed further below, a management plan would be implemented to mitigate the impact below a level of significance. Prior Option 4, demolishing the buildings after documenting their history was originally considered, but dismissed due to its resultant Class I Significant Environmental Impact to historic resources. Current Option 4, sub-option a and b would result in a Class I Significant Environmental Impact due to leaving the remaining Hangar 249 in the floodway (like previously analyzed Option 1) and sub-option b) would relocated the remaining Hangar 249 outside of the San Pedro Creek floodway, which would result in adverse impacts was well due to “removal of property from its historic location” (like previously analyzed Option 3) the demolition of one Hangar.

Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 10 ends

Result CR-1: Even with mitigation efforts to preserve Hangar 248, Option 4, sub-options a) and b) will result in a Class I Significant Impacts to historic resources.

Mitigation Measures for Historic Resource Impacts.

Per the “Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis”, if Option 4 is favored and deconstruction of Hangar 248 is approved for salvage of materials, thorough documentation of Hangar 248 would be required through the preparation of Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS)/Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation, which would include large-format archival photography of exteriors and interiors, measured drawings, written descriptions of the building, and development of a historic context. The use of photogrammetry or light detection and ranging (LiDAR) technology may also be appropriate for documenting Hangar 248 and aid in the rehabilitation effort. These techniques, or a combination thereof, would create a permanent record of the physical features and historical significance of the demolished hangar. The information gathered through this documentation process would then be used to create informational materials to be displayed at the site of the demolished hangar and/or in the rehabilitated hangar. Informational materials could include a brochure, signage, or NPS-style pedestal panel that explains the historic significance of the Hangars and details the rehabilitation project to prevent a false sense of history. Additionally, the brochure and signage could document the relation of the Administration Building demolished in 1971, further documenting the site’s original usage and appearance.

Preparing an HPMP and appropriate HABS/HAER documentation of the deconstructed Hangar 248, reusing the historic materials salvaged, and creating explanatory materials such as a brochure or signage could serve as mitigation measures justified in a project specific EIR as required under CEQA.

Following HABS/HAER documentation and the development of an HPMP, trained professionals would need to partially disassemble or fully deconstruct Hangar 248 and catalog the sections or pieces of the Hangar that can be reused. A Secretary of the Interior (SOI)-qualified preservation architect and/or architectural historian would be required to monitor the entire deconstruction and construction process to ensure the historic materials are treated and used appropriately. All character-defining features of Hangar 249 must be documented and preserved, Hangars 249 and 248 are very similar, and preservation of one structure will preserve the character-defining features of both structures. The salvaged historic materials would need to be safely secured and stored in a climate-controlled environment until they are ready to be reused.

Conclusion: The proposed Project activity of carefully dismantling Hangar 248 and reusing its salvageable historic materials to rehabilitate Hangar 249, the Project would result in one hangar that fully represents the historic significance of the two hangars, jointly preserving this rare local building type and representing the hangars’ period of historic significance.

Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 11 ends

Option 4 would involve the total loss of Hangar 248, but the materials would be salvaged for reuse in rehabilitating Hangar 249 wherever possible. The rehabilitation of Hangar 249 using salvaged materials resulting in its stabilization and continued use would serve as an overall positive counterbalance (mitigation) to the loss of Hangar 248.

A full restoration of both hangars, while desirable, would be extremely costly and likely require extensive reconstruction of Hangar 248. Salvaging and reusing as much historic material as possible from Hangar 248 to rehabilitate Hangar 249 provides a more cost-effective alternative to a full restoration of both structures. Per CEQA Section 15064.5 (b), the demolition of Hangar 248 is a Class I Significant Impact that cannot be mitigated to a lesser impact. In accordance with CEQA Section 15064.5(b)(3), the restoration of Hangar 249 consistent with the Secretary Of the Interior standards, it mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historic resource.

Geology and Soils/Hazards and Hazardous Materials: Geology and Soils. The entire Goleta Valley is located within a seismically active region. The north branch of the More Ranch fault is located approximately 1,000 feet south of the Airport, while other active faults, such as the offshore North Channel Slope fault (located in the Santa Barbara Channel) and the onshore Santa Ynez fault (located along the Santa Ynez Mountains), are located farther away. In addition, local fault systems include east‐west trending faults across the south end of the Airport (City of Santa Barbara 2010). The Airport is mapped by the City as having high liquefaction potential because it Is underlain by estuarine deposits and has a high‐water table.

There are also potentially compressible soils at the Airport associated with the Goleta Slough (City of Santa Barbara, 2002) and, although not typically occurring together, the Airport is mapped as having potential for soil expansion (clay soils with plasticity) (City of Santa Barbara, 2010). The Airport is relatively flat and does not have potential for significant landslides or substantial erosion; there are no sea cliffs located on the Airport.

Hazards. The Airport, which is situated on a coastal plain, is not located in an area susceptible to wildland fires. It is located in a City‐designated tsunami hazard zone.

Hazardous Materials. Individual businesses located at the Airport are required to register all hazardous materials with the EPA as well as State and local regulatory agencies. Airport businesses also report to EPA regarding emissions related to hazardous materials.

Impact G/HAZ‐1: The Airport is located within a seismically active area with local faults known to be present on‐site; this is true of the entire region. In addition to fault rupture and ground shaking, the Airport has a high potential for liquefaction to occur on‐site. Thus, future proposed Project development could be adversely affected by seismic activity.

Result G/HAZ‐1: Implementation of the proposed Project would not create unusual risks for people or structures related to seismic hazards and liquefaction. Industry‐standard engineering practices are known and available to prevent most significant adverse impacts. These standards are implemented through City review and approval of project‐related grading plans and building permits. As such, potential risks due to fault rupture, ground shaking, and liquefaction would be Class II, Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 12 ends

Impact G/HAZ‐2: There are potentially compressible soils associated with Goleta Slough at the Airport; there is also potential for expansive soils at the Airport. Thus, future development could be adversely affected by adverse soil conditions. Substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, however, is not anticipated as a result of the proposed Project. The Airport is relatively flat and has an existing storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) (dated September 2, 2009) and City Storm Water Management Program (SWMP) in place.

Result G/HAZ‐2: Implementation of the proposed Project would not create unusual risks for people or structures related to soil conditions. Industry‐standard engineering practices are known and available to compensate for soil compression and/or soil expansion through project design and construction. These standards are also implemented through City review and approval of project‐related grading plans and building permits. As such, potential risks related to adverse soil conditions would be Class II, Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

BMPs and sedimentation control measures would be required for the proposed Project per the City’s adopted SWMP and the Airport’s RWQCB‐approved SWPPP; potential impacts due to erosion would be Class III, Less than Significant Impact.

Impact G/HAZ‐3: Future activity at the hangars could also involve the use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials. The use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials is heavily regulated.

For example, the Airport already implements SPCC plans and operations manuals at both of its existing fuel farms, no fuel farming has been proposed as part of the proposed Project. Individual businesses are required to register all hazardous materials with the EPA as well as State and local regulatory agencies. Potential impacts to public safety due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions at the Airport are the responsibility primarily of FAA. Part of its statutory mission is to ensure the safe usage of navigable airspace and to provide for the safety of aircraft and airport operations. The Airport implements all safety areas and transitional zones required by the FAA, including the protection of its runway protection zones (RPZs). The proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on emergency evacuation and response measures in the area.

No road closures in the surrounding area would be necessary as a result of the development of the proposed Project. The project site is located in an urban area where all public services are available. The Airport itself contains an aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) facility, which is staffed by the City of Santa Barbara Fire Department. In the event of an on‐airport emergency, both the City and Santa Barbara County Fire Departments would respond, as necessary.

Result G/HAZ‐3: Potential risks of the routine handling or transport of hazardous materials or potential risks to public safety due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions related to the proposed Project would be Class III, Less than Significant Impact. The use and transport of hazardous materials at the Airport is heavily regulated. in addition, FAA requires safety practices and zones on all airports, particularly those that provide scheduled commercial passenger service, i.e., Part 139‐certified airports. Due to the emergency services already in place at the Airport, potential impacts to emergency evacuation and response plans as a result of the proposed Project would also be Class III, Less than Significant Impact.

Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 13 ends

Impact G/HAZ‐4: Although extensive remediation has occurred at the Airport and there is currently no known soil or groundwater contamination, there remains the potential for exposure of project occupants or construction workers to un-remediated soil or groundwater contamination as proposed Project construction activity are undertaken.

Result G/HAZ‐4: Since the proposed Project may have contaminants, the potential for hazardous materials exposure remains, even though there is no known soil or groundwater contamination. The potential for impact would be Class II, Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation
Mitigation Measures for Hazards/Hazardous Materials.

The City’s Standard Condition of Approval related to asbestos and lead exposure would apply to the demolition of any hangars at the Airport. These measures would reduce potential geological risks, soil conditions, and hazardous materials impacts to a less than significant level and ensure project consistency with City Geneal Plan policy PS9.

G/HAZ/mm‐1: The design and construction of load‐bearing structures shall be subject to the recommendations of a site-specific and project‐specific geotechnical investigation and/or engineering report. This mitigation is not necessary for minor development projects unless required by the building permit.

G/HAZ/mm‐2: A Construction Contingency Plan shall be developed that addresses methods to control potential migration of any contamination discovered during construction as well as safety practices for on‐site construction personnel and the general public. Details of the plan shall include, but not be limited to: Soils monitoring for identification of contaminated soil during and after construction for all eroded and/or graded soils; Measures to be taken to protect workers and the public (such as fencing or hazard flagging, covering contaminated soil with plastic, etc.) and to prevent migration of contaminants to the surrounding environment; Notification procedures including, but not limited to, Santa Barbara County Environmental Health Services. The Construction Contingency Plans may be incorporated into the Construction Phase Erosion Control and Polluted Runoff Control Plans required per LCP Policy C‐ 14 for projects requiring a CDP.

G/HAZ/mm‐3: If contamination is discovered, a project‐specific remediation plan shall be prepared and implemented per applicable regulations that reduces all contaminant concentrations to acceptable levels prior to the issuance of grading or building permits or, if already under construction, prior to resuming work.

Conclusion: With incorporation of the previous EIR mitigation measures noted above prior to and during project construction, no new significant environmental effect or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect to hazardous materials or risk of upset would occur. These measures would reduce potential geological risks, soil conditions, and hazardous materials impacts to a Less than Significant Level.

Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 14 ends

Hydrology, Water Quality, and Flooding: Water Resources and Quality. The Airport is located within the South Coast watershed, which drains the steeply sloping land of the Santa Ynez Mountains southwards towards the Pacific Ocean. An approximate 416‐square mile area, the watershed is comprised of smaller watersheds associated with seven sub‐drainages. Of these seven sub‐drainages, three discharge directly into Goleta Slough on the Airport property:

Tecolotito Creek, Carneros Creek, and San Pedro Creek/Las Vegas Creek. In addition, runoff from the adjacent bluffs of UCSB and More Mesa influences Goleta Slough. The watershed of the Goleta Slough itself is approximately 48 square miles (GSMC 2014).

The Airport’s existing storm drainage system is comprised of surface swales, drainage inlets, concrete pipe, and outfall structures. The proposed Project is located within a floodway, which is controlled by the tide and the creeks’ water levels at the storm drainage outlets. The existing system drains ponded water after the creeks’ water levels have receded. The Airport’s storm water system drains primarily the Airport‐owned watershed; most of the storm water inlets are located within the restricted access areas. Sources of storm water discharges to these inlets are generally limited to airfield tenants and Airport Department activities (City of Santa Barbara 2009). The creeks that flow through the Airport and into Goleta Slough, however, receive discharges from off the Airport, including nearby upstream residential, industrial, transportation, and agricultural land uses.

The EPA’s CWA section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters (reporting year 2008) includes Goleta Slough and several of its tributary creeks. In addition, the Goleta Slough/Estuary is on the State’s 2010 CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waters for pathogens and toxic organics. Urban run‐ off and other nonpoint sources contribute to the impairment.

Flooding and Inundation Hazards. The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the Goleta area show that the Airport is located within the 100‐year floodplain (i.e., Special Flood Hazard Areas Subject to Inundation by the 1 Percent Annual Chance Flood). The Airport is located within Zone AE, which indicates that base flood elevations have been determined.

In addition, several Floodway Areas have been mapped over portions of the Airport as they correspond to San Jose, San Pedro, Carneros, and Tecolotito Creeks. Floodway Areas are the channel of the stream, plus any adjacent area that must be kept free of encroachment so that the 1 percent annual chance flood can be carried without substantial increase in flood heights. The proposed Project is located within a floodway.

The Santa Barbara County Flood Control District (SBFCD) conducts flood control maintenance activities at the Airport. Erosion, both natural and man‐made, has caused sedimentation of the stream channels that drain into Goleta Slough. This siltation, as well as growth of vegetation, has led to the exacerbation of flooding during times of heavy runoff. Therefore, the SBFCD routinely dredges the streams to prevent and reduce the severity of local flooding. Both dragline desilting and hydraulic dredging methods have been utilized. An average of 105,000 cubic yards (cy) are removed per season (SBFCD 2010). There have been two major flood events at Goleta Slough Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 15 ends

since the construction of the Airport in the late 1930s. The highest water levels in the Slough in modern times occurred in connection with a flood occurrence in 1969 and covered most of the airport runway, access roads, and parking lots. A second major flood event occurred in 1995, caused ponding on low‐lying portions of the runways, and deposited a considerable amount of sediment on the runways and taxiways (GSMC 2014). The Airport is not located in any known inundation hazard zones for substantial mud flows or seiche; it is, however, located in the tsunami hazard zone for the City. The City has evacuation plans for those parts of the City that could be affected should a threat such as a tsunami be anticipated.

Project Specific Impacts related to Drainage and Water Quality and Flooding and Inundation Hazards.

Impact HYD‐1: Future construction activity and impervious surfaces created by the proposed Project could result in drainage, storm water, and surface water quality impacts in Goleta Slough and other Section 303(d) impaired waters. For the most part, development would occur in areas of the Airport already covered by impervious surfaces, i.e., pavement and buildings. There are four creeks that traverse the Airport property from north to south the San Pedro creek is closest to the proposed Project. The recommended development does not involve the disturbance or alteration of any of the on‐site creeks.

Result HYD‐1: The City and State require that on‐site capture, retention, and treatment of storm water be incorporated into the proposed Project. Pursuant to the City’s SWMP and the NPDES General Permit for Storm Water Discharges, projects must be designed to capture and treat the calculated amount of runoff from the project site for a one‐inch, 25‐year storm event, over a 24‐ hour period. Therefore, at the planning level, potential drainage and water quality impacts would be Class III, Less than Significant Impact.

Through implementation of the City’s and RWQCB’s existing drainage and water quality requirements, all future projects at the Airport must be designed to comply with the City’s requirements for storm water runoff and the City’s SWMP requirements. The Airport has an existing SWPPP, dated September 2009, which also maintains compliance with the City’s SWMP. The Airport’s SWPPP would be enforced during the proposed Project.

Impact HYD‐2: The proposed Project sub-option a and b differ in removal of existing structures from floodway areas. The risk to people and structures at the Airport due to flooding would be lessened by the recommended relocation of two historic Hangars out of the floodway as identified under sub-option b. Executing Option 4 would not inherently address ongoing concerns related to flooding. Flood adaptation measures would need to be taken to stabilize and protect the hangars both in the short and long term. Regardless of which project option is selected, all flood adaptation measures should be undertaken following the SOI’s Guidelines on Flood Adaptation for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, developed specifically to provide technical preservation guidance for historic properties at risk of flooding. The Guidelines are applied in conjunction with the SOI Standards. The Guidelines do not replace applicable federal, state, and local code requirements and regulations, which must be considered when planning Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 16 ends

flood adaptation projects. Per the Guidelines, moving a historic building for flood management purposes requires that: (1) the building be structurally stable to either move safely, or be feasibly partially disassembled or fully dismantled and reassembled on the new site; and (2) that the receiving site must be located outside the established flood risk area while remaining similar in character to the building’s original setting. Demolition is never a recommended treatment as it is not consistent with the SOI Standards or Guidelines and should only be considered if no other options are possible.

In addition, the Airport will experience increased flooding attributable to changing climate and sea-level-rise over the useful life of proposed Project (City of Santa Barbara, 2009). This is also the conclusion of a statewide study Slough Management Plan. As previously discussed, the Slough Management Plan recommends that current planning efforts identify adaptation strategies to accommodate at least five feet of sea level rise since infrastructure constructed now may still be in use within the time that a sea-level-rise of five feet could occur.

Result HYD‐2a: The extent to which the proposed Project will remain within floodway or Zone AE (100‐ year floodplain) areas would impede or redirect flood flows cannot be fully determined until the design of the future structures is known and has been evaluated. However, all development projects at the Airport would be required to comply with Chapter 22.24, Flood Plain Management of the City Municipal Code. The chapter includes the establishment of a development permit for construction or development within any Special Flood Hazard Areas, the conditions that need to be met for a variance, general standards for flood hazard reduction, and specific regulations related to floodways. Therefore, flooding impacts of future development under the proposed Master Plan would be Class III, Less than Significant Impact.

Result HYD‐2b: The removal as proposed under Option 4, sub-option b recommending removal of existing structures and land uses from the floodway would reduce existing flooding risks at the Airport. Thus, these aspects of the proposed Project would be Class IV, Beneficial Impact.

Result HYD‐2c: Based on recent CEQA case law, (i.e., California Building Industry Association [CBIA] vs. Bay Area Air Quality Management District [BAAQMD] [2015]), CEQA analysis “is concerned with a project’s impact on the environment, rather than with the environment’s impact on a project and its users or residents” (CBIA, 62 Cal. 4th at 97). Therefore, no impacts related to sea-level-rise are attributable to the proposed Project. However, discussion of sea-level-rise has been retained for informational purposes and mitigation measures to aid in protecting Airport infrastructure from future flooding due to sea-level-rise is recommended.

Impact HYD‐3: Although the Airport is not located in any known inundation hazard zones for substantial mud flows or seiche, it is located in the tsunami hazard zone for the City. However, the proposed Project would not result in new growth at the Airport; rather, it contains plans for minor redevelopment. Result HYD‐3: The City has evacuation plans for all parts of the City that would be affected should a threat such as a tsunami be anticipated. Based on these existing emergency procedures, inundation by tsunami is not considered to be a “substantial unmitigated Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 17 ends

risk,” and impacts related to this significance threshold would be Class III, Less than Significant Impact.

Mitigation Measures for Drainage and Water Quality and Flooding and Inundation Hazards.

The City’s Flood Plain Management chapter of its Municipal Code (Chapter 22.24) would apply to any proposed construction within Special Flood Hazard Areas, which include the mapped floodways and the 100‐year floodplain (Zone AE) at the Airport. This would affect all recommended development projects, and the two hangars located within a mapped floodway.

Other than compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and any conditions of a City‐issued variance or development permit, as well as implementation of the City’s SWMP and the Airport’s NPDES permit and SWPPP, therefore no mitigation for drainage, water quality and flooding is required.

Recommended Mitigation Measures for Hydrology and Water Quality Result HYD‐2c.

Future flooding at the Airport due to climate change and sea-level-rise is anticipated to be approximately five feet over the next 85 years.

HYD/mm‐1: The potential impact of local sea-level-rise associated with Climate Change should be considered in the planning and design of the proposed Project. A project‐specific CDP may be subject to tidal inundation and flooding should include an analysis of improvement location and design in relation to projected future changes in sea-level-rise, utilizing the best available science, to ensure new development is located and designed to eliminate or minimize, to the maximum extent feasible, hazards associated with anticipated sea-level-rise over the expected design life of the project (75 years).

HYD/mm‐2: The Airport should raise all new or reconstructed buildings to one foot above base flood elevations as well as apply thicker pavement lifts during regular intervals over the lifetime of the Airport to reduce the potential for flooding on the tarmac.

HYD/mm-2a: Per the Santa Barbara Airport General Western Hangars Project Constraints Analysis, the City is currently considering constructing a concrete stem wall as a flood adaptation measure. The required height of the stem wall is based on the Design Flood Elevation (DFE), which is calculated by the City’s Building and Safety Division. The hangars are currently considered Design Class 1 structures, but the actual DFE and design classification will be dependent on the final use of the hangars. The DFE and design classifications for potential reuse options are as follows:

1. Restore in place, use as a hangar for essential aircraft or vehicles: Design Class 4, 21.2-foot DFE

2. Restore in place, use as a museum: Design Class 3, 21.2-foot DFE Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 18 ends

3. Restore in place, use as an office or as a hangar for non-essential aircraft or vehicles: Design Class 2, 20.2-foot DFE

4. Relocation, any use: Design Class and DFE cannot be determined as a new BFE calculation for the proposed location will be required.

Conclusion: As noted above, other than compliance with the City’s Municipal Code and any conditions of a City‐issued CDP, as well as implementation of the City’s SWMP and the Airport’s NPDES permit and SWPPP, no mitigation for drainage, water quality and flooding is necessary. No significant flooding impacts would result from this project.

Land Use and Planning: The Airport is owned and operated by the City of Santa Barbara; however, the Airport is surrounded by land within the City of Goleta, the County, and UCSB.

The land surrounding the Airport contains: Pacific Ocean coastline and beaches (south); and the associated student community of Isla Vista (southwest); industrial and commercial land uses (north and east); golf courses and undeveloped open space (north and west); and residential land uses (interspersed within the nearby commercial, recreational, and educational land uses).

Specific land uses in proximity to the Airport include the North Campus Open Space 0.7 mile to the west, the Twin Lakes Golf Course directly across Hollister Avenue to the north, the Goleta Sewer District Treatment Facility adjacent on the southeast, and the Goleta Beach and Pier further to the Twin Lakes Golf Course southeast. City General Plan land use designations for the Airport are “Airport” and “Goleta Slough Natural Reserve.” These designations generally mirror the Airport’s zoning districts, i.e., the “Goleta Slough Natural Reserve” land use designation covers areas of the Airport zoned as G‐S‐R while the remainder of the Airport is designated as “Airport.”
Since land use compatibility can be related to noise and other nuisance impacts, a “windshield” survey was conducted to determine if sensitive receptors such as residences, schools, places of worship, and long‐term health care facilities, are located within proximity to the Airport. There are no sensitive receptors within the Airport’s existing (2011) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour,14 which extends off the Airport property east over a mixed industrial/warehouse area off Bush Lane and Thornwood Drive and west between South Los Carneros Road and Storke Road between the Airport boundary and Home Depot.

The closest residences to the Airport are small single‐family homes interspersed within the mixed industrial/warehouse area east along South Fairview Avenue and a multifamily residential complex (Willow Springs Apartments) along Willow Springs Lane. There are no residences located within the 65 CNEL for the Airport; there are, however, several single‐family residential neighborhoods and one trailer park located within, or partially within, the 60 CNEL. Although located adjacent to Airport property to the south, UCSB is located outside the 60 CNEL and is buffered from Airport operations by Goleta Slough.

Federal (Federal Airspace and Airports), State (Caltrans Aeronautics) and Local/Regional agencies have jurisdiction over the Airport. The City is responsible for processing CDP in concert with the policies of the certified Local Coastal Plan (LCP) for development within the Coastal Zone. The City is also responsible for issuing grading permits, building permits, and Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 19 ends

floodplain development permits for development at the Airport. The City’s Historic Landmarks Commission process may also apply. Authority to Construct permits from the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) would be required for certain projects.

There are two primary planning documents that address development at the Airport, both of which are under the jurisdiction of the City of Santa Barbara, the SP‐6 Plan (1998) and the Airport’s Aviation Facilities Plan (2003). Together, these two documents comprise the Airport’s existing Master Plan. The Airport also has its own LCP, prepared by the City of Santa Barbara and certified by the California Coastal Commission. The LCP discusses the resources found within the Airport component within the City’s Coastal Zone and presents LCP policies designed to provide additional protection to coastal resources not adequately protected under the City General Plan policies. The LCP is also intended to regulate Coastal Zone development in conformance with the Coastal Act. City General Plan policies are also applicable to the Airport and include those found in both the various elements of the City of Santa Barbara General Plan the Santa Barbara General Plan amendments (2011). In addition to those plans and policies relating to environmental effects, Santa Barbara General Plan includes measures applicable to the Airport and its industrial areas, such as policies related to the Airport’s role in promoting jobs and economic health in the City. When analyzing the environmental effects of Santa Barbara General Plan, the certified Final EIR assumed “continued moderate growth of the City’s Airport and adjacent specific plan area” (City of Santa Barbara, 2010).

Project Specific Impacts.

Impact LU‐1: The proposed Project does not involve any improvements that have the potential to physically divide the surrounding communities, nor would it close any existing bridges or roadways. All improvements occurring under the proposed Project would occur on Airport property.

The proposed Project recommends deconstruction of one hangar and reconstruction of one of the two hangars. Under sub-option a) Hangar 248 would be deconstructed to use in replacement of materials in poor condition in Hangar 249 in the existing location, under sub-option b) both hangars located in the northeast corner of the Airport would be deconstructed and only Hangar 249 would be rebuilt outside of the floodway. The location for reconstruction of Hangar 249, has yet to be determined yet most locations within the Airport are a greater distance to sensitive noise receptors than the current hangar location. Currently, the closest sensitive noise‐receptors (i.e., residents of University Mobile Home Park) are located on Pine Avenue approximately 1650 feet from the two hangars.

Result LU‐1: No significant impacts would occur to adjacent communities as a result of the proposed Project. Since all construction or demolition activity is required to comply with the City’s noise ordinance, construction noise at the distances discussed above would have Class III, Less than Significant Impact on noise‐sensitive receptors.

An analysis of consistency with the City’s General Plan policies and other plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect has been included within the various environmental resource areas in the prior EIR. Based on this analysis, the proposed Project is consistent with all applicable sections of the City’s General Plan, Climate Plan, and SWMP.

Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 20 ends

Analysis of City LCP policies as they relate to the Goleta Slough are discussed in the next section.

Result LU‐2: The proposed Project would not preclude the implementation of applicable City General Plan, Climate Plan, or SWMP policies into individual development projects or airfield safety improvements, where appropriate, as long as the safety of the Airport is maintained.

Required mitigation measures related to the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval would also ensure that the proposed Project is consistent with the City’s applicable plans and policies.

Impacts to applicable land use and other City plans as a result of the proposed Project would be Class III, Less than Significant Impact.

Impact LU‐3: The City of Santa Barbara Planning staff has analyzed the proposed Project’s consistency with the City’s SP‐6 Plan (Santa Barbara Airport Industrial Area Specific Plan) which states “these buildings will be preserved during the buildout” of the Specific Plan and identifies both buildings as Local Landmark Eligible in Table 2.

Result LU‐3: Since the proposed Project is inconsistent with the City’s SP-6 Plan, with only preservation of Hangar 249 and not both hangars as described in the plan, impacts related to SP‐ 6 Plan consistency would be considered a Class I Significant Environmental Impact with Mitigation.

Impact LU‐4: An analysis of consistency with the City’s LCP policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating impacts to coastal resources has been included within the various environmental resource categories of this EIR addendum and a summary policy consistency analysis with the City’s LCP policies is provided below. Based on this analysis, with mitigation, the proposed Project is consistent with all applicable LCP policies addressing potential impacts to water quality/marine resources, wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitats, public access and recreation, visual resources, cultural resources, public services, and hazards related to geology, fire, flooding and sea level rise (including potential tsunami hazards).

Water Quality and Marine Environments
New development on the airport property in proximity to Goleta Slough and the various waterways/drainages that traverse the property has the potential to impact coastal water quality through grading, removal of native vegetation, increase of impervious surfaces and associated runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. In addition, due to the history of aviation use of the airport property and the types of material associated with aircraft operation and maintenance, there is a potential for encountering contaminated sites and/or release of hazardous materials during construction and operation.

The proposed Project would not be located within the waterways/drainages that traverse the airport property and therefore would not result in channelization or substantial alteration of onsite waterways. New or improved drainage systems necessary to convey runoff from improvement areas, including any drainage discharge or disposal devices, would be designed to avoid or minimize impacts to the site’s waterways/drainages.

Compliance with the LCP’s water quality policies, Policies C‐12, C‐13 and C‐14, and identified mitigation measures which include implementation of construction and post‐construction best Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 21 ends

management practices (BMPs), would ensure that new development for the proposed Project would be implemented in a manner to protect water quality. The Airport has an active SWPPP and a City‐approved SWMP, both of which include measures to manage potential hazardous materials and to protect water quality at the Airport. In addition, all development would have to comply with the Airport's NPDES Industrial Permit and SPCC plans and operations manuals.

Therefore, the proposed Project is consistent with LCP Policies C‐12, C‐13 and C‐14.

Wetlands
Section 30233 of the Coastal Act and LCP Policies C‐4 and C‐10 set forth specific limitations on uses allowable in wetlands. The limitations are generally defined in a 3‐part test as follows:

1. The purpose of the project is limited to one of eight allowable uses identified in Section 30233;

2. The project has no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative; and

3. Adequate mitigation measures to minimize the adverse impacts of the proposed project on habitat values have been provided.

Proposed projects would be located within the existing developed areas. Based on a preliminary wetlands inventory and vegetation mapping conducted on the Airport (Dudek 2012), the two existing hangars are located west San Pedro Creek that supports wetlands as defined by CCC and/or USACE/RWQCB due to the presence of hydrophytic vegetation.

Additional surveys prior to actual development would be necessary to delineate the exact limits of jurisdiction. Any portion of the project involving improvements that result in temporary or permanent fill in wetlands trigger the 3‐part test for projects involving wetland fill as required by Coastal Act Section 30233 and LCP Policies C‐4 and C‐10.

1. Allowable Use
Option 4 is similar in nature to Options 1-3 which were evaluated previously under the original EIR. The Project will not be located near a wetland and will not have the potential to impact wetlands.

2. The Project has no Feasible, Less Environmentally Damaging Alternative The location of the Project avoids sensitive vegetation communities and provides adequate setbacks from adjacent resources associated with San Pedro Creek. There are no alternative designs or configurations available that would allow for project implementation and avoid or reduce temporary or permanent impacts to wetlands.

Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas
The proposed Project is located in areas that are currently developed and therefore have no potential to impact Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHAs). The location and design of the proposed Project avoids sensitive vegetation communities and provides maximum setbacks from adjacent resources associated with the San Pedro Creek and Goleta Slough. No improvements would occur in habitat areas known to support special‐status species.

Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 22 ends

Compliance with the LCP’s ESHA protection policies and identified mitigation measures would ensure that the proposed Project would be implemented in a manner to protect ESHA and sensitive status species.

Public Access/Recreation
The proposed Project does not raise issues of consistency relative to the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act or LCP as the Hangar 248 and Hangar 249 are both located within a secure area of the Airport not accessible to the general public currently no change in access is proposed at the current location under sub-option a) Hangar 249’s structure would remain inaccessible to the public and used as Airport related storage. The proposed Project would not result in intensification of the use of the existing facilities. No significant project‐ specific or cumulative traffic impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Project and proposed development would not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea. In addition, the proposed Project would have no adverse effect on public access and recreational opportunities on airport property beyond those limitations presently established at the Airport to ensure safe and secure airport operations.

Visual Resources
The proposed Project does not raise issues of consistency relative to Coastal Act or LCP policies which require scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas be considered and protected, that new development protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, and that development be consistent with the character and quality of Santa Barbara. Development of the proposed Project would involve removal of Hangar 248 while providing rehabilitation to Hangar 249 located in developed areas of the Airport adjacent to existing structures under sub-option a) and under sub-option b) the proposed relocation of Hangar 249 remains to be determined at this time.

The proposed location of Hangar 249 under sub-option b) would be within the developed Airport. No grading is proposed that would alter natural landforms. New lighting would remain on the airfield and other developed portions of the Airport. From off‐site areas, such as adjacent streets, the property would continue to look like a developed airport with limited noticeable change in its appearance. Therefore, the proposed Project may be found consistent with Coastal Act Section 30251 and LCP Policy E‐1.

Cultural Resources
The proposed Project may potentially result in impacts to archaeological or other culturally sensitive resources. Development located in the northeast corner of the Airport, south of Hollister Avenue, would occur partially in areas designated in the City's Master Archaeological Resource Assessment (MARA) study as Low sensitivity for Native American Resources.

Work would generally be limited to excavation and grading to remove existing pavement and construction of new pavement and foundations in previously developed areas. However, trenching for utilities may require deeper subsurface disturbance and could potentially affect unknown cultural resources at the site. LCP Policy F‐3 requires mitigation and monitoring of activities that could affect sensitive cultural or archaeological resources including the requirement for onsite monitoring by a qualified archaeologist or resource specialist and an appropriate Native American consultant of all ground disturbing activities. Compliance with Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 23 ends

Policy F‐3, the City’s MARA, and standard City conditions of approval would ensure protection of cultural resources.

Public Services
The proposed Project is consistent with Section 30254 of the Coastal Act and LCP Policy G‐1 as adequate public services such as water, wastewater, traffic circulation, and parking would be available to meet the needs generated by the proposed Project. Future landfill capacity is currently constrained in the region and the Airport would be required to comply with citywide measures to reduce its waste stream. However, in terms of its consistency with this section of the Coastal Act, the Airport is a basic service that is vital to the economic health of both the region and the nation.

Hazards
The proposed Project’s two hangars are located within the floodway of the San Pedro Creek.

Base flood elevations have been determined for development of new buildings which would ensure potential flood hazards would be reduced. Under sub-option a) Hangar 249 would remain in a floodway and therefore potentially impacted by flood events, while under sub-option b) Hangar 249 would be relocated on the Airport out of a floodway and would remain in a 100-year flood, as the entire Airport is mapped in the 100-year floodplain.

The proposed Project, and the region, is subject to seismic activity. Potential hazards related to seismic activity include fault displacement and ground shaking (primarily from nearby historically active More Ranch fault), liquefaction, and tsunamis. Compliance with the City’s Seismic/Safety and Conservation Elements and mitigation measures would ensure new developments would be designed and constructed to minimize these risks.

An increase in emissions, including GHG emissions, would occur over the 20‐ year planning horizon of the Master Plan. However, the Airport has in place a GHG Inventory and Carbon Footprint Reduction Plan (City of Santa Barbara 2007). Sea-level-rise is a concern for much of coastal Santa Barbara and studies are underway to evaluate potential sea-level-rise scenarios at the Airport which will help to assess potential risks to airport facilities.

Result LU‐4: The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable LCP policy adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an impact to coastal resources. No impacts are anticipated as the proposed Project is already part of the baseline condition and not in the vicinity of the Goleta Slough. Potential impacts of adoption of the proposed Project would be Class III, Less than Significant Impact.

Mitigation Measures.

Standard City mitigation measures may be required for specific construction or demolition projects recommended by the proposed Project. This EIR addendum and regional plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Mitigation Measures for Land Use Impacts LU‐4 and LU‐6.

The following programmatic measures have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Master Plan. Implementation of these measures would serve to avoid Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 24 ends

or mitigate future potential impacts of the proposed Master Plan to coastal resources and ensure consistency with applicable LCP policies and the G‐S‐R zone/General Plan land use designation for the GSER. Therefore, potential impacts of recommended projects within the proposed Master Plan would be Class II, Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

LU/mm‐1: A detailed project‐specific impact analysis and mitigation program for the Taxiway H Airfield Safety Project, and associated analysis of the project’s consistency with the G‐S‐R zone and the policies of the Airport’s LCP and California Coastal Act, shall be conducted during the CDP and LCP amendment review process. The analysis shall specifically address project alternatives, mitigation, and/or additional LCP policy requirements necessary to ensure that any permitted impacts to wetland and sensitive habitat and associated buffers will be adequately minimized and mitigated to ensure long‐term protection of Goleta Slough habitats and open space.

Conclusion: Option 4 will comply with all applicable land use regulations, and follow the process for any Federal, State, and Local agencies. The programmatic measures have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the proposed Project.

Implementation of these measures would serve to avoid or mitigate future potential impacts of the proposed Project to coastal resources and ensure consistency with applicable LCP policies and the G‐S‐R zone/General Plan land use designation for the GSER. Therefore, potential impacts of recommended projects within the proposed Master Plan would be Class II, Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation.

CEQA FINDING
Based on the above analysis, and in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 the current project changes do involve new significant severity of impacts not previously identified in the certified EIR with regard to Historic Resources and Land Use and Planning. Additionally, there have been changes under which the project is undertaken and there is new information of substantial importance that shows the project would have significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or that significant effects previously examined would be more severe than identified in the previous EIR. New mitigation measures are required to address impacts associated with Historic Resources and Land Use and Planning. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15163, no Subsequent or Supplements to the Environmental Impact Report is required for current project actions.

This Addendum identifies the current project changes and changes to project impacts and mitigation measures. Implementation of previous and current mitigation measures in conjunction with the prescribed MEA environmental measures are required for the Project. Two Class I Significant Environmental Impacts have been identified and cannot be mitigated to a lesser impact; therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required for each Class I Significant Impact. This addendum together with the certified Environmental Impact Report for the Final Program Environmental Impact Report On The Proposed Airport Master Plan constitute adequate environmental documentation in compliance with CEQA for the current project.

Addendum to EIR (SCH No. 2014061096)
General Western Aero Hangars Option 4 Project
November 28, 2023

Page 25 ends

Prepared by: _________________________ Date: _______________ Kaitlin Mamulski, Project Planner
Reviewed by: _________________________ Date: _______________ Beth Anna Cornett, Senior Planner I
Attachments (as applicable):

Attachment 1 – Vicinity Map
Attachment 2 – Conditions and Further Use Analysis Study for the General Western Aero Hangars, Buildings 248 & 249 (LMA Architects, August 24, 2023)
11/28/2023
11/29/2023
Comparative Development Estimates
K^d
yd
E^/KE^
ŽŶƐŽůŝĚĂƚĞ/ŶWůĂĐĞ
,ĂŶŐĞƌϮϰϴ ,ĂŶŐĞƌϮϰϵ ,ĂŶŐĞƌϮϰϴ ,ĂŶŐĞƌϮϰϵ ^ŝƚĞ ,ĂŶŐĞƌϮϰϵ

1.0 LAND RELATED COSTS $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

2.0 ARCHITECTURE, ENGINEERING & CONSULTANTS $ 147,982 41,273 $ 113,009 $ 466,933 $ 347,959 $ 115,403 $ 113,009 $

3.0 FEES & PERMITS $ 77,852 7,913 $ 59,453 $ 118,460 $ 88,276 $ 13,160 $ 59,453 $

4.0 CONSTRUCTION COSTS:

4.1 General Requirements $44,500 144,915 110,667 387,852 289,027 $8,668 110,667

4.2 Demolition, Off-SIte, Site Work & Utilities 214,948 52,534 40,119 335,602 250,091 468,724 40,119

4.3 Concrete - 78,518 59,962 465,891 59,131 - 59,9624.4 Masonry - - - - - - -

4.5 Metals - 7,435 5,678 19,457 14,499 - 5,678

4.6 Wood & Plastic - 84,519 64,545 196,052 146,098 - 64,545

4.7 Thermal & Moisture Protection - 78,113 59,653 224,450 167,260 - 59,653

4.8 Doors & Windows - 14,102 10,770 63,226 47,116 - 10,770

4.9 Finishes - 2,276 1,738 36,564 27,247 3,621 1,738

4.10 Specialties - 359 274 1,700 1,267 374 2744.11 Equipment - - - - - - -

4.12 Furnishings - - - - - - -

4.13 Special Construction - 196,923 150,384 319,826 238,335 - 150,384

4.14 Conveying Systems - - - - - - -

4.15 Mechanical Systems 1,148 35,017 26,741 78,944 58,829 2,198 26,741

4.16 Electrical Systems 1,303 44,961 34,335 97,103 72,361 1,772 34,335 Subtotal Direct Cost $ 739,674 261,899 $ 564,866 $ 2,226,667 $ 1,371,263 $ 485,355 $ 564,866 $ Contractor's Fee @ 8% 20,952 59,174 45,189 178,133 109,701 38,828 45,189 Estimating Contingency @ 15% 42,428 119,827 91,508 360,720 222,145 78,628 91,508 Total Construction Costs $ 918,675 325,278 $ 701,563 $ 2,765,521 $ 1,703,109 $ 602,811 $ 701,563 $ Per Gross Building Square Foot

5.0 FURNITURE, FIXTURES & EQUIPMENT $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $

6.0 FINANCE COSTS $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 7.0 DEVELOPMENT CONTINGENCY $18,723 57,225 $ 43,701 $ 167,546 $ 124,855 $ $36,569 43,701 $ TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST $ 1,201,735 393,187 $ 917,727 $ 3,518,460 $ 2,264,199 $ 767,942 $ 917,727 $ Per Square Foot $ 250.36 40.96 $ 191.19 $ 733.01 $ 471.71 $ 159.99 $ 191.19 $ SCENARIO TOTALS $ 393,187 Per Square Foot $ 40.96 $ 1,685,669
$ 602.36 220.78 $ 351.18 $
General Western Aero Hanger Restoration Feasibility Study May 20, 2023
ŽĐƵŵĞŶƚΘ
ĞŵŽ
ZĞƉĂŝƌͬZĞƐƚŽƌĞ/ŶWůĂĐĞ ZĞƉĂŝƌͬZĞƐƚŽƌĞ
ůƐĞǁŚĞƌĞ DEVELOPMENT BUDGET
$ 5,782,659 2,119,462 $

Page 1 ends

49 of 136 49 of 136

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: April 30, 2024
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Downtown Team Division, Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Monthly Update on State Street Interim Operations RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Receive an update on State Street Interim Operations; B. Discuss, evaluate, and direct pilot program activities; and C. Provide individual comments on proposed alternative configurations for the 1300 block of State Street.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Staff will present an update on previous Council directives for the Interim Operations of the State Street Promenade, including introduction of a shuttle service, implementation of temporary bike lanes and results of a recent speed survey, creation of an accessible passenger drop-off at the Granada Theatre, and establishment of a fire lane on the 00 block of West Victoria Street. Staff developed and evaluated five alternative configurations for the 1300 block of State Street and requests Councilmembers provide comments on these options for consideration by the City Administrator.

DISCUSSION:

On August 29, 2023, Council requested staff provide monthly updates about Interim Operations of the State Street Promenade. At this meeting, staff will provide an update on various directives from Council.

Implementation of the following previous Council directives is complete:

1. Reprioritize the State Street pressure wash schedule. Completed November 2023.

2. Restore northbound vehicle traffic on the 1200 block of State Street. Completed December 2023.

Ongoing pilot activities, as directed by Council, include the following:

Agenda Item No. 5
File Code No. 650.05
Council Agenda Report
Monthly Update on State Street Interim Operations
April 30, 2024

Page 2 ends

1. Introduce shuttle service on State Street
Initially, staff planned to publish a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit contract services for a “micro” shuttle service on State Street. Due to the lack of funding for this program, staff is instead developing a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) to obtain vendor, pricing, and service information for mini-shuttle operators. Per Council’s direction, the RFQ will require operators to submit detailed information about their services and accommodations for people with disabilities. While publication of a RFP was originally expected by the end of 2023, staffing and workload have delayed this effort. Publication is now expected by the end of the second quarter of 2024. The RFQ responses will be used for planning purposes, unless a funding source is identified for this service.

The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) will be offering a limited circulator shuttle service beginning May 31, 2024. The shuttle will run approximately every 20 minutes between 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Friday through Sunday. The shuttle will run along Chapala and Anacapa Streets and connect to the waterfront.

2. Implement temporary bike lanes on State Street
Installation of bike lanes on the 500-1200 blocks of State Street was completed in early December of 2023. On February 27, 2024, staff presented a bike lane utilization proposal to Council as part of the monthly State Street Interim Operations update. Data gathered between January 13 and 15 indicate the bike lanes are well-used, and the large majority (>80%) of riders are using the lanes correctly.

At the same meeting, Council requested data on cyclist speeds on the Promenade.

On March 8, 2024, staff collected speed data on the 500 and 900 blocks using a radar gun. 50-person samples were taken on the 500 block between 12:30 p.m. and 1:30 p.m. and on the 900 block between 2:15 p.m. and 2:55 p.m. Additionally, radar boxes were placed on these blocks to gather speed data automatically from March 18 through 24, 2024. The radar boxes detected approximately 800 samples per day, and the results were very similar to the hand-collected data. Results are summarized as follows:
500 block 900 block
Average Speed 11 mph 14 mph
Highest Observed 22 mph 23 mph
25th - 75th percentile 8 mph – 14 mph 11 mph – 16 mph
85th percentile 17 mph 18 mph
The 500 and 900 blocks were selected for data collection to observe the differences in cyclist speeds between a block with a narrower roadway and more Council Agenda Report
Monthly Update on State Street Interim Operations
April 30, 2024

Page 3 ends

“side friction” from Outdoor Business Facilities (OBFs) with a block that is very open and has no outdoor business facilities or side friction. These two blocks were also included in the previous survey of bike lane utilization. Both the utilization survey and the speed survey data indicate that narrower roadways with more side friction encourage slower, more orderly cyclist traffic.

3. Create an accessible passenger drop-off at the Granada Theatre The Granada Theatre has procured a temporary ramp that meets width and slope requirements. Theatre staff are working with City staff to identify a suitable location and means of securing the ramp to the curb. Installation is expected by April 30, 2024.

4. Establish a fire lane on the 00 block of West Victoria As discussed in the Interim Operations update on February 27, 2024, a twenty-foot-wide fire lane is required for public safety on the 00 block of West Victoria. The plans developed by the City’s Traffic Engineer and discussed at the February 27 Council meeting will be implemented effective Friday, May 24, 2024.

These changes will require modifications to the OBFs at Bouchon and Olio e Limone restaurants. Staff have already met with the restaurants about the needed changes to their OBFs and will provide additional notice in person and by mail.

5. Examine the configuration of the 1300 block
During the discussion of the 00 block of West Victoria at the Council meeting on December 5, 2023, questions were raised about the configuration of the 1300 block. The City Engineer, City Traffic Engineer, Fire Marshal, and Assistant Chief of Police reviewed the current configuration of the block and identified safety concerns with potential conflicts between contra-flow bicyclists and vehicles backing out of parking spaces.

To address these concerns and improve circulation for both bicycle and vehicle traffic, a revised roadway configuration was approved by the City Administrator on December 18, 2023, pursuant to her authority under Title 31. This configuration is described as Option 1 below and in the summary table in Attachment 1. As this revised configuration would have altered parking and required removal of the OBFs at Opal and Carlito’s restaurants, staff then initiated outreach to the affected business owners.

Following discussions with these restaurant owners on the 1300 block, the Traffic Engineer developed an alternative design that would have retained the OBFs. This configuration is described as Option 2 below and in the summary table in Attachment 1.

Council Agenda Report
Monthly Update on State Street Interim Operations
April 30, 2024

Page 4 ends

At the February 27 Council meeting, staff was directed to evaluate additional options and return to Council for input. Staff is seeking Council’s input on the original Option, Option 1; the alternative configuration, Option 2; a new alternative that essentially returns the roadway to its pre-covid configuration, Option 3; and two options identified as Options 4a and 4b that provide one-way traffic flow to maximize space for outdoor dining. These alternatives are described below, and the advantages and disadvantages of each are outlined in the summary table in Attachment 1. Diagrams of each alternative are included as Attachment 2. Staff requests Council provide individual comments on the alternatives described below.

The City Administrator will consider Council input and prioritize safety considerations when directing changes.
1300 BLOCK ALTERNATIVE CONFIGURATIONS
Option 1: Westside Bike Lanes, Angled Parking, No Parklets Option 1 is the revised configuration approved by the City Administrator in December 2023. This option restores two-way vehicle traffic, creates a two-way protected bike lane between the western curb and angled parking spaces, eliminates parallel parking along the eastern curb, and required removal of the existing OBFs. This configuration was presented to Council on February 27.

Advantages Disadvantages
 Two-way vehicle traffic is required for
public safety response in and through the
area. The 1300 block of State and the 00
block of West Victoria have many
high-occupancy uses, such as the Public
Market, New Vic Theater, Alma del
Pueblo, Arlington Theatre, and many
restaurants, making timely public safety
response critical. Sola Street is blocked
for east- or westbound traffic coming from
De La Vina and Santa Barbara Streets. As
a result, Chapala and Anacapa Streets can
become impacted, making response
north-bound (NB) or south-bound (SB)
from Victoria or Sola Streets via the 1300
block of State Street imperative for eastbound/west-bound (EB/WB) and NB/SB emergency response. This is especially
critical during special events and
high-volume times for State Street
entertainment.
 Novel roadway configuration creates
unpredictable behavior.
 Infrastructure improvements make this the
most expensive option.
 SB bike lane along SW curb would be in
the gutter.
 Concerns expressed by Access Advisory
Committee members about configuration
of parking spaces reserved for disabled
parkers.
 No space for commercial loading. Delivery
trucks likely to partially block traffic.

Council Agenda Report
Monthly Update on State Street Interim Operations
April 30, 2024

Page 5 ends

 Sola is designed as a low-volume
“Bike-Friendly Street”. The one-way NB
(current) configuration increases traffic
volumes on Sola because all SB traffic
from the 1400 block is forced to turn onto
Sola. By restoring two-way traffic, SB
drivers can proceed to Victoria before
turning, reducing traffic volumes.
 Physical separation between bikes, peds,
and cars.
 Two-way protected bike lane on south
west (SW) side eliminates right turn
conflicts at Sola, which was the primary
collision pattern on the pre-pandemic
configuration.
 Continues two-way bike lane from 1200
block to Sola Bike-Friendly Street.

Option 2: Parallel Parking, OBFs, No Center Turn Lane
Option 2 restores two-way traffic, provides a three-foot “door-zone” buffer between parked cars and bike lanes along each side of the road, and maintains OBFs in a nine-foot-wide parallel parking lane. Removal of existing OBFs is required to accommodate planned re-paving on the 1300 block. OBFs that are rebuilt following paving and striping must conform to the design requirements for new facilities specified in the Requirements for Operating a Business on the Temporary State Street Promenade.

Advantages Disadvantages
 Two-way vehicle traffic is required for
public safety response in and through the
area. The 1300 block of State and the 00
block of West Victoria have many
high-occupancy uses, such as the Public
Market, New Vic Theater, Alma del
Pueblo, Arlington Theatre, and many
restaurants, making timely public safety
response critical. Sola Street is blocked
for east- or westbound traffic coming from
De La Vina and Santa Barbara Streets. As
a result, Chapala and Anacapa Streets can
become impacted, making response NB or
SB from Victoria or Sola Streets via the
1300 block of State Street imperative for
EB/WB and NB/SB emergency response.
 No separation or buffer between bikes and
cars.
 Conflict between NB vehicles and NB
cyclists transitioning between the 1200 and
1300 blocks creates the potential for
collisions.
 Safety concern between OBF, vehicles
parallel parking and bikes.

Council Agenda Report
Monthly Update on State Street Interim Operations
April 30, 2024

Page 6 ends

This is especially critical during special
events and high-volume times for State
Street entertainment.
 Sola is designed as a low-volume “BikeFriendly Street”. The one-way NB (current) configuration increases traffic
volumes on Sola because all SB traffic
from the 1400 block is forced to turn onto
Sola. By restoring two-way traffic, drivers
can proceed to Victoria before turning.
 Standard roadway configuration creates
predictable results.
 No additional infrastructure cost.

Option 3: Pre-Promenade Condition
Option 3 restores the 1300 block to its pre-Promenade Condition. This option includes northbound and southbound vehicular traffic lanes separated by a center turning lane, a six-foot-wide bike lane between parking and vehicular traffic, and seven-foot-wide parking/parklet space along each side of the street. Removal of existing OBFs is required to accommodate planned re-paving on the 1300 block. OBFs that are rebuilt following paving and striping must conform to the design requirements for new facilities specified in the Requirements for Operating a Business on the Temporary State Street Promenade.

This is especially critical during special
events and high-volume times for State
Street entertainment.
 No separation or buffer between bikes,
cars, and parking.
 Center turn lane has limited utility; space
could be allocated more efficiently.
 Conflict between NB vehicles and NB
cyclists transitioning between the 1200 and
1300 blocks creates the potential for
collisions.
 Conflicts between vehicles, bikes and
OBFs.

Council Agenda Report
Monthly Update on State Street Interim Operations
April 30, 2024

Page 7 ends

Option 4a: One-Way, Wide Lane
Option 4a was developed in response to Councilmember requests to maximize outdoor dining and retain one-way traffic. This option maintains one-way northbound traffic in a twenty-foot-wide lane for fire access, creates a two-way protected bike lane adjacent to the parklet zone on the southwest side of the street, allows OBFs in a nine-foot-wide parallel parking lane along the northeast curb and a nine-foot-wide parklet lane along the southwest curb, and removes parking from the southwest side of the street. Removal of existing OBFs is required to accommodate planned re-paving on the 1300 block. OBFs that are rebuilt following paving and striping must conform to the design requirements for new facilities specified in the Requirements for Operating a Business on the Temporary State Street Promenade.

Option 4a creates significant public safety concerns.

Advantages Disadvantages
 Physical separation between bikes, peds,
and cars.
 Two-way protected bike lane on SW side
eliminates right turn conflicts at Sola,
which was the primary collision pattern on
the pre-pandemic configuration.
 One-way traffic inhibits emergency
response to an area with many
high-occupancy uses. Sola is blocked for
east- or west-bound traffic from DLV and
Santa Barbara Streets, making NB/SB
response from Victoria or Sola Street on
State Street imperative.
 One-way NB traffic increases vehicle
volumes on Sola “Bike-Friendly Street”.
>1500 Vehicles/day on Sola will trigger
closure of the 1400 block to SB traffic.
 Unusually wide one-way vehicle lane.
 Wide vehicle lane encourages higher
vehicle travel speeds.
 Not an efficient allocation of space.

Council Agenda Report
Monthly Update on State Street Interim Operations
April 30, 2024

Page 8 ends

 Creates a large empty zone along SW
curb likely to be used improperly.
 Increased costs for addition of bike lane
separators.

Option 4b: One-way, Maximize Parklet Space
Option 4b is a modified version of Option 4a. This option maintains the same basic street configuration as 4a, but narrows the traffic lane, bike lanes, and buffer while maxing out parklet space. The bike lane would be separated from traffic by a low-level device such as an “armadillo” that could be driven over to allow the bike lanes and traffic lane to combine width to serve as the fire lane. Parklet space along the southwest curb is maximized at 17 feet. Nine-foot-wide parklets are maintained along the northwest curb.

This option would eliminate parking along the southwest curb. Removal of existing OBFs is required to accommodate planned re-paving on the 1300 block. OBFs that are rebuilt following paving and striping must conform to the design requirements for new facilities specified in the Requirements for Operating a Business on the Temporary State Street Promenade.

Option 4b creates significant public safety concerns.

Advantages Disadvantages
 Physical separation between bikes, peds,
and cars.
 Opportunity to pilot other uses of
extra-wide SW OBF lane. Possible return
of additional parklets on SW side.
 Opportunity to pilot use of armadillos to
separate vehicles and bikes.
 Continues one-way vehicle configuration
from 1200 block to 1300 block.
 Two-way protected bike lane on SW side
eliminates right turn conflicts at Sola, which
was the primary collision pattern on the
pre-pandemic configuration.
 One-way traffic inhibits emergency
response to an area with many
high-occupancy uses. Sola is blocked for
east- or west-bound traffic from DLV and
Santa Barbara Streets, making NB/SB
response from Victoria or Sola Street on
State Street imperative.
 One-way NB traffic increases vehicle
volumes on Sola “Bike-Friendly Street”.
>1500 Vehicles/day on Sola will trigger
closure of the 1400 block to SB traffic.
 Creates a large empty zone along SW
curb if not utilized by parklets or as
additional ped travel space.
 Increased costs for addition of bike lane
separators.

BUDGET/FINANCIAL INFORMATION:

There are no actions proposed for today’s item and thus, no financial or budget impacts on the City. However, Options 1, 4a, and 4b for the 1300 block will require a Counci-identified funding source to implement.

Council Agenda Report
Monthly Update on State Street Interim Operations
April 30, 2024

Page 9 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

All the actions discussed in this report are within the scope of the pilot program under Municipal Code Title 31. Section 5 of the ordinance adopting Title 31 contains a specific finding that the program is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. 1300 Block Alternatives Summary Table

2. 1300 Block Alternative Configurations Diagrams
PREPARED BY: Sarah Clark, Downtown Team Manager/nv
SUBMITTED BY: Clifford M. Maurer, P.E., Public Works Director APPROVED BY: City Administrator’s Office
ATTACHMENT 1
PAGE 1
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4a Option 4b
Vehicle Traffic
Northbound One 12-ft NB Lane One 10-ft NB lane One 10-ft NB lane One 20-ft NB lane One 14-ft NB lane Southbound One 11-ft SB Lane One 10-ft SB lane One 10-ft SB lane - - Turning - -
One 10-ft center turn
lane - -
Bike Facilities
Location Two-way along SW Curb
One-way along the
parking lane on each
side of the street
One-way along the
parking lane on each
side of the street
Two-way along SW
parklet zone
Two -way along SW
parklet zone
Northbound 6.5-ft NB Lane 6-ft NB lane 6-ft NB lane 6.5-ft NB lane 6-ft NB lane Southbound 6.5-ft SB Lane 6-ft SB lane 6-ft SB lane 6.5-ft SB lane 6-ft SB lane Buffer 3-ft buffer zone 3-ft in door zone - 5-ft buffer zone 4-ft buffer zone Separation Protected by parked
vehicles - -
Physical separator in
buffer zone, e.g.
bollards
Low-level physical
separator in buffer zone,
e.g. armadillos
Outdoor Business Facilities
Allowed? No Yes Yes Yes Yes
SW Side - 9-ft wide 7-ft wide 9-ft wide 17-ft wide
NE Side - 9-ft wide 7-ft wide 9-ft wide 9-ft wide
Traffic Barriers Required; may be
placed in door zone
Required; will reduce
usable width to ~5 ft.

Required on NE side;
will reduce usable width
to ~7 ft.

Parking
SW Side 25 Angled spaces
16 parallel spaces
(12 spaces with Opal
parklet)
16 parallel spaces
(12 spaces with Opal
parklet)
- -
NW Side -
12 parallel spaces
(9 spaces with Carlito’s
parklet)
12 parallel spaces
(9 spaces with Carlito’s
parklet)
12 parallel spaces
(9 spaces with Carlito’s
parklet)
12 parallel spaces
(9 spaces with Carlito’s
parklet)
Infrastructure
• Changes to storm
drains and gutter to
accommodate bike
lane
• Wheel stops and
planters between
Pavement resurface and
re-stripe.

Pavement resurface and
re-stripe
• Pavement resurface
and re-stripe
• Bollards or other
physical separator
between bikes and
cars
• Pavement resurface
and re-stripe
• Armadillos or other
physical separators
between bikes and
cars
ATTACHMENT 1
PAGE 2
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4a Option 4b
angled parking and
bike lane
• Pavement resurface
and re-stripe
Considerations
Advantages
• Two-way vehicle is
required for public
safety to allow both
NB and SB response
along State from
Sola/Victoria.
• Restoring two-way
traffic on the 1300
block reduces traffic
volumes on Sola
“Bike-Friendly Street”.
• Physical separation
between bikes, peds,
and cars.
• Two-way protected
bike lane on SW side
eliminates right turn
conflicts at Sola,
which was the primary
collision pattern on
the pre-pandemic
configuration.
• Continues two-way
bike lane from 1200
block to Sola BikeFriendly Street.
• Two-way vehicle traffic
is required for public
safety to allow both
NB and SB response
along State from
Sola/Victoria.
• Restoring two-way
traffic on the 1300
block reduces traffic
volumes on Sola
“Bike-Friendly Street”.
• Standard roadway
configuration creates
predictable results.
• No additional
infrastructure cost.
• Two-way vehicle traffic
is required for public
safety to allow both
NB and SB response
along State from
Sola/Victoria.
• Restoring two-way
traffic on the 1300
block reduces traffic
volumes on Sola
“Bike-Friendly Street”.
• Standard roadway
configuration creates
predictable results.
• No additional
infrastructure cost.
• Physical separation
between bikes, peds,
and cars
• Two-way protected
bike lane on SW side
eliminates right turn
conflicts at Sola,
which was the primary
collision pattern on
the pre-pandemic
configuration.
• Physical separation
between bikes, peds,
and cars.
• Opportunity to pilot
other uses of extrawide SW parklet lane.

Possible return of
additional parklets on
SW side.
• Opportunity to pilot
use of armadillos to
separate vehicles and
bikes.
• Continues one-way
vehicle configuration
from 1200 block to
1300 block.
• Two-way protected
bike lane on SW side
eliminates right turn
conflicts at Sola,
which was the primary
collision pattern on
the pre-pandemic
configuration.

Disadvantages
• Novel roadway
configuration creates
unpredictable
behavior.
• Infrastructure
improvements make
• No separation or
buffer between bikes
and cars.
• Conflict between NB
vehicles and NB
cyclists transitioning
• Limits OBFs to 5 ft +
traffic barrier.
• No separation or
buffer between bikes,
cars, and parking.
• One-way traffic
inhibits emergency
response. Sola is
blocked for east- or
west-bound traffic
from DLV and Santa
• One-way traffic
inhibits emergency
response. Sola is
blocked for east- or
west-bound traffic
from DLV and Santa
ATTACHMENT 1
PAGE 3
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4a Option 4b
this the most
expensive option.
• SB bike lane along SW
curb would be in the
gutter.
• Concerns expressed
by AAC members
about configuration of
parking spaces
reserved for disabled
parkers.
• No space for
commercial loading.

Delivery trucks likely
to partially block
traffic.
between the 1200 and
1300 blocks creates
the potential for
collisions.
• Safety concern
between OBF, vehicles
parallel parking, and
bikes
• Center turn lane has
limited utility; space
could be allocated
more efficiently.
• Conflict between NB
vehicles and NB
cyclists transitioning
between the 1200 and
1300 blocks creates
the potential for
collisions.
• Conflicts between
vehicles, bikes, and
OBFs.

Barbara Streets,
making NB/SB
response from
Victoria or Sola Street
on State Street
imperative.
• One-way NB traffic
increases vehicle
volumes on Sola
“Bike-Friendly Street”.
>1500 Vehicles/day
on Sola will trigger
closure of the 1400
block to SB traffic.
• Unusually wide oneway vehicle lane.
• Wide vehicle lane
encourages higher
vehicle travel speeds.
• Not an efficient
allocation of space.
• Creates a large empty
zone along SW curb
likely to be used
improperly.
• Increased costs for
addition of bike lane
separators.

Barbara Streets,
making NB/SB
response from
Victoria or Sola Street
on State Street
imperative.
• One-way NB traffic
increases vehicle
volumes on Sola
“Bike-Friendly Street”.
>1500 Vehicles/day
on Sola will trigger
closure of the 1400
block to SB traffic.
• Creates a large empty
zone along SW curb if
not utilized by
parklets or as
additional ped travel
space.
• Increased costs for
addition of bike lane
separators.

ATTACHMENT 2 Option 1, Westside Bike Lanes, Angled Parking, No Parklets ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2 Option 2, 9' Parallel Parking and Parklets, No Center Turn Lane 2' Barrier could be in bike lane buffer, so ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2 Option 3, Pre-Promendate Condition. 7' Parallel Parking/Parklet 2' barrier would result in 5' parklet usable space ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2 Option 4, One Way, retain parklets
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2 1300 State Option 4b

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA DATE: April 30, 2024
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Clerk’s Office, City Administrator’s Office
SUBJECT: Interviews for City Advisory Groups
RECOMMENDATION: That Council:

A. Hold interviews of applicants to various City Advisory Groups (Estimated time:
6:00 p.m.); and
B. Continue interviews of applicants to May 7, 2024 (Estimated time: 3:00 p.m.).

DISCUSSION:

Interviews of applicants for various positions on City Advisory Groups are to be held on April 30, 2024, at an estimated time of 6:00 p.m. Applicants will also have the option to be interviewed on May 7, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. (estimated time).

For the current 53 vacancies, 56 individuals submitted 61 applications. A list of eligible applicants and pertinent information about the City Advisory Groups is attached to this report.

Applicants have been notified that to be considered for appointment they must be interviewed. Applicants have been requested to prepare a two-to-three-minute verbal presentation, in response to a set of questions. Those questions are specific to the group for which they are applying. Applicants applying to more than one advisory group may have up to five minutes for their presentation.

Appointments are scheduled to take place on June 11, 2024.

ATTACHMENT: List of Applicants
PREPARED BY: Norma Welche, Deputy City Clerk
SUBMITTED BY: Sarah Knecht, Interim City Administrator
APPROVED BY: City Administrator's Office
Agenda Item No. 6
File Code No. 140.05

ATTACHMENT
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 1
Semiannual Recruitment 2024

ARCHITECTURAL BOARD OF REVIEW
 One vacancy.
 Term Expirations:
 December 31, 2027 – Licensed Architect
 Qualifications/Category: Members need not be qualified electors* of the City at the time of appointment so long as they are qualified electors* of the County and remain so during their term. Member must be a licensed architect.  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Carolyn Adams Qualified Elector – City
William Anderson Qualified Elector – City Licensed Architect – City/County (1)
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 2
April 23, 2024

ARTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
 Two vacancies.
 Term Expirations:
 December 31, 2025
 December 31, 2027
 Qualifications/Category: Members may be residents of the South Coast area of Santa Barbara County. Members should be persons who demonstrate an interest in and commitment to cultural and arts activities.  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Terri Ball Com Events & Festivals Applicant
Carole Goodman
Diane Mackenzie
Sophia Rasura Com Events & Festivals Applicant
Soheyla Valleie
City/County Resident
(2)
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 3
April 23, 2024

BUILDING AND FIRE CODE BOARD OF APPEALS
 Five vacancies.
 Term Expirations:
 June 30, 2026
 June 30, 2028
 Qualifications/Category: Residents of the City or the adjoining area of Santa Barbara County who demonstrate knowledge and expertise in specialty areas governed by the construction and fire codes of the City.  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Nick Koonce 12/6/2016
(5 years, 6 months)
John Maloney 6/28/2016
(6 years)
Term expired 6/30/2022; continuing to
serve until successor is appointed.

City/County Resident
(5)
Paul Spieler 12/6/2016
(5 years, 6 months)
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 4
April 23, 2024

CENTRAL COAST COMMISSION FOR SENIOR CITIZENS
 One vacancy.
 Term Expirations:
 June 30, 2026
 Qualifications/Categories: Resident of the City.
 Appointee may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government, and for one year after ceasing to be a member, shall not be eligible for any salaried office or employment with the City.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
E Howard Green 6/18/2019
(5 years) Resident of the City (1)
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 5
April 23, 2024
CITIZEN’S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE
 Two vacancies.
 Term Expirations:
 December 31, 2026
 Qualifications/Categories: One appointee must be a qualified elector* of the City; remaining appointee may be an elector not living in the City. One appointee must also be a representative of the hospitality community.  Appointee may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government, and for one year after ceasing to be a member, shall not be eligible for any salaried office or employment with the City.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Qualified Elector –
City/Non-City (1)
Representative of the
Hospitality Community
– City/Non-City (1)
NONE
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 6
April 23, 2024

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
 One vacancy.
 Term Expiration:
 December 31, 2026
 Qualifications/Categories: Qualified elector of the City.  Appointee may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government, and for one year after ceasing to be a member, shall not be eligible for any salaried office or employment with the City.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Qualified Elector of the Craig Smith
City (1)
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 7
April 23, 2024

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE
 Five vacancies.
 Term Expirations:
 December 31, 2024 (Downtown Area Neighborhood)
 December 31, 2026 (Business Community)
 December 31, 2027 (Westside/Lower Westside Neighborhood; Human Services Organization; Latino Community)  Qualifications/Category: Members must be employees or residents of the designated organizations/neighborhoods and be qualified electors of the County.
 Human Services Organization;
 Downtown Area Neighborhood;
 Business Community
 Westside/Lower Westside Neighborhood; and
 Latino Community
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Business Community (1)
Downtown Neighborhood (1)
Human Services Organization
(1)
Latino Community (1)
Westside/Lower Westside
Neighborhood (1)
NONE
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 8
April 23, 2024

COMMUNITY EVENTS AND FESTIVALS COMMITTEE
 Three vacancies.
 Term Expiration:
 December 31, 2027
 Qualifications/Category: Members must represent one of the following categories:
 Business/Lodging/Retail Industry; and
 Cultural Arts.
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)
APPLICANT Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Roger Perry
Dacia Harwood Business/Lodging/Retail
Industry (2)
Teri Ball Arts Advisory Cte Applicant
Sophia Rasura Arts Advisory Cte Applicant
Cultural Arts (1)
Terra Taylor Sister Cities Board Applicant
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 9
April 23, 2024

COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA LIBRARY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
 One vacancy.
 Term Expirations:
 June 30, 2025
 Qualifications/Categories: Resident of the City.
 Appointee may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government, and for one year after ceasing to be a member, shall not be eligible for any salaried office or employment with the City.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Amber Caldwell 6/27/2023
(1 year) Resident of the City (1)
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 10
April 23, 2024

CREEKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
 One vacancy.
 Term Expiration: December 31, 2027
 Qualifications/Category: Appointees may be a City or non-City resident and must meet the following categories:
 Member with some experience in ocean use, business, environmental issues, and/or provide community at large representation.
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Conway “Todd” Rulon-Miller Non-City Resident
Wendy Wittl City Resident
City/non-City Resident
(1)
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 11
April 23, 2024

DOWNTOWN PARKING COMMITTEE
 One vacancy.
 Term Expiration: December 31, 2027
 Qualifications/Categories: Member must be a qualified elector* of the City or County of Santa Barbara.  Appointee may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Wesley McRae County Resident
Anita Stahl City Resident City/County Resident
(1)
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 12
April 23, 2024

HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMISSION
 Three vacancies.
 Term Expirations:
 June 30, 2026 (Senior Tenant and Tenant); and
 September 14, 2028 (Public at Large)
 Qualifications/Category: Members should have some interest and background in housing development, management, or other comparable experience. One member may be a non-City resident.  Senior Tenant over the age of 62 who is receiving housing assistance from the Housing Authority;  Tenant who is receiving housing assistance from the Housing Authority; and  Member representing the Public at Large.
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Kirsten S Ellis City Resident
Lang Sligh City Resident
Public at Large –
City/Non-City (1)
Megan Turley City Resident
Mary Fenger 11/12/2019
(4 years, 7 months) City Resident
Senior Tenant –
City/Non-City (1)
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 13
April 23, 2024

LIVING WAGE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
 Two vacancies.
 Term Expirations:
 June 30, 2026 (Public at Large)
 June 30, 2027 (Owner/Manager of a service contractor subject to the City’s Living Wage Ordinance)  Qualifications/Categories: Appointee must meet one of the following qualifications:
 Owner/Manager of a service contractor subject to the City’s Living Wage Ordinance; or  Represent the public at large.
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Owner/Manager of a service
contractor subject to the
City’s Living Wage Ordinance
(1)
Public at Large (1)
NONE
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 14
April 23, 2024

NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY COUNCIL
 Nine vacancies.
 Term Expirations:
 December 31, 2024 (Neighborhood Representative- 2; and Public at large- 1)  December 31, 2026 (Neighborhood Representative- 3)
 December 31, 2027 (Neighborhood Representative- 2; and Public at large- 1)  Qualifications/Categories: Public at large representatives may reside anywhere within City limits. Neighborhood representatives must be residents of the following neighborhoods, and no more than three members can represent one specific neighborhood:
 Eastside (3 openings);
 Lower Eastside (3 openings);
 Laguna (3 openings);
 West Downtown (3 openings);
 Westside (3 opening);
 Lower Westside (2 openings); and
 Public at Large (2 openings).
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Neighborhood Sebastian Aldana JR Eastside Neighborhood
Representative or
Public at Large (9) Zachary Kramer Westside Neighborhood *Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 15
April 23, 2024

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
 One vacancy.
 Term Expiration:
 June 30, 2025 (Youth Intern**); and
 December 31, 2023 (Qualified Elector)
 Qualifications/Categories: Members of the Commission must be qualified electors* of the City.  **Youth Intern: One youth intern who is not a member of the Commission and is a high school student volunteer who resides within the Santa Barbara High School District or attends other high schools within the City limits and is nominated by the principal of the student’s high school. The student shall be either in their junior or senior year of high school and shall be and remain a student in good standing as is determined by the high school. A student that graduates shall not serve for more than three (3) months following graduation.  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Youth Intern (1)
Qualified Elector of
the City (1)
NONE
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 16
April 23, 2024

RENTAL HOUSING MEDIATION BOARD
 Four vacancies.
 Term Expiration:
 December 31, 2025 (Tenant Mediator- 1)
 December 31, 2027 (Tenant Mediator- 1; Landlord Mediator- 2)  Qualifications/Categories: The majority of members (8) must be residents of the City of Santa Barbara. Non-City resident members must reside in a jurisdiction which contracts with the Rental Housing Mediation Program for services (currently Goleta and Carpinteria). Members must represent one of the following specific categories:
 Landlord Mediator who owns or manages residential properties for consideration or compensation, whether single or multiple units;
 Tenant Mediator who rents or leases a dwelling with no ownership of residential properties; and  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Scott Barash Non-City Resident Landlord Mediator
– City/County (2) Michelle Roberson Non-City Resident
E Howard Green City Resident Tenant Mediator –
City/County (2)
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 17
April 23, 2024

SANTA BARBARA YOUTH COUNCIL
 Eight vacancies.
 Term Expirations:
 June 30, 2025 (Public at Large- 1)
 June 30, 2026 (SBUSD High School students- 3; Local Private HS/Independent Studies- 1; Local Alt/Com/Cont’n- 2; Public at large- 1)
 Qualifications/Categories: Members must be between the ages of 13-19 years and may be residents of the City or County. Majority of members must be City residents. Members must represent the following:
 Three members must be from students attending a Santa Barbara Union School District high school:
o San Marcos High School, Santa Barbara High School, and Dos Pueblos High School. No more than 3 members can be from any one High School:
 SMHS (2 openings) ;SBHS (no openings); DPHS (1 openings)  One member must be a student attending a Local Private School or independent studies;  Two members representing the Public at Large; and
 Two members must be students from a local alternative, community, or continuation high school.  Note: Up to 5 new members may be County residents.
 Note: All applicants also fit the category of Public at Large.

Applicants must appear for an interview before the Santa Barbara Youth Council and City Council.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies) APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Kaarlo Anderson DPHS (County)
Parikshit Mehta DPHS (County)
Gabriele Scussat DPHS (County)
Clara Stump 6/28/2022
(2 years) SMHS (County)
Naomi Walsh DPHS (County)
SBUSD High School –
City/County (3)
Kieran Stone DPHS (City)
CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE.
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 18
April 23, 2024
SANTA BARBARA YOUTH COUNCIL (cont’d)
 Eight vacancies.
 Term Expirations:
 June 30, 2025 (Public at Large- 1)
 June 30, 2026 (SBUSD High School students- 3; Local Private HS/Independent Studies- 1; Local Alt/Com/Cont’n- 2; Public at large- 1)
 Qualifications/Categories: Members must be between the ages of 13-19 years and may be residents of the City or County. Majority of members must be City residents. Members must represent the following:
 Three members must be from students attending a Santa Barbara Union School District high school:
o San Marcos High School, Santa Barbara High School, and Dos Pueblos High School. No more than 3 members can be from any one High School:
 SMHS (2 openings) ;SBHS (no openings); DPHS (1 openings)  One member must be a student attending a Local Private School or independent studies;  Two members representing the Public at Large; and
 Two members must be students from a local alternative, community, or continuation high school.  Note: Up to 5 new members may be County residents.
 Note: All applicants also fit the category of Public at Large.

Applicants must appear for an interview before the Santa Barbara Youth Council and City Council.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies) APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd) Notes
Chloe Boyd BDHS (County)
Eloise Lowther-Phillips LBS (County)
Sonia Marquez Miranda BDHS (County)
Micaela White Dual Enrollment: HCS/SBCC (City)
Local Private High
School/Independent
Studies – City/County
(1)
Sindy Zavala 12/5/2023
(6 months) BDHS (County)
CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE.
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 19
April 23, 2024
SANTA BARBARA YOUTH COUNCIL (cont’d)
 Eight vacancies.
 Term Expirations:
 June 30, 2025 (Public at Large- 1)
 June 30, 2026 (SBUSD High School students- 3; Local Private HS/Independent Studies- 1; Local Alt/Com/Cont’n- 2; Public at large- 1)
 Qualifications/Categories: Members must be between the ages of 13-19 years and may be residents of the City or County. Majority of members must be City residents. Members must represent the following:
 Three members must be from students attending a Santa Barbara Union School District high school:
o San Marcos High School, Santa Barbara High School, and Dos Pueblos High School. No more than 3 members can be from any one High School:
 SMHS (2 openings) ;SBHS (no openings); DPHS (1 openings)  One member must be a student attending a Local Private School or independent studies;  Two members representing the Public at Large; and
 Two members must be students from a local alternative, community, or continuation high school.  Note: Up to 5 new members may be County residents.
 Note: All applicants also fit the category of Public at Large.

Applicants must appear for an interview before the Santa Barbara Youth Council and City Council.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies) APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd) Notes
Ahtziri Bernal SBHS (City)
Nicholas Gaston LC Jr HS (City)
Luca Flagiello SBHS (City)
Itzel Leon SBHS (City)
Amelia Leonardi LC Jr HS (City)
Public at Large –
City/County (2)
Sophia Mills SBHS (County)
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 20
April 23, 2024

SINGLE FAMILY DESIGN BOARD
 One vacancy.
 Term Expiration: June 30, 2027
 Qualifications/Category: Members must be residents of the County of Santa Barbara and meet one of the following categories:
 Appointee must possess professional qualifications in fields related to architecture, including but not limited to, architecture or landscape architecture, including, but not limited to, building design, structural engineering, industrial design, urban planning, or landscape contracting; or  Appointee must be a Licensed Architect; or
 Appointee must represent the Public at Large.
 Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Cindy Antonucci-Ameen Public at large
Joseph Moticha Licensed Architect
Professional
Qualifications;
Licensed Architect; or
Public at Large (1) Danny Seigle Public at large
*Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 21
April 23, 2024

SISTER CITIES BOARD
 One vacancy.
 Term Expiration: December 31, 2024
 Qualifications/Category: Member may be a resident of the adjoining areas of Santa Barbara County.  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
William Tyler Head Water Commission Applicant
County Resident (1) Terra Taylor Com Events & Festivals Applicant *Registered voter in the City/County of Santa Barbara
who is a US citizen aged 18 years or older. 22
April 23, 2024

WATER COMMISSION
 One vacancy.
 Term Expiration: December 31, 2027
 Qualifications/Category: Member must be a qualified elector* of the City.  Appointees may not hold any full-time paid office or employment in City government.

CATEGORY
(Number of
Vacancies)

APPLICANT
Incumbent
Appt. Dates
(Years Served)
Applicant’s
Preference
(1st, 2nd, 3rd)
Notes
Lindsay Coony 12/8/2020
(3 years)
Term ended 12/31/2023; continuing to
Qualified elector of the serve until successor is appointed.

City (1) William Tyler Head Sister Cities Board Applicant

Santa Barbara City CouncilApril 30, 2024

Santa Barbara City Council
April 30, 2024