santa barbara county association of governments …meetings.sbcag.org/meetings/sbcag/2015/08...

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY

ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS

REGIONAL ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Mitigated Negative Declaration

FINAL

AUGUST 2015

[This page left intentionally blank]

Santa Barbara County Regional Active Transportation Plan August 2015

Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Page 1

I. PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: Santa Barbara County Association of Governments

Regional Active Transportation Plan

2. Lead Agency Name Santa Barbara County Association of Governments

And Address: 260 N. San Antonio Road, Suite B

Santa Barbara, CA 93110

3. Contact Person and Peter Imhof

Phone Number: (805) 961-8900

4. Project Location: Santa Barbara County

5. Project Sponsor’s Name: Same as lead agency

6. General Plan Designation: The project area occurs primarily on or within public

roads designated for transportation uses and traverses

areas adjacent to areas designated Residential, Office,

Recreational, Commercial, Agricultural, Industrial,

Visitor-Serving, Institutional, Military, Parks, and Open

Space in the General Plans of Santa Barbara County and

its eight incorporated cities (Buellton, Carpinteria,

Goleta, Guadalupe, Lompoc, Santa Barbara, Santa

Maria, and Solvang).

7. Zoning: Occurs primarily on or adjacent to public roads

designated for transportation uses throughout each of the

jurisdictions located in Santa Barbara County.



II. INTRODUCTION

Introduction and Regulatory Guidance

The Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) is the lead agency under

the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) responsible for evaluating the potential

environmental impacts of the Regional Active Transportation Plan in compliance with

CEQA. The approval of the SBCAG Regional Active Transportation Plan is at the discretion

of SBCAG.

The purpose of this document is to evaluate whether significant environmental impacts could

occur with approval of the plan and to present to decision makers and the public the potential

environmental effects of the proposed plan.

Comments should be addressed to:

Peter Imhof

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments

260 N. San Antonio Rd., Ste. B

Santa Barbara, CA 93110

(805) 961-8900

E-mail comments may be addressed to [email protected]. If you wish to send written

comments, they must be postmarked by Monday, June 29, 2015.

Project Approvals

The approval of the Regional Active Transportation Plan is at the discretion of the Santa

Barbara County Association of Governments. It should be noted that separate project

approvals and additional environmental review may be needed by the individual project

sponsors, as the lead agencies for the individual projects contained within the proposed

Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, prior to project implementation. Depending on the

location of the project, future approvals for individual bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure

projects may be needed by one or more of the following agencies:

Santa Barbara County Association of Governments

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

Cities of: Buellton

Carpinteria

Goleta

Guadalupe

Lompoc

Santa Barbara

Santa Maria

Solvang

County of Santa Barbara

mailto:[email protected]



III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Location

The project is located in Santa Barbara County and the SBCAG Regional Active

Transportation Plan covers the entire area of the County. Santa Barbara County is located

in the Central Coast area of California and is bounded by San Luis Obispo County to the

north, Kern County to the northeast, Ventura County to the southeast, and the Pacific Ocean

to the west and southwest. The project area includes the eight incorporated cities in the

County: Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Lompoc, Goleta, Carpinteria, Guadalupe, Solvang,

Buellton, and all unincorporated communities (see Figure III-1).

FIGURE III-1: SANTA BARBARA COUNTY REGION

Environmental Setting

Santa Barbara County is located in the central coast area of California and is bounded by

San Luis Obispo County to the north, Ventura County to the east, Kern County to the

northeast, and the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The geographic center of the County



is about 300 miles south of San Francisco and 80 miles north of Los Angeles. The region

contains five, main sub-regions: the South Coast Area, Santa Maria Valley, Lompoc Valley,

Santa Ynez Valley, and Cuyama Valley. More detailed descriptions of the project setting are

contained in the discussion of individual potential impact areas below.

Purpose and Need

The purpose of this plan is to create a regional vision for improving the bicycle and pedestrian

network by integrating the bicycle and pedestrian planning of the region’s nine member

governments. The plan is also intended to establish a base level of eligibility for funding of

listed bicycle and pedestrian projects though the State’s Active Transportation Program and

subsequent grants for the plan area. The scale of this plan advances the region’s

transportation goals and complements the policies of the region’s adopted 2040 Regional

Transportation Plan-Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP-SCS). The plan provides an

overview of the existing conditions as related to the bicycle and pedestrian modes in the

region, assesses existing and future bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure needs and

highlights the bicycle and pedestrian programs and improvements that will meet these

needs.

Project Goals and Objectives

There are four goals that are highlighted in the Regional Active Transportation Plan:

1. Enhance Mobility: Promote increased bicycling and walking to reduce vehicle trips,

vehicle miles traveled, auto congestion, and vehicle emissions region-wide.

2. Increase Connectivity: Enhance the regional bicycle and pedestrian network to

increase bike and walk mode share and improve accessibility to jobs, schools, and

services.

3. Equity for all Users in all Communities: Increase bicycle and pedestrian network

coverage within RTP-SCS communities of concern.

4. Improve Safety and Public Health: Encourage well-designed bicycle and pedestrian

infrastructure to improve multi-modal safety and promote improvements in public

health.

Project Characteristics

The plan integrates each of the local jurisdictions’ bike and pedestrian plans to formulate a

regional vision. The plan’s policies support each of the plan’s goals and objectives.

Bicycle & Pedestrian Infrastructure and Networks

The region’s state of the practice in regards to existing bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure

is described in the plan. For bicyclists, the region contains a series of interconnected Class I,

II, and III bike lanes/shared-use bikeways, traffic signal detection devices, a wayfinding

signage system on the South Coast, and end-of-trip amenity facilities (such as the Santa

Barbara Bikestation). For pedestrians, the region includes a vast network of interconnected

sidewalks, crosswalks, mid-block crossings, pedestrian-hybrid beacons, curb extensions, and



raised crosswalks that help to achieve the goals outlined in the plan. The plan also outlines

infrastructure innovations that the public can consider in the context of its local and regional

policies and decision-making capacity, such as bicycle boxes, cycle tracks, bicycle boulevards,

mini-circles, bicycle storage, a variety of pedestrian signal timing options at intersections,

pedestrian flags at street crossings, and complete streets policies.

The plan includes a description of existing bicycle and pedestrian networks and states that

future improvements will focus on safety, infill of missing links, and responding to

demographic shifts and changes in development patterns. It includes an inventory of bicycle

and pedestrian connections at all of the region’s major rail, airport, and transit connection

points as well as accommodations that are made for bicyclists on some of the region’s major

transit services. It also includes a description and maps of the existing and proposed bicycle

networks in the region. Another key component of the plan is inclusion of proposed bicycle

and pedestrian projects. The networks and project lists were developed in consultation with

representatives of the member jurisdictions and advocacy groups and members of the public.

The network improvements and projects identified in the plan will improve the bicycle and

pedestrian environments in the region by increasing mobility and improving safety.

Appendix A contains a series of maps illustrating the proposed regional bicycle network.

Appendix B shows the bicycle and pedestrian projects included in the Regional Active

Transportation Plan.

Programs – Safety, Education, Encouragement, and Enforcement

The Regional Active Transportation Plan contains a summary description of programs that

address the issue areas of common concern to bicyclists and pedestrians:

Safety – The plan highlights the frequency and severity of bicycle- and pedestrian-

involved collisions, injuries, and fatalities and discusses programs that can be

implemented to reduce or minimize these occurrences.

Education

Encouragement / Marketing / Events (such as CycleMania and Open Streets)

Enforcement

Funding

The plan identifies a regional vision of an interconnected network of bicycle and pedestrian

infrastructure based on the proposed network shown in Appendix A and the projects

contained in Appendix B. Based on the project cost estimates shown in Appendix B, and the

local, state, and federal funds that have been programmed within our region, the plan

identifies a need for additional funding to achieve the regional vision.



IV. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,

involving at least one impact that is "Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" as

indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics/Visual

Resources

Agriculture Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy

Fire Protection Geologic Processes Hazardous Materials/

Risk of Upset

Historic Resources Land Use Noise

Public Facilities Recreation Transportation/

Circulation

Water Resources/

Flooding



V. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

This section evaluates the potential environmental effects of the proposed project using the

environmental checklist from the State CEQA Guidelines as amended. The definitions of the

potential level of impact in the response column headings are as follows:

A. Potentially Significant Impact: A fair argument can be made, based on the substantial

evidence in the file, that an effect may be significant.

B. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated: Incorporation of mitigation

measures has reduced an effect from a Potentially Significant Impact to a Less Than

Significant Impact.

C. Less Than Significant Impact: An impact is considered adverse but does not trigger a

significance threshold.

D. No Impact: There is adequate support that the referenced information sources show that

the impact simply does not apply to the subject project.

1. Aesthetics/Visual Resources

Will the proposal result in:

Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the

public or the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open

to public view?

X

b. Change to the visual character of an area? X

c. Glare or night lighting which may affect adjoining areas? X

d. Visually incompatible structures? X


Santa Barbara County is known for its natural scenic resources. The coastal terraces between

ocean and mountains; the scenic inland valleys with large expanses of cultivated farmlands

and gently rolling hillsides; and the rugged Los Padres National Forest are all key elements

which define the County’s scenic resources. The County is largely rural in character, with

distinct compact urban communities separated by substantial public open space and private

grazing lands.

Much of the County is heavily vegetated with a variety of mature trees. There are numerous

areas dominated by clustered stands of native oaks, taller narrow ribbons of lighter colored

sycamore trees, and mature introduced pines and eucalyptus woodlands.

The nature of urban development varies throughout the County. The Santa Maria Valley is

characterized as an urban center, with supporting suburban residential development in



unincorporated Orcutt. The Santa Ynez Valley is typified by smaller, more rural

communities, clustered near the major highways of State Route 246, State Route 154, and

Highway 101. Lompoc is a medium-sized urban center. Urban development in the South

County generally follows the Highway 101 corridor, from Winchester Canyon to the Ventura

County line. Urban development along the coast is typically compact, and respects the

existing dominant geographic features, including the ocean and the coastal mountains. The

City of Santa Barbara is characterized by a high density urban center.

Scenic Highways

Both the County of Santa Barbara and the State of California have designated scenic

corridors on State highways within the County. The Coastal Land Use Plan, adopted in 1982

and republished in 2009 by the County of Santa Barbara, has established a View Corridor

Overlay land use designation for the portions of Highway 101 with views of the ocean.

Highway 101 along its entire length in Santa Barbara County is also in the State’s master

plan of highways eligible for “Scenic Highway” designation. The following Scenic Highways

have been identified in the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan Scenic Highways

Element (adopted in 1975 and republished in 2009) and the State’s master plan of highways

eligible for “Scenic Highway” designation.

TABLE V.1-1: LIST OF CALTRANS DESIGNATED OR ELIGIBLE SCENIC HIGHWAYS IN THE REGION

Officially Designated

State Route 1 From Highway 101 at Las Cruces north to southerly city limits of

Lompoc

State Route 154 Entire length

Eligible for Scenic Designation

State Route 33 From junction of State Route 166 south into Ventura County

State Route 166 From junction of State Route 33 west through Santa Barbara and San

Luis Obispo Counties to its junction with Highway 101

Highway 101 Entire length

Methodology and Significant Thresholds

The County of Santa Barbara’s Environmental and Thresholds and Guidelines Manual states

that the classification of a project's aesthetic impacts as beneficial or adverse, and

insignificant or significant, is clearly subject to some personal and cultural interpretation.

However, it notes that there are guidelines and policies which can be used to direct and

standardize the assessment of visual impacts. Thus, the County Guidelines do not state a

formal significance threshold, but instead directs the evaluator to the questions which predict

the adversity of impacts to visual resources.

Assessing the visual impacts of a project involves two major steps. First, the visual resources

of the project site must be evaluated. Important factors in this evaluation include the physical

attributes of the site, its relative visibility, and its relative uniqueness. In terms of visibility,

four types of areas are especially important: coastal and mountainous areas, the urban fringe,

and travel corridors.



Next, the potential impact of the project on visual resources located onsite and on views in

the project vicinity, which may be partially or fully obstructed by the project, must be

determined. To some extent, the former step is more important in rural settings, and the

latter in urban areas. Determining compliance with local and state policies regarding visual

resources is also an important part of visual impact assessment.

Significant visual resources which have aesthetic value include: scenic highway corridors;

parks and recreational areas; views of coastal bluffs, streams, lakes, estuaries, rivers, water

sheds, mountains, and cultural resource sites; and scenic areas. The County Guidelines

address only public views, not private views.

Discussion

a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public or the creation of

an aesthetically offensive site open to public view?

Less than Significant. A significant portion of the Regional Active Transportation Plan

relates to policy guidance, which by definition is not site-specific, and therefore would

have no impact on scenic vistas or would generate aesthetically offensive sites. As the

proposed bicycle and pedestrian network improvements identified in the Plan span the

region, it can be anticipated that these routes may be adjacent to or within scenic views,

vistas, or resources. However, the project would primarily involve improvements in or

adjacent to existing roadways to allow movement of bicyclists and pedestrians (Class II

and III facilities and sidewalks). Class I bike paths and multi-use trails do not always

follow existing roadways and may occur in open space or other scenic areas. Bicycle paths

involve only paved or unpaved pathways and minimally intrusive infrastructure and are

not expected to have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas

are considered less than significant.

Construction of individual network segments could result in view impairment due to

placement of construction equipment, removal of landscaping, temporary signage, and

construction staging areas. However, bicycle network construction would be linear in

nature and in many cases may not involve grading or other disruptive construction

activity (e.g., some lanes and routes may only involve lane restriping to accommodate

bicycle traffic). Any view impairment during construction would be temporary and is

therefore considered less than significant.

b. Change to the visual character of an area?

d. Visually incompatible structures?

Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Regional Active Transportation Plan

includes a list of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and network projects that will be

implemented by the local jurisdictions. The projects in the plan range from less visually

intrusive projects (such as low-lying network additions) to more visually intrusive ones

(such as marked sidewalk crossings with flashing beacons and pedestrian/bicycle

bridges). Each local jurisdiction has its own guidelines for defining what would constitute

a change to the visual character of an. Therefore, the project has the potential to change



the visual character of an area or possibly result in visually incompatible structures, in

some circumstances, in ways that may be potentially significant. However, with the

implementation of the following measure, this potential impact would be reduced to a less

than significant level.

Aesthetics-1: The project sponsor shall obtain local design review approval for project

design. All project elements (e.g., design, scale, character, colors, materials and

landscaping) shall be compatible with vicinity development. The project sponsor shall

submit architectural drawings of the project for local design review prior to issuance of

building permits. Grading plans, if required, shall be submitted concurrent with or prior

to plan filing.

c. Glare or night lighting which may affect adjoining areas?

Less than Significant with Mitigation. The Regional Active Transportation Plan does

not make recommendations for lighting of bicycle network segments. No lighting in

addition to that already existing along roadways would be necessary for sidewalks and

Class II/III bicycle facilities. In areas where no roadway is associated with a Class I

bicycle path or multi-use trail, lighting may be used as required for safety. The majority

of the proposed regional bicycle and pedestrian network is associated with urban centers

and existing road networks and is not anticipated to result in a new source of substantial

light or glare. Stationary lighting for “off-road” Class I bicycle paths and some (but not

all) multi-use paths within or adjacent to natural areas would be limited to that required

for safety. Should an individual facility propose stationary lighting adjacent to or within

an open space area, potentially significant impacts from light or glare may result and

affect an adjoining area. However, with implementation of the following measure, this

impact would be reduced to less than significant.

Aesthetics-2: Project sponsor shall ensure that lighting of Class I bicycle paths and multi-

use paths adjacent to open space areas shall be limited to that required for safety.

Lighting shall be directed away from open space areas and onto the bicycle path itself.

Individual network segments directly within open space areas shall be designed without

night lighting to prevent any impact from light or glare on adjacent biological resources.

2. Agricultural Resources


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. Convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use,

impair agricultural land productivity (whether prime or

non-prime) or conflict with agricultural preserve

programs?

X

b. An effect upon any unique or other farmland of State or

Local Importance?

X




California is the leading state in agricultural production in the United States, and Santa

Barbara County consistently ranks within the top 20 counties of the State in overall

agricultural productivity. Agriculture continues to be the main producing industry in Santa

Barbara County. The top ten revenue crops that were produced in the County in 2011

included strawberries, wine grapes, broccoli, head lettuce, avocados, cauliflower, celery,

cattle, Gerbera cut flowers, and leaf lettuce (Santa Barbara County Crop Report, 2013).

Much of the County’s transportation system traverses rural areas, including areas overlain

by rich agricultural soils, a high percentage of which are in production. The Santa Maria

Valley, Santa Ynez Valley, and Lompoc Valley are among the County’s leading agricultural

areas, and are noted for their high quality irrigated crops, including strawberries, grapes,

and cut flowers. Cattle ranching is common throughout the County, and much of the rolling

terrain in the more remote portions of the County is characterized by this land use.


Regarding agriculture resource impacts, pursuant to the State CEQA guidelines, potentially

significant impacts would result if the project would:

Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance

(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and

Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use;

Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract;

Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or

nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use

The issue of impacts to agriculture is complex in Santa Barbara County. The recommended

CEQA checklist in the State CEQA Guidelines specifically mentions the conversion of prime

agricultural land to non-agricultural use as having potentially significant impacts to

agriculture. However, due to the important role of agricultural production in the County’s

economy, the County of Santa Barbara has adopted a detailed point system for determining

the significance of converting agricultural land. The Santa Barbara County Environmental

Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (January 1995, updated as of 2008) includes a section on

“Agricultural Resource Guidelines.” This system assigns points for each of nine categories,

including soil type, parcel size, current and adjacent uses, Comprehensive Plan designation,

agricultural preserve potential, water availability, and agricultural suitability. If the overall

point total is 60 or above, the impact to agriculture land use is considered to be significant.

Under the County’s system, an agricultural parcel could be considered “significant” even if it

contains no Prime, Unique, or Statewide Importance farmland, if it contains other attributes

that make it especially well-suited to farming. In order to be considered viable agricultural

land, the parcel must be of sufficient size and capability to support an agricultural enterprise

independent of any other parcel. Under this system, the impact to farmland from a Class I

bike path could be considered significant, for example, even if all of the land to be built upon

it is entirely within the legal right-of-way.



This point system acts only as an initial review to determine potentially significant impacts.

Once a project or plan is determined to be significant or potentially significant to agricultural

land, further in depth evaluation will need to be performed which will focus upon other

factors or important criteria, but not the point system, such as the history of agricultural use

on the site, land use trends, and compatibility of uses. Because of the complexity of

determining the significance of any individual agricultural parcel, a final determination of

the significance of impacts to farmland associated with any individual Regional Active

Transportation Plan improvement is beyond the scope of this Initial Study/MND. Therefore,

this Initial Study/MND assumes that any individual Regional Active Transportation Plan

project that could convert any farmland would have a potentially significant impact. The

actual magnitude of agricultural land impacts associated with individual Regional Active

Transportation Plan projects will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis as projects

are designed and implemented.

Discussion

a. Convert prime agricultural land to non-agricultural use, impair agricultural

land productivity (whether prime or non-prime) or conflict with agricultural

preserve programs?

b. An effect upon any unique or other farmland of State or Local Importance?


generally relates to the development of goals and policies, which is not site-specific, and

would therefore not have a direct impact on agriculture. The plan focuses on coordination

of local planning efforts to initiate bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and network

improvements throughout the region.

The majority of the proposed bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and network (such as

Class II/III bicycle lanes and sidewalks) would be built out within existing road rights-of

way within urban areas.

Figures V-2-1 through V-2-4 show Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP)

maps for the Santa Barbara County sub-regions (South Coast, Santa Ynez Valley, Lompoc

Valley, and Santa Maria Valley). As shown, the vast majority of the proposed bicycle

network would be built out within the urbanized areas of the region. Some proposed Class

I bike lanes traverse lands mapped by the FMMP as prime farmland, unique farmland,

and farmland of local and statewide importance.

Areas with prime agricultural soils are generally considered most important for farming.

However, as discussed under Methodology and Significance Thresholds, the County of

Santa Barbara uses a complicated formula for determining the significance of impacts to

agriculture. This formula assigns points for each of nine factors. Impacts are considered

significant if the point total equals or exceeds 60. Based upon the County’s methodology,

even projects that do not disturb any land outside the existing road right-of-way could

have significant impacts. It is not known at this time whether or not impacts from any

individual bicycle or pedestrian project would exceed the 60-point threshold. This

determination would need to be made on a case-by-case basis as individual projects are



implemented and the actual area that would be affected by a project is determined. In all

likelihood, many individual projects would not create significant impacts, particularly

those that involve only a Class I or multi-use trail along existing rights-of-way or that

would affect non-prime grazing lands. Nevertheless, because the actual magnitude of

impacts from individual projects cannot be determined at this time, the overall impact to

agriculture is assumed to be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures

No measures are available to mitigate the loss of agricultural lands, short of eliminating

proposed infrastructure that would traverse or be adjacent to areas containing prime

soils. However, the following measures would incrementally reduce impacts to

agricultural lands and existing agricultural production:

Agricultural Resources-1: When new bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure or network

improvements are planned, the project sponsor shall assure that project-specific

environmental reviews consider alternative alignments that reduce or avoid impacts to

agricultural lands.

Agricultural Resources-2: Rural roadway alignments shall follow property lines to the

extent feasible, to minimize impacts to the agricultural production value of any specific

property. Farmers shall be compensated for the loss of agricultural production at the

margins of lost property, based on the amount of land deeded as road right-of-way, as a

function of the total amount of production on the property.

Agricultural Resources-3: Project sponsors should consider corridor realignment, buffer

zones, setbacks, and fencing to reduce conflict between agricultural lands and

neighboring uses.



FIGURE V.2-1: SANTA MARIA VALLEY FMMP



FIGURE V.2-2: LOMPOC VALLEY FMMP



FIGURE V.2-3: SANTA YNEZ VALLEY FMMP



FIGURE V.2-4: SOUTH COAST FMMP



3. Air Quality


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. The violation of any ambient air quality standard, a

substantial contribution to an existing or projected air

quality violation, or exposure of sensitive receptors to

substantial pollutant concentrations (emissions from

direct, indirect, mobile and stationary sources)?

X

b. The creation of objectionable smoke, ash or odors? X

c. Extensive dust generation? X

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

d. SBCAPCD: Emissions less than the screening

significance level of 10,000 metric tons per year

(MT/yr) CO2e from industrial stationary sources?

County: Emissions equivalent to or greater than 1,000

metric tons (MT) of CO2 per year from industrial

stationary sources during long-term operations?

X

X

e. Emissions equivalent to or greater than 1,100 MT of

CO2e (carbon dioxide equivalent) per year or 4.6 MT

CO2e/Service Population (residents + employees) per

year from other than stationary sources during

long-term operations?

X

f. Emissions equivalent to or greater than 6.6 MT

CO2e/Service Population (residents + employees) per

year for plans (General Plan Elements, Community

Plans, etc.)?

X


Air Quality regulations in Santa Barbara County are subject to both federal and State

standards. The 1990 Amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act mandated that the federal

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manage and control air quality by establishing the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In California, the task of air quality

management and regulation has been legislatively granted to the California Air Resources

Board (ARB) and the local and regional air quality management districts and air pollution

control districts. The ARB is responsible for research activities, the establishment of

California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for air quality, and the regulation of

mobile emission sources (i.e., motor vehicles) and to a much lesser extent stationary sources.

The CAAQS are generally more stringent than corresponding federal standards. Table V.3-1

illustrates both the federal and State current pollutant regulations.

The ARB established fourteen air basins. State law directly created local air quality

management districts and air pollution control districts which have primary authority over



the regulation of stationary sources. For Santa Barbara County, located within the South

Central Coast Air Basin, air pollution control authority for stationary sources is vested with

the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD).

TABLE V.3-1: CURRENT FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS

Pollutant Federal Standard State Standard

Ozone 0.075 ppm (8-hr avg.) 0.07 ppm (8-hr avg.)

0.09 ppm (1-hr avg.)

Carbon Monoxide 9.0 ppm (8-hr avg.)


9.0 ppm (8-hr avg.)


Nitrogen Dioxide 0.100 ppm (1-hr avg.)

0.053 ppm (annual avg.)


0.03 ppm (annual avg.)

Sulfur Dioxide 0.075 ppm (1-hr avg.) 0.25 ppm (1-hr avg.)

Lead 1.5 µg/m3 (calendar quarter) 0.15 µg/m3 (3-month avg.)

Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 µg/m3 (24-hr avg.) 20 µg/m3 (annual avg.)

50 µg/m3 (24-hr avg.)

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 15 µg/m3 (annual avg.)

35 µg/m3 (24-hr avg.)

12 µg/m3 (annual avg.)

ppm = parts per million

µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter

Globally, climate change has the potential to affect numerous environmental resources

through potential impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns.

Based upon the California Air Resources Board (ARB) California Greenhouse Gas Inventory

for 2000-2009 (ARB, October 2011), California produced 453 MMT CO2e in 2009. The major

source of GHGs in California is transportation, contributing 38 percent of the State’s total

GHG emissions. Electricity generation is the second largest source, contributing 23 percent

of the State’s GHG emissions (ARB, October 2012). California emissions are due in part to

its large size and large population compared to other states. However, a factor that reduces

California’s per capita fuel use and GHG emissions, as compared to other states, is its

relatively mild climate. According to the CalEPA’s 2010 Climate Action Team Biennial

Report, potential impacts of climate change in California may include loss in snow pack, sea

level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires,

and more drought years (CalEPA, April 2010).


Air Quality

Chapter 5 of the Santa Barbara County Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual

(as amended in 2008) addresses the subject of air quality. The thresholds provide that a

proposed project will not have a significant impact on air quality if operation of the project

will:



Emit (from all project sources, mobile and stationary), less than the daily trigger

for offsets for any pollutant (currently 55 pounds per day for NOx and ROC, and

80 pounds per day for PM10);

Emit less than 25 pounds per day of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) or reactive organic

compounds (ROC) from motor vehicle trips only;

Not cause or contribute to a violation of any California or National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (except ozone);

Not exceed the APCD health risk public notification thresholds adopted by the

APCD Board; and

Be consistent with the adopted federal and state Air Quality Plans.

No thresholds have been established for short-term impacts associated with construction

activities. However, the County of Santa Barbara’s Grading Ordinance requires standard

dust control conditions for all projects involving grading activities. Long-term/operational

emissions thresholds have been established to address mobile emissions (i.e., motor vehicle

emissions) and stationary source emissions (i.e., stationary boilers, engines, paints, solvents,

and chemical or industrial processing operations that release pollutants).

Climate Change / Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In May 2015, the County adopted an Energy and Climate Action Plan (ECAP) consistent

with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5 (Tiering and Streamlining the Analysis of

Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) has not adopted formal

thresholds for the evaluation of GHG emissions, except for industrial stationary sources. The

SBCAPCD participates in the CEQA review process as both a responsible agency and a

concerned agency. While the SBCAPCD comments on environmental documents and

suggests mitigation measures to reduce air quality impacts, SBAPCD guidance currently

does not provide formal thresholds for considering GHG emissions for plans or projects other

than industrial stationary sources. Prior to adoption of the ECAP, the County followed

established GHG criteria adopted by the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control

District. As dictated by the County’s interim thresholds, residential and commercial projects

needed to be evaluated in terms of project compliance with a numeric threshold of 1,150

MTCO2e, or an efficiency threshold of 4.9 MTCO2e per service population annually (where

the service population equals project residents and employees).

With the formal adoption of the ECAP in May 2015, the County’s interim GHG thresholds

will no longer be applied to projects covered by the ECAP. Instead, the County will use a

programmatic approach to review new development. Any project-specific environmental

document that relies on this ECAP for its cumulative impacts analysis must identify specific

emission reduction measures applicable to the project and demonstrate the project’s

incorporation of the measures. Certain projects, such as industrial stationary sources and

certain commercial or residential projects outside the scope of this ECAP, will continue to be

subject to GHG thresholds and/or project-specific analysis. Since the Regional Active



Transportation Plan is not covered under the ECAP, the SLOAPCD thresholds are cited in

this document as a threshold.

Discussion

a. The violation of any ambient air quality standard, a substantial

contribution to an existing or projected air quality violation, or exposure

of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (emissions

from direct, indirect, mobile and stationary sources)?

b. The creation of objectionable smoke, ash or odors?

c. Extensive dust generation?

Less than Significant with Mitigation. Adoption of the Regional Active

Transportation Plan could create short-term impacts to air quality. Short-term air

quality impacts would be generated during construction of the bicycle and

pedestrian projects listed in the plan.

There are three primary sources of short-term emissions which would be

generated by construction of future bicycle and pedestrian projects under the plan.

These sources include: operation of the construction vehicles, (i.e., scrapers,

loaders, dump trucks); the creation of fugitive dust during clearing and grading;

and the use of asphalt or other oil-based substances during the final construction

phases, which also generate nuisance odors (on a Class I facility, for example). The

significance of daily emissions, particularly ROC and NOx emissions, generated

by construction equipment utilized to build bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure

would depend on the quantity of equipment used and the hours of operation. The

significance of fugitive dust (PM2.5 and PM10) emissions would depend upon the

following factors: 1) the aerial extent of disturbed soils; 2) the length of disturbance

time; 3) whether existing structures are demolished; 4) whether excavation is

involved (including the potential removal of underground storage tanks); and, 5)

whether transport of excavated materials offsite is necessary. The amount of ROC

emissions generated by oil-based substances such as asphalt is dependent upon

the type and amount of asphalt utilized. In addition, impacts related to odors

associated with oil-base substances and asphalt is dependent upon the proximity

of construction activities to sensitive receptors. Use of these materials is also

subject to APCD Rule 329, Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials.

Minor bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements that will be

constructed within existing road rights-of-way, such as such as re-striping or re-

classification of a side-street to a bicycle boulevard, for example, are not expected

to generate significant short-term emissions impacts. However, other projects may

involve grading and paving, or the construction of permanent facilities (such as a

Class I facility in a semi-rural area). The precise quantity of emissions would need

to be determined at the time of proposed construction of a given transportation

project. Although any individual improvement or development project may not

generate significant short-term emissions, it is probable that several projects



would be under construction simultaneously, generating cumulative construction

emissions which may impact air quality. With the implementation of the following

mitigation measures for individual projects, the resulting impacts would be

reduced.

Mitigation Measures

To reduce potentially significant short-term emissions, the following mitigation

measures should be applied to individual projects as they are implemented:

Air Quality-1: The project sponsor shall ensure that SBCAPCD Rule 329 and

standard dust control measures are implemented. The measures shall be noted on

all construction plans and the project sponsor shall perform periodic site

inspections.

d. SBCAPCD: Emissions less than the screening significance level of 10,000

metric tons per year (MT/yr) CO2e from industrial stationary sources?

County of Santa Barbara: Emissions equivalent to or greater than 1,000

metric tons (MT) of CO2 per year from industrial stationary sources

during long-term operations?

No Impact: The Regional Active Transportation Plan generally relates to the

development of goals and policies and projects involving bicycle and pedestrian

infrastructure, unrelated to stationary industrial sources. Therefore, this impact

category does not apply.

e. Emissions equivalent to or greater than 1,100 MT of CO2e (carbon dioxide

equivalent) per year or 4.6 MT CO2e/Service Population (residents +

employees) per year from other than stationary sources during long-term

operations?

f. Emissions equivalent to or greater than 6.6 MT CO2e/Service Population

(residents + employees) per year for plans (General Plan Elements,

Community Plans, etc.)?

No Impact. The Regional Active Transportation Plan generally relates to the

development of goals and policies, which are not site-specific. The plan focuses on

coordination of local planning efforts to initiate bicycle and pedestrian

infrastructure and network improvements throughout the region. The net result

is the increased likelihood of bicycling and walking trips Countywide. On balance,

these increased bicycle and pedestrian trips would result in reductions in

automobile trips, reducing emissions attributable to automobiles. These added

bicycle and walk trips do not result in any net increase in emissions, other than

those that may occur from short-term construction emissions (which are discussed

below).



4. Biological Resources


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Flora

a. A loss or disturbance to a unique, rare or threatened

plant community?

X

b. A reduction in the numbers or restriction in the range

of any unique, rare or threatened species of plants?

X

c. A reduction in the extent, diversity, or quality of

native vegetation (including brush removal for fire

prevention and flood control improvements)?

X

d. An impact on non-native vegetation whether

naturalized or horticultural if of habitat value?

X

e. The loss of healthy native specimen trees? X

f. Introduction of herbicides, pesticides, animal life,

human habitation, non-native plants or other factors

that would change or hamper the existing habitat?

X

Fauna

g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range,

or an impact to the critical habitat of any unique, rare,

threatened or endangered species of animals?

X

h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals

onsite (including mammals, birds, reptiles,

amphibians, fish or invertebrates)?

X

i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for

foraging, breeding, roosting, nesting, etc.)?

X

j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident

or migratory fish or wildlife species?

X

k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise,

human presence and/or domestic animals) which

could hinder the normal activities of wildlife?

X


Santa Barbara County contains a wide diversity of tree (hardwood and coniferous forests,

oak woodlands), shrub (chaparrals, coastal scrubs), and herbaceous (grasslands, arid beach

dunes) habitat types. Santa Barbara County is home to a variety of hardwood, coniferous,

and mixed woodlands and forests; grasslands; urban and agricultural areas that have been

highly disturbed, such as croplands, urban areas, and shoreline.

Four primary watersheds occur within the County: Santa Maria, which includes the Cuyama

and Sisquoc watersheds; San Antonio Creek; Santa Ynez; and South Coast, which is

composed of approximately 50 short, steep watersheds. The headwaters of the principal

watersheds are generally undeveloped, and the middle and lower sections are often developed

with urban or agricultural uses. The four major rivers draining these watersheds are the

Santa Maria, Sisquoc, Cuyama, and Santa Ynez. Several creeks are associated with each one

of these watersheds. The drainages within these watersheds are of biological importance as



they provide valuable foraging habitat, breeding habitat, and movement habitat for a wide

variety of animal species, including sensitive species such as steelhead – Southern California

distinct population segment (DPS), California red-legged frog, and southwestern willow

flycatcher.

The region contains a number of wetlands that are regarded as important biological resources

both because of their rarity in southern California and because they serve a variety of

functional values. Several types of wetlands exist in the County, including coastal salt

marshes, vernal pools, and riparian habitats.

For the purpose of this Initial Study/MND, special status species are those plants and

animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as threatened or endangered by

the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the federal Endangered Species Act; those

listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by the CDFW under the

California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as “Species of Special

Concern,” “Fully Protected,” or “Watch List” by the CDFW; and plants with a California Rare

Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1, 2, 3, and 4.


Santa Barbara County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual (2008) includes

guidelines for the assessment of biological resource impacts. The following thresholds are

applicable to this project:

Wetlands: Projects which result in a net loss of important wetland area or wetland habitat

value, either through direct or indirect impacts to wetland vegetation, degradation of water

quality, or would threaten the continuity of wetland-dependent animal or plant species are

considered to have a potentially significant effect on the environment. Projects which

substantially interrupt wildlife access, use and dispersal in wetland areas would typically be

considered to have a potentially significant impact. Projects which disrupt the hydrology of

wetlands systems would be considered to have a potentially significant impact.

Coastal Salt Marsh: Project-created impacts may be considered significant due to the

potential to change species composition and habitat value through: substantial alteration of

tidal circulation or decrease of tidal prism; adverse hydrologic changes; substantial increase

of sedimentation, introduction of toxic elements or alteration of ambient water temperature;

construction activity which creates indirect impacts such as noise and turbidity on sensitive

animal species, especially during critical periods such as breeding and nesting; disruption of

wildlife dispersal corridors; or disturbance or removal of substantial amounts of marsh

habitats.

Vernal Pools: Project-created impacts may be considered significant due to: direct removal of

vernal pool or vernal pools complex; direct or indirect hydrologic changes such as altered

freshwater input, changes in the watershed area or run-off quantity and/or quality,

substantial increase in sedimentation, introduction of toxic elements or alteration of ambient

water temperature; or disruption of larger plan community within which vernal pool occurs,

isolation or interruption of contiguous habitat which would disrupt animal movement



patterns, seed dispersal routes or increase vulnerability of species to weed invasion or local

extirpation.

Riparian Habitats: Project-created impacts may be considered significant due to: direct

removal of riparian vegetation; disruption of riparian wildlife habitat, particularly animal

dispersal corridors and or understory vegetation; or intrusion within the upland edge of the

riparian canopy leading to potential disruption of animal migration, breeding, etc., through

increased noise, light and glare, and human or domestic animal intrusion; or construction

activity which disrupts critical time periods for fish and other wildlife species.

Native Grasslands: In general, project-created impacts to native grasslands may be

considered significant if they involve removal of or severe disturbance to a patch or a

combined patch area of native grasses that is greater than one-quarter (1/4) acre in size. The

grassland must contain at least 10 percent relative cover of native grassland species (based

on a sample unit). Impacts to patch areas less than one-quarter acre in size that are clearly

isolated and not part of a significant native grassland or an integral component of a larger

ecosystem are usually considered insignificant.

Oak Woodlands and Forests: Project-created impacts may be considered significant due to

habitat fragmentation, removal of understory, alteration to drainage patterns, disruption of

the canopy, removal of a significant number of trees that would cause a break in the canopy,

or disruption in animal movement in and through the woodland.

Individual Native Trees: Project-created impacts may be considered significant due to the

loss of 10% or more of the trees of biological value on a project site.

Other Rare Habitat Types: The Manual recognizes that not all habitat-types found in Santa

Barbara County are addressed by the habitat-specific guidelines. Impacts to other habitat

types or species may be considered significant, based on substantial evidence in the record,

if they substantially: (1) reduce or eliminate species diversity or abundance; (2) reduce or

eliminate the quality of nesting areas; (3) limit reproductive capacity through losses of

individuals or habitat; (4) fragment, eliminate, or otherwise disrupt foraging areas and/or

access to food sources; (5) limit or fragment range and movement; or (6) interfere with natural

processes, such as fire or flooding, upon which the habitat depends.

Discussion

a. A loss or disturbance to a unique, rare or threatened plant community?

b. A reduction in the numbers or restriction in the range of any unique, rare

or threatened species of plants?

g. A reduction in the numbers, a restriction in the range, or an impact to the

critical habitat of any unique, rare, threatened or endangered species of

animals?

Less than Significant with Mitigation: The Regional Active Transportation Plan

proposes infrastructure, network, and program improvements that aim to increase

bicycle and walking trips throughout the region. The plan includes goals and policies



that are not site-specific and therefore does not have direct impacts to biological

resources. The vast majority of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure would be

developed within existing road right-of-way. Some infrastructure, such as Class I

bicycle lanes and multi-use trails, may traverse existing developed areas, open space,

parks, and property boundaries that may be adjacent to or on sites that contain

sensitive biological resource areas. The networks identified in the Regional Active

Transportation Plan remain conceptual in nature and potential project-level

environmental impacts would need to be evaluated in more detail when the project

enters the design phase, as well as potential alternative alignments to avoid

potentially significant impacts. Figures V.4-1 through V.4-4 illustrate the region’s

critical habitats and adjacent proposed Regional Active Transportation Plan

infrastructure. For the purposes of this Initial Study/MND, potential impacts to

candidate, sensitive, or special status species are considered potentially significant.

With the implementation of the following mitigation measures for individual projects,

the resulting impacts would be reduced.



FIGURE V.4-1: CRITICAL HABITATS IN THE SANTA MARIA VALLEY

(Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)



FIGURE V.4-2: CRITICAL HABITATS IN THE LOMPOC VALLEY




FIGURE V.4-3: CRITICAL HABITATS IN THE SANTA YNEZ VALLEY




FIGURE V.4-4A: CRITICAL HABITATS IN THE SOUTH COAST AREA – GOLETA & SANTA BARBARA




FIGURE V.4-4B: CRITICAL HABITATS IN THE SOUTH COAST AREA – MONTECITO, SUMMERLAND, AND CARPINTERIA




Mitigation Measures

The following mitigation measures are appropriate for bicycle and pedestrian projects

that may impact biological resources in the impact areas identified above:

Bio Resources-1: Biological Resources Screening and Assessment. On a project-by-

project basis, a preliminary biological resource screening shall be performed to

determine whether the project has any potential to impact biological resources. If the

project would have the potential to impact biological resources, prior to construction,

a qualified biologist shall conduct a biological resources assessment (BRA) or similar

type of study to document the existing biological resources within the project footprint

plus a buffer to determine the potential impacts to those resources. The BRA shall

evaluate the potential for impacts to all biological resources including, but not limited

to special status species, nesting birds, wildlife movement, sensitive plant

communities/critical habitat and other resources judged to be sensitive by local, state,

and/or federal agencies. Pending the results of the BRA, design alterations, further

technical studies (i.e., protocol surveys) and/or consultations with the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and/or

other local, state, and federal agencies may be required.

The following mitigation measures shall be incorporated, only as applicable, into the

BRA for projects where specific resources are present or may be present and impacted

by the project. Note that specific surveys described in the mitigation measures below

may be completed as part of the BRA where suitable habitat is present.

Special Status Plant Species Surveys.

Special Status Plant Species Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

Restoration and Monitoring.

Endangered/Threatened Species Habitat Assessment and Protocol Surveys.

Endangered/Threatened Species Avoidance and Minimization.

Non-Listed Special Status Animal Species Avoidance and Minimization.

Preconstruction Surveys for Nesting Birds.

Monarch Butterfly Avoidance and Minimization.

Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP).

Tree Protection.

Bio Resources-2: Jurisdictional Delineation. If projects implemented under the

Regional Active Transportation Plan occur within or adjacent to wetland, drainages,

riparian habitats, or other areas that may fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFG, US

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),

and/or California Coastal Commission (CCC), a qualified biologist shall complete a

jurisdictional delineation. The jurisdictional delineation shall determine the extent of

the jurisdiction for each of these agencies and shall be conducted in accordance with

the requirement set forth by each agency. The result shall be a preliminary

jurisdictional delineation report that shall be submitted to the implementing agency,

USACE, RWQCB, CDFG, and CCC, as appropriate, for review and approval. If



jurisdictional areas are expected to be impacted, then the RWQCB would require a

Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit and/or Section 401 Water Quality

Certification (depending upon whether or not the feature falls under federal

jurisdiction). If CDFG asserts its jurisdictional authority, then a Streambed

Alteration Agreement pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and

Game Code would also be required prior to construction within the areas of CDFG

jurisdiction. If the USACE asserts its authority, then a permit pursuant to Section

404 of the Clean Water Act would likely be required. The CCC would also require a

coastal development permit for projects falling within its jurisdiction.

Bio Resources-3: Wetland and Riparian Habitat Restored. Impacts to jurisdictional

wetland and riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 (acres of

habitat restored to acres impacted), and shall occur on-site or as close to the impacted

habitat as possible. A mitigation and monitoring plan shall be developed by a qualified

biologist and shall be implemented for no less than five years after construction of the

segment, or until the SBCAG/local jurisdiction and/or the permitting authority (e.g.,

CDFG or USACE) has determined that restoration has been successful.

c. A reduction in the extent, diversity, or quality of native vegetation

(including brush removal for fire prevention and flood control

improvements)?

d. An impact on non-native vegetation whether naturalized or horticultural if

of habitat value?

e. The loss of healthy native specimen trees?

Less than Significant with Mitigation. As noted above, the Regional Active

Transportation Plan proposes infrastructure, network, and program improvements

that aim to increase bicycle and walking trips throughout the region. The plan

includes goals and policies that are not site-specific and therefore does not have direct

impacts to biological resources. The vast majority of bicycle and pedestrian

infrastructure would be developed within existing road right-of-way. The construction

of infrastructure, such as Class I bicycle lanes and multi-use trails, could potentially

result in a reduction in native vegetation or loss of healthy native specimen trees in

some areas. Therefore, the plan may result in potentially significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures



Bio Resources-4: Landscaping Plan. If landscaping is proposed for a specific project, a

qualified biologist/landscape architect shall prepare a landscape plan for that project.

This plan shall indicate the locations and species of plants to be installed. Drought

tolerant, locally native plant species shall be used. Noxious, invasive, and/or non-

native plant species that are recognized on the Federal Noxious Weed List, California

Noxious Weeds List, and/or California Invasive Plant Council Lists 1, 2, and 4 shall



not be permitted. Species selected for planting shall be similar to those species found

in adjacent native habitats.

Bio Resources-5: Invasive Weed Prevention and Management Program. Prior to start

of construction for each project, an Invasive Weed Prevention and Management

Program shall be developed by a qualified biologist to prevent invasion of native

habitat by non-native plant species. A list of target species shall be included, along

with measures for early detection and eradication. All disturbed areas shall be

hydroseeded with a mix of locally native species upon completion of work in those

areas. In areas where construction is ongoing, hydroseeding shall occur where no

construction activities have occurred within six (6) weeks since ground disturbing

activities ceased. If exotic species invade these areas prior to hydroseeding, weed

removal shall occur in consultation with a qualified biologist and in accordance with

the restoration plan.

Bio Resources-6: When new bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure or network

improvements are planned, the project sponsor shall assure that project-specific

environmental reviews consider alternative alignments, follow property lines, and/or

consider corridor realignment, buffer zones, setbacks and fencing to avoid loss of

healthy native specimen trees, native vegetation and/or other vegetated areas of

special habitat value.

f. Introduction of herbicides, pesticides, animal life, human habitation, non-

native plants or other factors that would change or hamper the existing

habitat?

h. A reduction in the diversity or numbers of animals onsite (including

mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or invertebrates)?

i. A deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat (for foraging, breeding,

roosting, nesting, etc.)?

j. Introduction of barriers to movement of any resident or migratory fish or

wildlife species?

k. Introduction of any factors (light, fencing, noise, human presence and/or

domestic animals) which could hinder the normal activities of wildlife?




that are not site-specific and therefore does not have direct impacts to biological

resources. The vast majority of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure would be

developed within existing road right-of-way.

The construction of infrastructure, such as Class I bicycle lanes and multi-use trails,

may result in an introduction of herbicides (due to maintenance) and non-native

vegetation which may alter current habitats. Due to the programmatic nature of the



Regional Active Transportation Plan, a precise, project-level analysis of the specific

impacts of individual projects on wildlife movement and nurseries is not possible at

this time. In general, the capital improvement projects envisioned in the plan involve

construction of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in urbanized or already

developed areas. Several individual projects would, however, increase human activity

in areas where sensitive biological resources could occur. In particular, several of the

proposed bridge, trail and bikeway projects in the Santa Maria, Lompoc, Goleta, and

Carpinteria areas could increase human activity in the vicinity of riparian areas,

wildlife nurseries or corridors, and potentially sensitive coastal habitats (see Figures

V.4-1 through V.4-4b).

Direct impacts to wildlife include increased noise and human presence during

construction, as well as increased trash, which may attract predators to the project

site and discourage wildlife use of surrounding natural habitat. Indirect impacts

include invasion of natural habitats by non-native species and increased presence of

humans and domestic animals over the long-term. In addition, transportation

improvement projects could include new segments of fencing or walls that that could

hinder wildlife movement.

Mitigation Measures



Bio Resources-7: Fence and Lighting Design. All projects including long segments of

fencing and lighting shall be designed to minimize impacts to wildlife. Fencing should

allow wildlife movement through riparian or other natural habitat when feasible.

Where fencing is required for public safety concerns, the fence shall be designed to

permit wildlife movement by incorporating design features such as:

A minimum 16 inches between the ground and the bottom of the fence to provide

clearance for small animals;

A minimum 12 inches between the top two wires, or top the fence with a wooden

rail, mesh, or chain link instead of wire to prevent animals from becoming

entangled; and

If privacy fencing is required near open space areas, openings at the bottom of the

fence measure at least 16 inches in diameter shall be installed at reasonable

intervals to allow wildlife movement. If fencing must be designed in such a manner

that wildlife passage would not be permitted, wildlife crossing structures shall be

incorporated into the project design as appropriate. Similarly, lighting installed as

part of any project shall be designed to be minimally disruptive to wildlife. This

may be accomplished through the use of hoods to direct light away from natural

habitat, using low intensity lighting, and using as few lights as necessary to

achieve the goals of the project.

Bio Resources-8: Construction Best Management Practices. The following

construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be incorporated into all

grading and construction plans:



Designation of a 20 mile per hour speed limit in all construction areas.

All vehicles and equipment shall be parked on pavement, existing roads, and

previously disturbed areas, and clearing of vegetation for vehicle access shall be

avoided to the greatest extent feasible.

The number of access routes, number and size of staging areas, and the total area

of the activity shall be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the goal of the

project.

Designation of equipment washout and fueling areas to be located within the

limits of grading at a minimum of 100 feet from waters, wetlands, or other

sensitive resources as identified by a qualified biologist. Washout areas shall be

designed to fully contain polluted water and materials for subsequent removal

from the site.

Daily construction work schedules shall be limited to daylight hours only.

Mufflers shall be used on all construction equipment and vehicles shall be in good

operating condition.

Drip pans shall be placed under all stationary vehicles and mechanical equipment.

All trash shall be placed in sealed containers and shall be removed from the project

site a minimum of once per week.

No pets are permitted on project site during construction.

5. Cultural Resources


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

Archaeological Resources

a. Disruption, alteration, destruction, or adverse effect on

a recorded prehistoric or historic archaeological site

(note site number below)?

X

b. Disruption or removal of human remains? X

c. Increased potential for trespassing, vandalizing, or

sabotaging archaeological resources?

X

d. Ground disturbances in an area with potential cultural

resource sensitivity based on the location of known

historic or prehistoric sites?

X

Ethnic Resources

e. Disruption of or adverse effects upon a prehistoric or

historic archaeological site or property of historic or

cultural significance to a community or ethnic group?

X

f. Increased potential for trespassing, vandalizing, or

sabotaging ethnic, sacred, or ceremonial places?

X

g. The potential to conflict with or restrict existing

religious, sacred, or educational use of the area?

X


Archaeological remains have been identified in areas throughout Santa Barbara County. The

prehistoric populations of Santa Barbara County include the Purisimeno, Cuyama, Ynezeno,



and Barbareno Chumash Indians. Geographically, the Chumash occupied the regions

between San Luis Obispo (north) and Malibu Canyon (south), and from the islands off the

coast to the western boundary of the San Joaquin Valley of Central California. In general,

the Chumash Indians were both land and ocean exploiters, utilizing many environmental

eco-zones and developing an extensive trade network for the exchange of the raw and finished

resources.

Paleontological resources, also known as fossils, are the remains, traces or imprints of once-

living organisms preserved in rocks or sediment. Paleontological sites are normally

discovered in cliffs, ledges, steep gullies, or along wave-cut terraces where vertical rock

sections are exposed. Fossil material may be exposed by a trench, ditch, or channel caused by

construction. Vertebrate fossil sites are usually found in non-marine or continental deposits.

Vertebrate fossils of continental material are usually rare, sporadic, and localized. Scattered

vertebrate remains (mammoth, mastodon, horse, ground sloth, camel, and rodents) have been

identified from the Pleistocene non-marine continental terrace deposits in various locations

in Santa Barbara County.


The County Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual contains guidelines for

identification, significance determination, and mitigation of impacts to important cultural

resources. Chapter 8 of the Manual, the Archaeological Resources Guidelines: Archaeological,

Historic and Ethnic Element, specifies that if a resource cannot be avoided, it must be

evaluated for importance under CEQA. CEQA Section 15064.5 contains the criteria for

evaluating the importance of archaeological and historical resources. For archaeological

resources, the criterion usually applied is: (D), “Has yielded, or may be likely to yield,

information important in prehistory or history”. If an archaeological site does not meet any

of the four CEQA criteria in Section 15064.5, additional criteria for a “unique archaeological

resource” are contained in Section 21083.2 of the Public Resource Code, which states that a

“unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site that: 1) contains

information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a

demonstrable public interest in that information; 2) has a special and particular quality such

as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or 3) is directly

associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

A project that may cause a substantial adverse effect on an archaeological resource may have

a significant effect on the environment.

Discussion

a. Disruption, alteration, destruction, or adverse effect on a recorded

prehistoric or historic archaeological site?

b. Disruption or removal of human remains?

c. Increased potential for trespassing, vandalizing, or sabotaging

archaeological resources?



d. Ground disturbances in an area with potential cultural resource sensitivity

based on the location of known historic or prehistoric sites?

e. Disruption of or adverse effects upon a prehistoric or historic archaeological

site or property of historic or cultural significance to a community or ethnic

group?

f. Increased potential for trespassing, vandalizing, or sabotaging ethnic,

sacred, or ceremonial places?

g. The potential to conflict with or restrict existing religious, sacred, or

educational use of the area?




that are not site-specific and therefore does not have direct impacts to archaeological

resources or sacred, ethnic, or ceremonial places. Archaeological resources include

prehistoric and historic remains and also may reside in areas where humans have

subtly transformed the landscape within the area. These resources can have a surface

or sub-surface component (or both). Their disruption, alteration, disturbance, or

destruction may cause an irreplaceable loss to the region’s and California’s history.

The construction of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in undeveloped areas (such

as Class I bike lanes and walking trails) may involve marginal subsurface grading in

some cases. Alternative alignments may also be considered during the project-specific

design phase. Although the potential for disturbance to archaeological resources is

low, potential impacts to cultural resources would be potentially significant.

Implementation of the following measures would mitigate any such potential impacts

to a less than significant level.

Cultural Resources-1: Prior to local permit approval, all ground disturbances shall be

subject to a Phase 1 archaeological survey in compliance with the provisions of the

County Archaeological Guidelines. If significant resources are encountered and

potential impacts are unavoidable, the project sponsor shall have an approved

archaeologist prepare and complete a Phase 2 subsurface testing program in

coordination with the responsible local permitting agency.



6. Energy


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. Substantial increase in demand, especially during peak

periods, upon existing sources of energy?

X

b. Requirement for the development or extension of new

sources of energy?

X


Private electrical and natural gas utility companies provide service to customers in Central

and Southern California, including those in the region.


The County has not identified significance thresholds for electrical and/or natural gas

impacts at this time.

Discussion

a. Substantial increase in demand, especially during peak periods, upon

existing sources of energy?

b. Requirement for the development or extension of new sources of energy?

Less than Significant. The Regional Active Transportation Plan proposes

infrastructure, network, and program improvements that aim to increase bicycle and

walking trips throughout the region. The plan includes goals and policies that are not

site-specific and therefore do not substantially increase demand for energy or require

the development or extension of new sources of energy. As alternative forms of

transportation, bicycling and walking do not require sources of electrical or gas energy

and therefore would not result in an increase in the demand for energy from these

sources or require development of new sources. In some cases, there may be projects

that will require implementation of lighting, but on a cumulative level, these would

have a negligible effect on regional energy needs.



7. Fire Protection


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. Introduction of development into an existing high fire

hazard area? X

b. Project-caused high fire hazard? X

c. Introduction of development into an area without

adequate water pressure, fire hydrants or adequate

access for fire fighting?

X

d. Introduction of development that will hamper fire

prevention techniques such as controlled burns or

backfiring in high fire hazard areas?

X

e. Development of structures beyond safe Fire Dept.

response time? X


The Santa Barbara County region contains a number of High Fire Hazard Areas which can

be more susceptible to potential brush fires depending on weather conditions.


The County Fire Department has adopted a number of standards for evaluating potential

impacts associated with project development. However, none would be applicable to this plan,

as all of the thresholds specifically apply to the provision of fire protection for residential and

commercial buildings.

Discussion

a. Introduction of development into an existing high fire hazard area?

b. Project caused high fire hazard?




that are not site-specific, but does include a list and locations of planned bicycle and

pedestrian network projects. A majority of the proposed bikeway and pedestrian

network projects would be created within the rights-of-way of public streets and

developed areas. Some network improvements may be constructed and located in a

high fire hazard area and may potentially increase fire hazards during the

construction phase, which would make these impacts potentially significant.

Implementation of the following measure would mitigate these impacts to a less than

significant level.



Fire Protection-1: The project sponsor shall consider alternative alignments to avoid

high fire hazard areas, if feasible, or signage to indicate to users that the area is within

a high fire hazard area.

Fire Protection-2: The project sponsor shall work with the local jurisdiction prior to

initiating construction and ensure measures shall be taken to mitigate the potential

for brush or grass fires from use of heavy equipment, welding, vehicles with catalytic

converters, etc. These requirements may include:

a. Equipping equipment and vehicles with mufflers and extinguishers;

b. Briefing personnel on the dangers of wildfire and need for response;

c. Provision of a cell phone to on-site supervisor(s) for initiating a 911 response

time in a timely manner in the event of a medical emergency and/or fire;

d. Removal of dead and dry vegetation immediately surrounding the facility;

e. Smoking shall be in a designated area and/or in enclosed cab only;

f. Hot work permit is required as needed;

g. A water tender will be available on each construction site during the entire

phase of construction;

h. Availability of a competent water tender operator on site during all

construction.

c. Introduction of development into an area without adequate water pressure,

fire hydrants or adequate access for firefighting?

d. Introduction of development that will hamper fire prevention techniques

such as controlled burns or backfiring in high fire hazard areas?

e. Development of structures beyond safe Fire Department response time?

No Impact. The Regional Active Transportation Plan does not propose any new

residential or commercial development or structures and therefore would have no

impact.

8. Geologic Processes


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. Exposure to or production of unstable earth conditions

such as landslides, earthquakes, liquefaction, soil

creep, mudslides, ground failure (including expansive,

compressible, collapsible soils), or similar hazards?

X

b. Disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering

of the soil by cuts, fills or extensive grading? X

c. Exposure to or production of permanent changes in

topography, such as bluff retreat or sea level rise? X

d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique

geologic, paleontologic or physical features? X




Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on

or off the site? X

f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or

dunes, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion

which may modify the channel of a river, or stream, or

the bed of the ocean, or any bay, inlet or lake?

X

g. The placement of septic disposal systems in

impermeable soils with severe constraints to disposal

of liquid effluent?

X

h. Extraction of mineral or ore? X

i. Excessive grading on slopes of over 20%? X

j. Sand or gravel removal or loss of topsoil? X

k. Vibrations, from short-term construction or long-term

operation, which may affect adjoining areas?

X

l. Excessive spoils, tailings or over-burden? X


Existing geologic and soils conditions for the region are briefly summarized below. Figures

V.8-1 through V.8-3 show known faults and zones of ground shaking intensity, liquefaction

hazard, slope stability and landslide hazards throughout the region.

Seismic Activity

The South Coast area is susceptible to high levels of groundshaking due to the numerous

active (e.g., More Ranch, Mission Ridge, Arroyo Panda, Red Mountain) and potentially active

(e.g., Goleta, Mesa-Rincon, Carpinteria, Santa Ynez) faults which border or pass through the

area. Historically, very large earthquakes very near the area have produced groundshaking

(horizontal acceleration values measured in percent G’s, or “force of gravity”) above building

code values. Distant faults (most notably the San Andreas, to the north and east) have the

potential to produce a very high level of groundshaking with differing frequency content that

may affect linear and longer period structures (roads and bridges).

Fault rupture can occur during severe earthquakes and produce ground surface

displacements (vertical or horizontal offsets) of a few feet to a few tens of feet. Where these

faults cross structures (roads, bridges, buildings), there could be substantial damage and

high potential for injury to occupants or uses of the structures. The highest potential for fault

rupture is directly on the active faults.

The Santa Maria Valley area has been mapped as a moderate groundshaking hazard for all

project areas. Due to the potential activity on the Lion’s Head fault southwest of the Santa

Maria Valley on Vandenberg Air Force Base, east-west to northwest-southwest geologic

structures could exist along the south edge of the City of Santa Maria. Activity on this fault

could cause intense groundshaking, although such an event has not occurred to date.



The Santa Ynez Valley area has two zones of groundshaking: high and moderate. The high

rating is based on the presence of faults to the south (Santa Ynez Fault) and to the north (Big

Pine-Rinconada faults). However, there are no known faults in the valley itself. The valley is

therefore considered at moderate risk. Fault rupture potential is generally low throughout

the valley except along the southern margin where the rocks are more highly deformed and

faulted. The specific character, location and age of last movement are not known for faults in

this area; however, activity potential cannot be entirely discounted.

The Lompoc area is located mostly within a zone of moderate shaking potential due to the

same earthquake sources as described for the Santa Ynez Valley. Only the southern portion

of the valley has high potential.

Liquefaction

Liquefaction (the loss of soil bearing strength during a strong earthquake) is a potential

occurrence in several areas with younger soils as well as in areas where the groundwater

table is less than 50 feet deep. In the South Coast region, these conditions occur mainly near

Carpinteria, in the coastal zone area of downtown Santa Barbara, and in the Isla Vista -

Airport - Goleta area. The severity of ground deformation due to liquefaction is dependent on

the density and depth of the liquefied material. Shallower materials experience the most

severe effects.

In the Santa Maria Valley, liquefaction potential is greatest around Guadalupe, where it is

rated moderate. It could be high in local areas if groundwater levels are within 50 feet of the

surface. Most other areas have a low liquefaction potential, indicating fairly deep

groundwater.

Liquefaction potential in the Santa Ynez Valley varies from low to moderate. Data possibly

indicate high potential in areas adjacent to the Santa Ynez River (State Route 246) and

Alamo Pintado Road at Ballard.

Most of the Lompoc Valley area south of the Santa Ynez River is rated as having moderate

liquefaction hazard.

Slope Stability

Landslides and surficial slope failures are most likely to occur in areas of greater than 25

percent slope (hillside areas) and along steep bluffs. In the South Coast region, unstable

hillsides are common in the foothills of the Coast Range. In addition, the majority of the

coastline is comprised of highly erodible and unstable coastal bluffs.

The southern portions of the Santa Maria Valley underlain by old dune sand and Orcutt sand

are rated low for slope stability hazard, although some areas are susceptible to local slumps

in oversteepened slopes. North of the railroad and Betteravia Road, there is no natural slope

stability hazard identified within the area.

Due to the local relief and nature of geologic units, the entire Santa Ynez Valley is classified

as having moderate potential for slope stability problems, with local areas of high potential



along U.S. 101 and at Ballard at Alamo Pintado Road. Areas adjacent to steep arroyos may

not be mapped and should be considered as having high potential for slope instability.

Due to the flat topography, the risk of slope stability is low throughout the Lompoc Valley

south of the Santa Ynez River. Along the road extensions, this risk will be moderate to high,

depending on the nature of construction (e.g., high cut slopes), and the geologic formations

(e.g., Rincon and Monterey) or fault/fracture zones encountered.

Expansive, Compressible/Collapsible Soils

Soils with relatively high clay content are expansive due to the capacity of clay minerals to

take in water and swell (expand) to greater volumes. Because the bedrock and soils contain

relatively substantial amounts of clay, this can be a condition experienced along numerous

roadways in the area. Collapsible and compressible soils occur in areas where fine-grained

soils have accumulated relatively rapidly and not been buried with associated consolidation.

Areas in the South Coast region with the highest potential for these impacts include

Carpinteria and the Airport-Goleta area south of US 101.

Areas of moderate and highly expansive soil hazard exist in the Santa Maria Valley, but in

nearly all project areas, the potential is low. The exception is in the Guadalupe area and

where Orcutt sand is exposed below old dune sand just south of the railroad to near the Santa

Maria Airport, where the hazard is rated moderate. The only area that is rated with a

moderate hazard potential for collapsible soils is in Guadalupe, west of State Route 1.

The potential for expansive soils in the Santa Ynez Valley is classified as moderate, but local

areas (particularly around the Santa Ynez Airport and along Baseline Avenue) may have a

higher potential. Low expansion potential soils may also be found along State Route 246 and

Highway 101.

The potential for expansive and collapsible soils within the Lompoc Valley area is generally

rated low. This potential for expansive soils increases to the south along the hills outside the

area of the proposed projects due to the composition of diatomaceous earth. This type of

condition results in a very high range of water solubility and shrink potential.



FIGURE V.8-1: FAULTS AND EARTHQUAKE GROUND SHAKING INTENSITY

(Source: County of Santa Barbara Seismic & Safety Element, 1979)



FIGURE V.8-2: LIQUEFACTION HAZARD




FIGURE V.8-3: SLOPE STABILITY AND LANDSLIDE HAZARDS





Pursuant to the County of Santa Barbara’s Adopted Thresholds and Guidelines Manual,

potential impacts related to geological resources may have the potential to be significant if

the proposed project involves any of the following characteristics:

1. The project site or any part of the project is located on land having substantial

geologic constraints. Areas constrained by geology include parcels located near

active or potentially active faults and property underlain by rock types associated

with compressible/collapsible soils or susceptible to landslides or severe erosion.

"Special Problems" areas designated by the Board of Supervisors have been

established based on geologic constraints, flood hazards and other physical

limitations to development.

2. The project results in potentially hazardous geologic conditions such as the

construction of cut slopes exceeding a grade of 1.5 horizontal to 1 vertical.

3. The project proposes construction of a cut slope over 15 feet in height as measured

from the lowest finished grade.

4. The project is located on slopes exceeding 20% grade.

Discussion

a. Exposure to or production of unstable earth conditions such as landslides,

earthquakes, liquefaction, soil creep, mudslides, ground failure (including

expansive, compressible, collapsible soils), or similar hazards?




site-specific and therefore do not have a direct impact to geological processes.

However, the plan proposes implementation of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure

and network improvements in areas which could be prone to slope stability, soil and

liquefaction hazards. These specific projects with potentially significant impacts are

listed in Table V.8-1. Due to the programmatic nature of the Regional Active

Transportation Plan, a precise, project-level analysis of the specific impacts of

individual projects on geological hazards is not possible at this time. However, the

general nature of these hazards, and their potential impacts, are described below.

Earthquakes

The region is located in a relatively seismically active area of California and is likely

to be subjected to moderate seismic ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. An

earthquake along known active fault zones such as those illustrated in Figure V.8-1

could result in severe ground shaking and consequently cause injury and/or property

damage along the proposed regional bike and pedestrian corridors. The Regional

Active Transportation Plan mainly relates to policy guidance, which by definition is

not site-specific, and therefore would not result directly in impacts related to seismic



ground shaking. The Regional Active Transportation Plan does not include

construction of major structures, and development of any infrastructure

improvements would conform to applicable regulatory guidelines and would involve

primarily extension or integration of bicycle and pedestrian facilities within existing

road right-of-way; therefore, significant impacts related to seismic ground shaking are

not anticipated. During the design phase of individual network segments, projects

would be reviewed by the jurisdictions in which they are proposed to ensure design in

conformance with applicable regulatory guidance; therefore, impacts related to

seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

Liquefaction and High Groundwater

Liquefaction potential is widespread throughout the County, particularly in lower

lying valleys overlaid by alluvium, as shown on Figure V.8-2. Such areas are also

typically characterized by high groundwater. This condition is most prevalent in the

Santa Maria and Santa Ynez Valleys, as well as along the other coastal valleys of the

County. Nearly all of the County’s major roadways and urban centers are located in

such areas. Consequently, projects contained within the Regional Active

Transportation Plan may be subject to liquefaction and high groundwater hazards.

However, ground penetration for the vast majority of these projects will be minimal.

In addition, each project will be subject to its own local project-level permit review and

inspection process during the design phase. Therefore, this impact would be less than

significant.

Ground Failure - Expansive and Compressible Soils.

As shown in Figure V.8-3, areas with compressible soils exist in the region, primarily

in Goleta south of U.S. 101 and downtown Carpinteria. However, they are not

prevalent. The vast majority of the projects contained in the Regional Active

Transportation Plan are primarily located in urban developed areas along existing

developed road rights-of-way, which were designed and built in compliance with local

grading codes and road standards that take into account potential impacts due to

expansive soils. In cases where bike and pedestrian paths and infrastructure may be

proposed outside of existing road rights-of-way, these would be integrated into the

natural environments with minimal grading. In addition, the plan does not make

recommendations for the construction of any large structures that would be subject to

damage by expansive soils. Therefore, this impacts would be less than significant.

Landslides & Mudslides

Roadway projects in mountainous areas or along steeply sloped streambanks are most

susceptible to landslide or mudflows when soils are wet, particularly adjacent to areas

of unstabilized cut or fill. There are some projects proposed under the Regional Active

Transportation Plan located near coastal bluffs or in the foothills and would be subject

to landslides and/or mudflows, as indicated by the landslide locations identified on

Figure V.8-3. However, the recommended infrastructure improvements do not include

construction of structures, and development of network improvements would conform



with applicable regulatory guidelines and would involve primarily extension or

integration of bike and pedestrian facilities with existing roadways; therefore,

significant impacts related to landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or

collapse are not anticipated. During the design phase of individual network segments,

projects would be reviewed by the local jurisdictions in which they are proposed to

ensure design in conformance with applicable regulatory guidance and therefore

impacts related would be less than significant.

b. Disruption, displacement, compaction or overcovering of the soil by cuts,

fills or extensive grading?

c. Exposure to or production of permanent changes in topography, such as

bluff retreat or sea level rise?

i. Excessive grading on slopes of over 20%?




site-specific and therefore do not have a direct impact to geological processes resulting

from grading. Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects typically involve a

minimal amount of cut and fill which would have negligible impacts on the

environment. Each project listed in the plan would be required to adhere to local

regulations, as necessary, and submit soils engineering studies and/or obtain grading

permits as necessary.

d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic,

paleontologic or physical features?




that are not site-specific and therefore do not have a direct impact to unique geologic,

paleontologic or physical features. The construction of bicycle and pedestrian

infrastructure in undeveloped areas (such as Class I bike lanes and walking trails)

may involve marginal subsurface grading in some cases. Alternative alignments may

also be considered during the project-specific design phase. Although the potential for

disturbance to unique geologic, paleontologic or physical features is low, the impact to

would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure Cultural

Resources-1 (described in Section V.5) would mitigate the impact to a less than

significant level.

e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?

f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands or dunes, or changes in

siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river, or

stream, or the bed of the ocean, or any bay, inlet or lake?






that are not site-specific and therefore do not have a direct impact to geological

processes resulting from sedimentation and erosion. Any potential impacts that may

occur would result during the grading phase of construction of the local bicycle and

pedestrian infrastructure and network projects. Grading operations would remove

vegetative cover and disturb the ground surface, thereby increasing the potential for

erosion and sedimentation impacts. Therefore, these impacts are potentially

significant. Implementation of the following measure would mitigate these impacts to

a less than significant level.

Geo-1: Erosion and Sediment Control Plans can be implemented on a project-level

basis, as needed, by the local jurisdictions within which these projects are being

implemented. Grading and erosion and sediment control plans shall be designed to

minimize erosion during construction and shall be implemented for the duration of

the grading period and until re-graded areas have been stabilized by structures, long-

term erosion control measures or permanent landscaping. The project sponsor shall

submit the Erosion Sediment Control Plan using Best Management Practices

designed to stabilize the site, protect natural watercourses/creeks, prevent erosion,

and convey storm water runoff to existing drainage systems keeping contaminants

and sediments onsite.

g. The placement of septic disposal systems in impermeable soils with severe

constraints to disposal of liquid effluent?

h. Extraction of mineral or ore?

j. Sand or gravel removal or loss of topsoil?

k. Vibrations, from short-term construction or long-term operation, which may

affect adjoining areas?

l. Excessive spoils, tailings or over-burden?

No Impact. The Regional Active Transportation Plan would not result in the use of

septic systems, does not involve mining, and would not cause construction-related

vibrations.

9. Hazardous Materials/Risk of Upset


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. In the known history of this property, have there been

any past uses, storage or discharge of hazardous

materials (e.g., fuel or oil stored in underground tanks,

pesticides, solvents or other chemicals)?

X




Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

b. The use, storage or distribution of hazardous or toxic

materials? X

c. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous

substances (e.g., oil, gas, biocides, bacteria, pesticides,

chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or

upset conditions?

X

d. Possible interference with an emergency response plan

or an emergency evacuation plan? X

e. The creation of a potential public health hazard? X

f. Public safety hazards (e.g., due to development near

chemical or industrial activity, producing oil wells,

toxic disposal sites, etc.)?

X

g. Exposure to hazards from oil or gas pipelines or oil well

facilities? X

h. The contamination of a public water supply? X


Hazardous materials and wastes are defined and regulated in the United States by federal,

state, and local regulations, including those administered by U. S, Environmental Protection

Agency, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the U.S. Department

of Transportation. In general, a hazardous material is any item or agent (biological, chemical,

or physical) that has the potential to cause harm to humans, animals, or the environment,

either by itself or through interaction with other factors. A hazardous waste is a waste with

properties that make it dangerous or capable of having a harmful effect on human health or

the environment.

Transportation-related use of hazardous materials can pose a risk to residents in the Santa

Barbara County region. Actual transport of hazardous materials via truck, rail, and other

modes involves a degree of risk of accident and release. The use of hazardous materials and

the generation of hazardous waste in the construction and maintenance of the transportation

system are other avenues of risk or exposure. In addition, the past disposal of hazardous

materials and/or wastes in a manner that creates residual contamination of soil and/or

groundwater can be a source of risk when such sites are disturbed in the course of future

transportation projects or associated development.

The proposed regional network is primarily located on existing public streets and road rights-

of-way throughout the region. The proposed bicycle and pedestrian network and

infrastructure improvements would pass through urbanized areas as well as less developed

areas. As site-specific developments are proposed, more specific environmental review of

hazardous sites can be assessed. During the design phase of an individual segment,

alternative alignments may be identified that deviate from the plan to reduce impacts due to

hazards and hazardous materials.




The County of Santa Barbara’s safety threshold addresses involuntary public exposure from

projects involving significant quantities of hazardous materials. The threshold addresses the

likelihood and severity of potential accidents to determine whether the safety risks of a

project exceed significant levels.

Discussion

a. In the known history of this property, have there been any past uses, storage

or discharge of hazardous materials (e.g., fuel or oil stored in underground

tanks, pesticides, solvents or other chemicals)?




site-specific, but does include a list and locations of planned bicycle and pedestrian

infrastructure and network projects that could potentially be located on sites that may

have a history of past uses that include storage or discharge of hazardous materials.

A majority of these proposed bikeway and pedestrian infrastructure and network

projects would be created within the rights-of-way of public streets and developed

areas. Some Class I bike lanes and multi-use trails are not located on roadways and

may involve grading and there is a potential that the paths could be proposed in a

location listed as a hazardous materials site. However, due to the programmatic

nature of the plan, it is not possible to determine with accuracy whether future

projects located on previously undisturbed land would contain hazardous materials.

Such projects would be required to address any on-site environmental issues,

including any potential hazardous materials and mitigate such impacts accordingly.

Impacts would be less than significant.

d. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency

evacuation plan?




site-specific and would not interfere with an emergency response or evacuation plan.

A majority of these proposed bikeway and pedestrian infrastructure and network


areas. Some Class I bike lanes and multi-use trails would be located in rural areas,

but are not expected to adversely affect emergency response times or hinder

evacuation response in the event of an emergency. Therefore, impacts would be less

than significant.

b. The use, storage or distribution of hazardous or toxic materials?



c. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (e.g., oil, gas,

biocides, bacteria, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an

accident or upset conditions?

e. The creation of a potential public health hazard?

f. Public safety hazards (e.g., due to development near chemical or industrial

activity, producing oil wells, toxic disposal sites, etc.)?

g. Exposure to hazards from oil or gas pipelines or oil well facilities?

h. The contamination of a public water supply?

No Impact. The Regional Active Transportation Plan does not propose the

development of structures that would produce or emit hazardous/toxic materials,

result in the risk of an explosion due to release of hazardous substances, creation of a

potential public health or public safety hazard, exposure to hazards from oil or gas

infrastructure, or contamination of a public water supply.

10. Historic Resources


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts on a structure or

property at least 50 years old and/or of historic or

cultural significance to the community, state or nation?

X

b. Beneficial impacts to an historic resource by providing

rehabilitation, protection in a conservation/open

easement, etc.?

X


With regard to modern history, Santa Barbara County was settled relatively early in the

years of Spanish Exploration. Expeditions passed through the area as early as 1769 and the

Missions were founded shortly thereafter: Santa Barbara in 1786, La Purisima in 1787, and

Santa Fries in 1804. The historic occupation of Santa Barbara County can be presented in

three major divisions: 1) the Mission Period of 1769–1830; the Rancho Period of 1830–1865;

and the Period of Americanization post-1865.

The Mission Period was characterized by the acculturation of Native American populations

into the Mission system of sedentary lifestyles and cultivation (rather than hunting and

gathering). During the Rancho Period, the Spanish/Mexican governments granted large

tracts of land to recognized individuals. These tracts were generally located along the coast,

though some inland areas and channel islands were settled as well. Open lands were usually

associated with the Mission lands, as the Spanish government permitted large tracts to be

controlled by the Mission (the Mexican government moved away from this practice). By the

end of the Rancho Period, the populations of Native Americans were lessening while those of



the Mexican (and Anglo) were growing. Small towns were developed and trade was

increasing. It was not long, however, before the Mexican/American conflicts led to the

transfer of Alta California to the United States. The Gold Rush of 1849 resulted in a

population boom that secured California for the United States.

From the early days of exploration, the Santa Barbara Channel was recognized as a

significant locale for trade and defense. The seat of Santa Barbara’s local government was

founded in the City of Santa Barbara and established within the Casa de la Guerra. This

governing body permitted Santa Barbara (and its vicinity) autonomy from the government

located to the north and factions to the south (Los Angeles and San Diego).

Table V.10-1 presents identified cultural resources in Santa Barbara County. Included in the

table are sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places, sites designated as a

California State Landmark, and those that are considered Historical Landmarks by the

Santa Barbara County Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee.

TABLE V.1-1: SANTA BARBARA COUNTY HISTORICAL RESOURCES

City or

Community Resource Name

National

Register

State

Landmark

County

Landmark

Santa Barbara Acacia Lodge X

Santa Barbara Andalucia Building X

Lompoc Artesia School X

Solvang The Ballard Adobes X

Goleta Barnsdall-Rio Grande Gasoline Station X

Sisquoc Benjamin Foxen Adobe Site X

Los Olivos Berean Baptist Church X

Santa Barbara Bryce Beach Cabana and Funicular X

Santa Barbara Burton Mound X

Goleta Campbell No. 2 Archaeological Site X

Montecito Canby House X

Carpinteria Carpinteria and Indian Village of

Mishopshnow X

Santa Barbara Carrillo Adobe X

Carpinteria Casa Blanca Poolhouse X

Santa Barbara Casa de la Guerra X

Sisquoc Chapel of San Ramon X

Santa Barbara Coral Casino X

Lompoc Cota Adobe on Rancho Santa Rosa X

Santa Barbara Covarrubias Adobe X

Manzana Creek Dabney Cabin X

Montecito Deane School Buildings X

New Cuyama Eastern Sierra Madre Ridge Archaeological

District X

Santa Barbara El Paseo and Casa de la Guerra X

Santa Barbara Faith Mission X



City or


National

Register

State

Landmark

County

Landmark

Solvang Foley Estates Vineyard and Winery X

Gaviota Gaviota Pass X

Santa Barbara Glendessary X

Goleta Goleta Depot X X

Santa Barbara Gonzalez, Rafael, House X

Santa Barbara Hammond’s Estate Site X

Los Olivos Hartley House X

Santa Barbara Hastings Adobe X

Goleta Helena T. Devereux Hall X

Santa Barbara Herschell, Allan, 3-Abreast Carousel X

Santa Barbara Hill-Carrillo Adobe X

Casmalia Hitching Post X

Santa Barbara Hope, Thomas, House X X

Santa Barbara Irvine-Richard Property X

Santa Barbara Janssens-Orella-Birk Building X

Montecito Juarez-Hosmer Adobe X

Lompoc La Purisima Mission X

Gaviota Las Cruces Adobe X

Montecito Leaping Greyhound Bridge X

Ballard Little Red Schoolhouse X

Lompoc Lompoc Public Library X

Los Alamos Los Alamos Ranch House X

Santa Barbara Los Banos del Mar X

Santa Barbara Madulce Guard Station and Site X

Manzana Creek Manzana School House X

Santa Barbara Masini Adobe X

Los Olivos Mattei’s Tavern X

Santa Maria Minerva Club of Santa Maria X

Lompoc Mission de la Purisima Concepcion de Maria

Santisima Site X X

Santa Barbara Mission Santa Barbara X

Solvang Mission Santa Ines X X

Santa Barbara Old Lobero Theatre X

Goleta Orella Adobes X

Santa Barbara Painted Cave X

Orcutt Pine Grove Cemetary X

Santa Barbara Point Conception Light Station X

Point Sal

Highlands Point Sal Ataje X

Ballard Presbyterian Church X

Solvang Rancho El Alamo, Pintado Adobe X



City or


National

Register

State

Landmark

County

Landmark

Montecito Rancho Las Fuentes Lemon Packing House X

Santa Barbara Rich, Irene and Frances, Beach Cabana X

Santa Barbara Royal Spanish Presidio X

Goleta San Jose Winery X

Santa Barbara San Marcos Rancho X

Santa Barbara San Miguel Island Archeological District X

Montecito San Ysidro Adobe X

Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, Mission

Dam and Aqueduct X

Santa Barbara Santa Barbara County Courthouse X X

Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Island Archeological District X

Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Mission X

Santa Barbara Santa Barbara Presidio X

Santa Barbara Santa Cruz Island Archeological District X

Lompoc Santa Rosa School X

Santa Ynez Santa Ynez Public Library X

Santa Barbara Sexton, Joseph and Lucy Foster, House X X

Goleta Shrode Produce Company X

Sisquoc Siquoc Church and San Ramon Chapel

Cemetary X

Sisquoc Sisquoc store X

Lompoc

Site of original Mission and remaining ruins

of buildings of Mission de la Purisima

Concepcion de Maria Santisma

X X

Santa Barbara Southern Pacific Train Depot X

Lompoc Space Launch Complex 10 X

Lompoc SS YANKEE BLADE X

Santa Barbara St. Vincent Orphanage and School Building X

Montecito Steedman Estate X

Goleta Stow House X X

Carpinteria Sunday School Oak X

Los Alamos Union Hotel and California Garage X

Santa Barbara US Post Office—Santa Barbara Main X

Santa Barbara Val Verde X X

Santa Barbara Virginia Hotel X

Lompoc Well, Hill 4 X

Summerland World War I Monument X

Solvang Wulff’s Windmill X

Source: California Office of Historic Preservation, website, 2012, Santa Barbara County Historic Landmarks

Advisory Committee, website, 2012.




Historic Resource impacts were evaluated through use of the County of Santa Barbara’s

Cultural Resources Guidelines. A significant resource a) possesses integrity of location,

design, workmanship, material, and/or setting; b) is at least fifty years old, and c) is

associated with an important contribution, was designed or built by a person who made an

important contribution, is associated with an important and particular architectural style,

or embodies elements demonstrating outstanding attention to detail, craftsmanship, use of

materials, or construction methods.

Discussion

a. Adverse physical or aesthetic impacts on a structure or property at least 50

years old and/or of historic or cultural significance to the community, state

or nation?




site-specific and therefore do not have a direct impact to historic resources. The

construction of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in undeveloped areas (such as

Class I bike lanes and walking trails) may involve construction within areas in close

proximity to sites identified in Table V.10-1. However, such infrastructure would be

located outside of and would not involve direct physical impacts to such sites. As a

result, the potential for direct physical impacts to these historic resources is low and

would be less than significant.

b. Beneficial impacts to an historic resource by providing rehabilitation,

protection in a conservation/open easement, etc.?

No Impact. Beneficial impacts to historic resources associated with implementation

of the Regional Active Transportation Plan have not been identified at this time.

11. Land Use


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. Structures and/or land use incompatible with existing

land use? X

b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or

regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the

project (including, but not limited to the general plan,

specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning

ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or

mitigating an environmental effect?

X

c. The induction of substantial growth or concentration of

population? X




Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

d. The extension of sewer trunk lines or access roads with

capacity to serve new development beyond this

proposed project? X

e. Loss of existing affordable dwellings through

demolition, conversion or removal? X

f. Displacement of substantial numbers of existing

housing, necessitating the construction of

replacement housing elsewhere?

X

g. Displacement of substantial numbers of people,

necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere?

X

h. The loss of a substantial amount of open space? X

i. An economic or social effect that would result in a

physical change? (i.e. Closure of a freeway ramp results

in isolation of an area, businesses located in the vicinity

close, neighborhood degenerates, and buildings

deteriorate. Or, if construction of new freeway divides

an existing community, the construction would be the

physical change, but the economic/social effect on the

community would be the basis for determining that the

physical change would be significant.)

X

j. Conflicts with adopted airport safety zones? X


There are numerous federal, State, and local laws, regulations, policies, programs, plans,

codes, and ordinances that regulate land use in Santa Barbara County. Local land use issues

are regulated by the general plans, specific plans, and zoning ordinances of the County and

the various incorporated cities within the County. City and unincorporated County land

which lies within the California coastal zone is subject to provisions outlined in each

jurisdiction’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) as mandated by the California Coastal Act. The

Coastal Zone generally consists of all land 1,000 yards inland from the mean high tide line.

The LCPs consist of coastal land use plans, zoning, and other implementing actions as needed

to comply with the Coastal Act and include land use regulations related to housing, coastal

access, public works, and all types of transportation infrastructure and facilities.


The County of Santa Barbara’s Thresholds and Guidelines Manual contains no specific

thresholds for land use. Generally, a potentially significant impact can occur if a project

would result in substantial growth-inducing effects.

Discussion

a. Structures and/or land use incompatible with existing land use?



b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency

with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general

plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for

the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c. The induction of substantial growth or concentration of population?

d. The extension of sewer trunk lines or access roads with capacity to serve

new development beyond this proposed project?

e. Loss of existing affordable dwellings through demolition, conversion or

removal?

f. Displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the

construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

g. Displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the

construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

i. An economic or social effect that would result in a physical change? (i.e.

Closure of a freeway ramp results in isolation of an area, businesses located

in the vicinity close, neighborhood degenerates, and buildings deteriorate.

Or, if construction of new freeway divides an existing community, the

construction would be the physical change, but the economic/social effect on

the community would be the basis for determining that the physical change

would be significant.)

j. Conflicts with adopted airport safety zones?

No Impact. The Regional Active Transportation Plan does not cause a physical

change that conflicts with adopted environmental policies or regulations. The project

is not growth inducing, and does not result in the loss of affordable housing, loss of

open space, or a significant displacement of people. The plan does not involve the

extension of a sewer trunk line, and does not conflict with any airport safety zones, as

bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure is a compatible land use within these zones.

h. The loss of a substantial amount of open space?




site-specific and would not result in the loss of a substantial amount of open space. A

majority of these proposed bikeway and pedestrian infrastructure and network


areas. Some Class I bike lanes and multi-use trails would be located in rural areas on

previously undeveloped areas, but the amount of bike and trail development

associated with this plan would not be substantial. Therefore, impacts would be less

than significant.



12. Noise


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. Long-term exposure of people to noise levels exceeding

County thresholds (e.g. locating noise sensitive uses

next to an airport)?

X

b. Short-term exposure of people to noise levels exceeding

County thresholds? X

c. Project-generated substantial increase in the ambient

noise levels for adjoining areas (either day or night)? X


The Regional Active Transportation Plan includes infrastructure and network improvements

throughout the region. Each project will be required to comply with the noise ordinances of

the jurisdiction in which they occur. The proposed project improvements include improving

the number and classification of bicycle corridors, bicycle support facilities (e.g., bike

parking), and sidewalks. The bike and pedestrian corridors of the Plan are along a variety of

roadway types and adjacent land uses, some of which would be noise-sensitive uses (e.g.,

residences).

The dominant source of noise in the project area is vehicle traffic on project roadways with

varying average daily traffic (ADT) volumes and speed limits, which establish the average

daytime noise level at a distance of 50 feet from the center line of a roadway. Bicycle and

pedestrian activity in the project area produces noise levels that are minimal compared to

ambient noise levels, and not audible over vehicle traffic on roadways along which these

corridors are established.

The proposed project would generate noise from construction of the proposed bicycle and

pedestrian network improvements, which could include new bicycle and pedestrian facilities

and/or widening of existing facilities. These improvements could include roadway and

parking area grading and paving, possible curb and pavement breaking, installation of cycle

tracks, parking facilities, bicycle corridor signage, bike lane markings, new sidewalk

installations, crosswalk installations, and pedestrian beacons/signals.

Methodology and Significant Threshold

Noise is generally defined as unwanted or objectionable sound which is measured on a

logarithmic scale and expressed in decibels (dB(A)). The duration of noise and the time period

at which it occurs are important values in determining impacts on noise-sensitive land uses.

The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and Day-Night Average Level (Ldn) are noise

indices which account for differences in intrusiveness between day- and night-time uses. The

County of Santa Barbara noise thresholds are: 1) 65 dB(A) CNEL maximum for exterior

exposure, and 2) 45 dB(A) CNEL maximum for interior exposure of noise-sensitive uses.

Noise-sensitive land uses include: residential dwellings; transient lodging; hospitals and



other long-term care facilities; public or private educational facilities; libraries, churches; and

places of public assembly.

Discussion

a. Long-term exposure of people to noise levels exceeding County thresholds

(e.g. locating noise sensitive uses next to an airport)?

c. Project-generated substantial increase in the ambient noise levels for

adjoining areas (either day or night)?

Less than Significant. Key objectives of the Regional Active Transportation Plan

are to promote increased bicycling and walking to reduce vehicle trips and enhance

the regional bicycle and pedestrian network to increase bike and walk mode share.

Therefore, implementation of the Plan is likely to result in increased bicycling and

walking trips throughout the region. The resulting increased bicycle and walk trips

would have a negligible impact on ambient noise levels in adjoining areas and would

not expose people to noise levels exceeding County thresholds on a the long-term basis.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

b. Short-term exposure of people to noise levels exceeding County thresholds?


contains a list of projects that would be implemented by the local jurisdictions.

Construction activity associated with these bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure and

network projects contained in the plan could create temporary noise level increases in

discrete locations throughout the County. Local noise ordinance requirements would

apply to construction activity associated with project-level implementation. This

impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of measures Noise-1 through

Noise-4 would mitigate the impact to a less than significant level.

Noise-1: The project sponsor shall ensure that, where residences or other noise

sensitive uses are located, appropriate measures shall be implemented to ensure

consistency with local noise ordinance requirements relating to construction. Specific

techniques may include, but are not limited to, restrictions on construction timing,

use of sound blankets on construction equipment, and the use of temporary walls and

noise barriers to block and deflect noise.

Noise-2: Project sponsors shall ensure that equipment and trucks used for project

construction utilize the best available noise control techniques (including mufflers,

use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields

or shrouds).

Noise-3: Project sponsors shall ensure that impact equipment (e.g., jack hammers,

pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction be hydraulically or

electrically powered wherever feasible to avoid noise associated with compressed air

exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatically powered tools

is unavoidable, use of an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust can lower

noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. When feasible, external jackets



on the impact equipment can achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Whenever feasible, use

quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than impact equipment operation.

Noise-4: Locate stationary noise sources as far from sensitive receptors as possible.

Stationary noise sources that must be located near existing receptors will be

adequately muffled.

13. Public Facilities


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. A need for new or altered police protection and/or

health care services?

X

b. Student generation exceeding school capacity? X

c. Significant amounts of solid waste or breach any

national, state, or local standards or thresholds

relating to solid waste disposal and generation

(including recycling facilities and existing landfill

capacity)?

X

d. A need for new or altered sewer system facilities (sewer

lines, lift-stations, etc.)?

X

e. The construction of new storm water drainage or

water quality control facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could

cause significant environmental effects?

X


The projects contained within the Regional Active Transportation Plan would traverse

residential, commercial, institutional, park, and open space areas currently served by existing

public services, including police protection, schools, and parks. Various fire departments and

police stations throughout the region would provide any fire and/or emergency medical service

or police service associated with the proposed project. The approval of the Regional Bicycle Plan

would not increase the demand for public services, including fire and police protection, schools,

parks, or other public services.


The County of Santa Barbara uses the following thresholds for public facilities:

A significant level of school impacts is generally considered to occur when a project would

generate sufficient students to require an additional classroom.

A project is considered to result in significant impacts to landfill capacity if it would

generate 196 tons per year of solid waste.

Discussion



a. A need for new or altered police protection and/or health care services?

Less than Significant. Implementation of the Regional Active Transportation Plan

would not generate population growth as the majority of the proposed bicycle and

pedestrian infrastructure and network improvements would be located in public streets

and rights-of-way. Implementation of the plan would likely result in an increase in the

number of bicycling and walking trips in the region, potentially resulting in additional

emergencies necessitating police response and provision of additional health care

services (such as collisions and injuries). However, the Regional Bicycle Plan makes

recommendations and identifies policy guidance for bicycle and pedestrian safety.

Therefore, impacts on police protection and/or health care services are considered less

than significant.

b. Student generation exceeding school capacity?

c. Significant amounts of solid waste or breach any national, state, or local

standards or thresholds relating to solid waste disposal and generation

(including recycling facilities and existing landfill capacity)?

d. A need for new or altered sewer system facilities (sewer lines, lift-stations,

etc.)?

e. The construction of new storm water drainage or water quality control

facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could

cause significant environmental effects?

No Impact. The Regional Active Transportation Plan would not generate additional

population growth or result in the creation of new structures. The project would not

generate additional students exceeding school capacity, would not generate solid waste,

would not require sewer facilities, and would not require construction of storm water

drainage or water quality control facilities. Therefore, the project would have no impact

in these areas.

14. Recreation


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. Conflict with established recreational uses of the area? X

b. Conflict with biking, equestrian and hiking trails? X

c. Substantial impact on the quality or quantity of

existing recreational opportunities (e.g., overuse of an

area with constraints on numbers of people, vehicles,

animals, etc. which might safely use the area)?

X




The area covered under the Regional Active Transportation Plan traverses portions of all the

individual jurisdictions within the region as well as areas within the unincorporated area of

Santa Barbara County. Within the Santa Barbara County region, a wide variety of

recreational opportunities are provided by cooperative efforts among federal agencies, state

agencies, local agencies and jurisdictions, tribal entities, school districts, and private entities.

These include parks, camping grounds, hiking areas, golfing, trails, equestrian centers,

swimming facilities, boating, recreational vehicle parks, and off-road vehicle use areas. When

possible, these recreational opportunities are coordinated with appropriate agencies,

community groups, and nonprofit organizations to ensure consistency and compatibility with

surrounding land uses and to ensure appropriate levels of necessary infrastructure. This is

done through the discretionary review process and inter-jurisdictional cooperation. Many

jurisdictions have requirements that park and recreation facilities be provided based upon

park space per capita.

The Regional Active Transportation Plan includes recommendations that include

improvements and modifications to the regional bicycle and pedestrian network throughout

the Santa Barbara County region both to encourage bicycling and walking as a

transportation option as well as enhance connections to local and regional activity centers,

transit facilities, and other regional non-motorized systems.


The County of Santa Barbara Thresholds and Guidelines Manual contains no threshold for

park and recreation impacts. However, the Board of Supervisors has established a minimum

standard ratio of 4.7 acres of recreation/open space per 1,000 people to meet the needs of a

community.

Discussion

a. Conflict with established recreational uses of the area?

b. Conflict with biking, equestrian and hiking trails?




site-specific and would not result in conflicts with established recreational uses or

with biking, equestrian, and hiking trails. A majority of these proposed bikeway and

pedestrian infrastructure and network projects would be created within the rights-of-

way of public streets and developed areas. In most cases, the proposed projects would

be compatible and beneficial to the area within which they are proposed and would be

utilized by bicyclists, pedestrians and others for recreational uses. Potential conflicts

with equestrian uses should be considered at the project development level,

particularly in the Santa Ynez Valley.

c. Substantial impact on the quality or quantity of existing recreational

opportunities (e.g., overuse of an area with constraints on numbers of

people, vehicles, animals, etc. which might safely use the area)?



Less than Significant. As stated previously, the Regional Active Transportation

Plan would not generate additional population growth. Therefore, it would not, in and

of itself, generate an impact on the quality or quantity of existing recreational

opportunities or result in overuse of an area with constraints on the number of people

which might safely use the area.

15. Transportation/Circulation


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular

movement (daily, peak-hour, etc.) in relation to existing

traffic load and capacity of the street system?

X

b. A need for private or public road maintenance, or need

for new road(s)? X

c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for

new parking? X

d. Substantial impact upon existing transit systems (e.g.

bus service) or alteration of present patterns of

circulation or movement of people and/or goods?

X

e. Alteration to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X

f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists

or pedestrians (including short-term construction and

long-term operational)?

X

g. Inadequate sight distance? X

ingress/egress? X

general road capacity? X

emergency access? X

h. Impacts to Congestion Management Plan system? X


SBCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan-Sustainable Communities Strategy, adopted in

August 2013, establishes goals and policies to meet the regional transportation demands of

the region. In addition to motorized vehicle traffic, the RTP-SCS aims to improve transit and

alternate modes of transportation. Alternative transportation is incorporated into the plan

as an alternate means to conveniently connect all major communities of the region and to

future transit systems.

Traffic- and transportation-related impacts are major concerns throughout the region. As

population throughout the region grows, traffic also increases. As a means of measuring and

evaluating traffic congestion the concept of “Level of Service” (LOS) is used. LOS describes

operational conditions on a transportation facility and is a general overall measurement of

service conditions such as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruption,

and comfort and convenience. LOS A represents the best operating conditions while LOS F



represents the worst. LOS is used primarily to assess how an increase in vehicular traffic

may affect congestion.

The Regional Active Transportation Plan provides an overview of existing conditions as

related to the bicycle and pedestrian modes in the region, and highlights improvements that

will influence the future. Santa Barbara County is conducive to travel by bicycle and walking

because the County has a relatively flat terrain in urbanized areas and year-round fair

weather conditions. According to the RTP-SCS, Santa Barbara County has approximately

350 miles of bikeways (see Table 4.12-5). There are several major bike routes through the

County. These include the California Pacific Coast Bike Route (CPCBR) and the California

Coastal Trail (CCT). In some cases, bike lanes and routes would require the restriping or

widening of existing public streets and rights-of-way. During the design stage of individual

projects, the alignments of corridor segments may be modified to avoid or reduce impacts to

vehicular traffic.


According to the County’s Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, a significant

traffic impact would occur when:

a. The addition of project traffic to an intersection increases the volume to capacity (V/C)

ratio by the value provided below, or sends at least 15, 10 or 5 trips to an intersection

operating at LOS D, E or F.

LEVEL OF SERVICE

(including project)

INCREASE IN VOLUME/CAPACITY

GREATER THAN

A 0.20

B 0.15

C 0.10

Or the addition of:

D 15 trips

E 10 trips

F 5 trips

b. Project access to a major road or arterial road would require a driveway that would

create an unsafe situation, or would require a new traffic signal or major revisions to an

existing traffic signal.

c. Project adds traffic to a roadway that has design features (e.g., narrow width, road

side ditches, sharp curves, poor sight distance, inadequate pavement structure) or receives

use which would be incompatible with substantial increases in traffic (e.g. rural roads with

use by farm equipment, livestock, horseback riding, or residential roads with heavy

pedestrian or recreational use, etc.) that will become potential safety problems with the

addition of project or cumulative traffic. Exceeding the roadway capacity designated in the

Circulation Element may indicate the potential for the occurrence of the above impacts.

d. Project traffic would utilize a substantial portion of an intersection(s) capacity where

the intersection is currently operating at acceptable levels of service (A-C) but with



cumulative traffic would degrade to or approach LOS D (V/C 0.81) or lower. Substantial is

defined as a minimum change of 0.03 for intersections which would operate from 0.80 to 0.85

and a change of 0.02 for intersections which would operate from 0.86 to 0.90, and 0.01 for

intersections operating at anything lower.

Discussion

a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement (daily, peak-hour,

etc.) in relation to existing traffic load and capacity of the street system?

c. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking?

e. Alteration to waterborne, rail or air traffic?

f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians

(including short-term construction and long-term operational)?

g. Inadequate sight distance, ingress/egress, general road capacity, and

emergency access?


provides an overview of existing alternative transportation infrastructure and

highlights improvements that will influence the future, thereby potentially increasing

bicycle and pedestrian trips on the regional network. The Plan also includes a list of

bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and network projects to be implemented by the

local jurisdictions. Some of these projects may have the potential to alter the existing

traffic load and capacity of the street system or affect existing (on-street) parking

facilities due to the implementation of widening or re-striping, which may result in

short-term alteration of traffic patterns during construction or permanent alterations

of traffic patterns due to implementation of lane reductions (for example, a road diet).

Similarly, implementation of these projects may increase the likelihood of traffic

hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. Additionally, some of these

projects may have the potential to be within or intersect with railroad right-of-way,

thereby potentially increasing the chance of altering rail travel during either

construction or operations. Project sponsors would need to assess potential intrusion

within railroad right-of-way at the project level during the design phase.

Implementation of mitigation measure Transportation-1 would mitigate these

impacts to a less than significant level.

Transportation-1: A traffic study shall be prepared by the project sponsor during

design of a proposed network improvement to adequately assess and mitigate the

potential impacts associated with the project. The traffic study shall include

assessment of existing Levels of Service (LOS), evaluate the feasibility of

accommodating the proposed alternative transportation facility or route within the

existing roadway so that it does not impact safety or traffic service levels, and assess

the effect the project may have on vehicle parking demand. Adequate design features

shall be recommended and incorporated into the project to allow for a safe facility and



adequate traffic service levels. Loss of on-street parking should be quantified and

disclosed in the traffic study.

b. A need for private or public road maintenance, or need for new road(s)?

Less than Significant. The Regional Active Transportation Plan does not generate

new population or result in the creation of new structures and would therefore not

require a need for private or public roadway maintenance. However, the plan includes

a list of regional bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and network improvements

that are to be implemented at the local level. Responsibility for maintenance of these

facilities would be left to the project sponsors and would need to be assessed on a

project-level basis. The Regional Active Transportation Plan contains a list of

recommendations that local jurisdictions can consider for maintenance and upkeep of

bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

c. Substantial impact upon existing transit systems (e.g. bus service) or

alteration of present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or

goods?

Less than Significant. The expected increases in bicycling and walking trips

associated with implementation of the Regional Active Transportation Plan would not

have a substantial impact upon existing transit systems and would not alter

circulation patterns or goods movement.

h. Impacts to Congestion Management Plan system?

No Impact. The Regional and Bicycle Pedestrian Plan would not generate auto

vehicle trips onto the Congestion Management Program network. Therefore, the plan

would not generate an impact to the Congestion Management Plan system.

16. Water Resources/Flooding


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water

movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X

b. Changes in percolation rates, drainage patterns or the

rate and amount of surface water runoff? X

c. Change in the amount of surface water in any water

body? X

d. Discharge, directly or through a storm drain system,

into surface waters (including but not limited to

wetlands, riparian areas, ponds, springs, creeks,

streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, tidal areas, bays,

ocean, etc) or alteration of surface water quality,

including but not limited to temperature, dissolved

oxygen, turbidity, or thermal water pollution?

X




Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

e. Alterations to the course or flow of flood water or need

for private or public flood control projects? X

f. Exposure of people or property to water-related

hazards such as flooding (placement of project in 100-

year flood plain), accelerated runoff or tsunamis, sea

level rise, or seawater intrusion?

X

g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of

groundwater? X

h. Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through

direct additions or withdrawals, or through

interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or

recharge interference?

X

i. Overdraft or over-commitment of any groundwater

basin? Or, a significant increase in the existing

overdraft or over-commitment of any groundwater

basin?

X

j. The substantial degradation of groundwater quality

including saltwater intrusion? X

k. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise

available for public water supplies? X

l. Introduction of storm water pollutants (e.g., oil,

grease, pesticides, nutrients, sediments, pathogens,

etc.) into groundwater or surface water?

X


The County contains four primary watersheds: Santa Maria, which includes the Cuyama and

Sisquoc watersheds; San Antonio Creek; Santa Ynez; and South Coast, which is composed of

approximately 50 short, steep watersheds. The headwaters of the principal watersheds are

generally undeveloped, and the middle and lower sections are often developed with urban or

agricultural uses. The four major rivers draining these watersheds are the Santa Maria,

Sisquoc, Cuyama, and Santa Ynez. Average rainfall throughout the County is approximately

15 to 18 inches per year. Streamflow is generated directly from rainfall with little base flow

contribution from headwaters. Most rivers and the lower reaches of streams are dry in the

summer.

Water Quality

Water quality is a concern because of its potential effect on human health, enterprise, aquatic

organisms, and ecosystem conditions. Quality is determined by factors such as native

condition of groundwater and surface water sources of contamination (natural and human

induced), and extent of seawater intrusion.

Surface Water. Various entities in the region are focusing their efforts on poor surface water

quality in creeks, rivers, and oceans due to polluted storm water and urban runoff discharges.



Runoff pollutants can include pesticides, fertilizers, green waste, animal waste, human

waste, petroleum hydrocarbons (gasoline, motor oil), trash, and other constituents. One of

the primary sources of surface water contamination in the County is runoff from impervious

surfaces in urban areas. Stormwater flowing over roadways and other transportation

facilities carries urban pollutants through natural drainage systems or man-made storm

drain facilities to a body of surface water. Such discharges are referred to as “non-point”

sources because the pollutants are generated from multiple locations rather than a single

source and location. These discharges are mostly unregulated, resulting in untreated

pollutants entering rivers, lakes, and the Pacific Ocean. Pollutants contained within urban

runoff primarily include suspended solids, oil, grease, pesticides, pathogens, and air

pollutants.

Groundwater. Water quality in the groundwater basins of the County has degraded over the

years due to continual use of the resource. This is particularly true in areas where the water

table has been substantially lowered. Additional factors that contribute to the decline of

water quality include: percolation of agricultural runoff contaminated with fertilizers and

pesticides into the water table; percolation of water from public and private sewage treatment

systems; percolation of contaminated urban runoff; the reduction of the natural “flushing”

effect of water through-flow caused by lowered overall water levels, and the upward or lateral

diffusion of connate brines by over-pumping of freshwater aquifers. Several areas in the

County, including Santa Barbara and Santa Maria, have experienced signs of seawater

intrusion. As of yet, these initial signs of intrusion do not pose a threat to drinking water

supplies. The importation of State Water Project water, with lower salt content than the local

sources, provides for higher quality “return flows,” and thus, helps with basin water quality.

Since 1977, discharge of State Water Project water has tended to lower the total dissolved

solids (TDS) of groundwater (Integrated Regional Water Management Program, 2007).

Water Supply

Water supplies include groundwater, surface water, imported State Water Project water, and

recycled water. Water supplies also are enhanced by the conjunctive use of surface and

groundwater supplies and cloud seeding. Santa Barbara County’s water supply currently

comes from two primary sources: 1) surface water impounded behind dams on the Santa Ynez

River, augmented by infiltration into delivery tunnels drilled through the Santa Ynez

Mountains; and 2) groundwater pumped primarily from the County’s alluvial basins.

Groundwater is also obtained from bedrock aquifers in the hills that surround the alluvial

basins and supplies about 77 percent of the County’s domestic, commercial, industrial and

agricultural water. Additional water supplies are available to certain cities and communities

from the Coastal Branch Aqueduct of the State Water Project.

In general, water supplies in the County have been and continue to be limited. Long-term

average annual yields of the surface reservoirs, as currently constructed, are fixed amounts

that are subject only to further downward adjustments due to siltation. In addition,

groundwater supplies are limited in terms of the annual amount of water that can be

withdrawn without causing a long-term drop in water levels (“Safe Yield”) and in the total

storage of a basin that can be removed without substantial environmental effects (“Available

Yield”). Such water source limitations make water conservation a necessity in the county.



Flooding/Exposure

The hazard of flooding is generally the highest in well-defined canyons with sizeable drainage

areas. Also, low-lying areas which would experience rising water or overflow of stream banks

during 100-year storms present a high hazard. Such areas occur in numerous locations along

the coastal State highway system, and locally on County roads. In particular, low-lying areas

near the coastline may experience more frequent and severe flood events due to sea level rise.

The highest flooding potential is along the Santa Maria River floodplain and in areas

downstream from Orcutt Creek. The highest flooding potential is along the Santa Ynez River

floodplain and in areas downstream from arroyos with large watershed areas that are not

regulated by debris basins or check dams.

The highest flooding potential is along the Santa Ynez River floodplain and in areas along

Miguelito Creek, which runs north through the City of Lompoc and ties into the Santa Ynez

River. Surf is also located in a high flood hazard area as it is situated at the mouth of the

Santa Ynez River.


The County of Santa Barbara uses impact thresholds under the “Water Resources” category

and “Water Quality” category. The thresholds for each of these two were used in this Initial

Study/MND and are outlined below.

Water Resources Thresholds

A project is determined to have a significant effect on water resources if it would exceed

established threshold values which have been set for each overdrafted groundwater basin.

These values were determined based on an estimation of a basin’s remaining life of available

water storage. If the project’s net new consumptive water use [total consumptive demand

adjusted for recharge less discontinued historic use] exceeds the threshold adopted for the

basin, the project’s impacts on water resources are considered significant.

A project is also deemed to have a significant effect on water resources if a net increase in

pumpage from a well would substantially affect production or quality from a nearby well.

Water Quality Thresholds

A significant water quality impact is presumed to occur if the project:

Is located within an urbanized area of the county and the project construction or

redevelopment individually or as a part of a larger common plan of development or

sale would disturb one (1) or more acres of land;

Increases the amount of impervious surfaces on a site by 25% or more;

Results in channelization or relocation of a natural drainage channel;

Results in removal or reduction of riparian vegetation or other vegetation (excluding

non-native vegetation removed for restoration projects) from the buffer zone of any

streams, creeks or wetlands;

Is an industrial facility that falls under one or more of categories of industrial activity

regulated under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)



Phase I industrial storm water regulations (facilities with effluent limitation;

manufacturing; mineral, metal, oil and gas, hazardous waste, treatment or disposal

facilities; landfills; recycling facilities; steam electric plants; transportation facilities;

treatment works; and light industrial activity);

Discharges pollutants that exceed the water quality standards set forth in the

applicable NPDES permit, the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB)

Basin Plan or otherwise impairs the beneficial uses1 of a receiving water body;

Results in a discharge of pollutants into an “impaired” water body that has been

designated as such by the State Water Resources Control Board or the RWQCB under

Section 303 (d) of the Federal Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act (i.e., the

Clean Water Act); or

Results in a discharge of pollutants of concern to a receiving water body, as identified

by the RWQCB.

Discussion

a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in

either marine or fresh waters?

e. Alterations to the course or flow of flood water or need for private or public

flood control projects?

g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of groundwater?

Less than Significant. Implementation of the list of infrastructure and network

improvements included in the Regional Active Transportation Plan would not result

in changes in currents or water movements in marine or fresh waters, nor would they

substantially alter the course or flow of flood water or direction or rate of flow of

groundwater. The bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure would be associated with

existing roadways. Class I bike paths and hiking trails may be located in the vicinity

of a river or stream. The proposed Class II and III facilities would mostly require

restriping of the roadways and would not change existing on-site drainage facilities.

Swales or trench drains may also help convey runoff into the drainage inlets. The

runoff would then be conveyed into the existing municipal storm water drainage

system. On a project-level basis, each projects must comply with existing regulatory

requirements (i.e., acquisition of an NPDES General Construction Activity Storm

Water Permit). Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

b. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body?

h. Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or

withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or


1 Beneficial uses for Santa Barbara County are identified by the Regional Water Quality Control Board in the

Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin, or Basin Plan, and include (among others) recreation,

agricultural supply, groundwater recharge, fresh water habitat, estuarine habitat, support for rare, threatened

or endangered species, preservation of biological habitats of special significance.



i. Overdraft or over-commitment of any groundwater basin? Or, a significant

increase in the existing overdraft or over-commitment of any groundwater

basin?

k. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public

water supplies?

Less than Significant with Mitigation. Implementation of proposed bicycle and

pedestrian improvements by the local jurisdictions as contained in the Regional Active

Transportation Plan would result in short-term impacts to the County’s water supply.

Due to the programmatic nature of the Regional Active Transportation Plan, a precise,

project-level analysis of the specific impacts of individual projects on water supply is

not possible at this time. However, the general nature of water supply impacts is

described below.

During grading and general construction activities, water would be needed to

suppress fugitive dust generated by construction equipment. It is likely that more

than one project could be constructed simultaneously in areas with overdrafted

groundwater basins. Because this could contribute to the current overdraft situation,

the short-term water impact of the proposed plan is considered potentially significant.

Major projects, particularly paved Class I bike paths in rural areas, could also

potentially affect groundwater supplies by incrementally reducing groundwater

recharge potential. This reduction in groundwater recharge could occur because the

impermeable surfaces associated with the proposed improvements would increase

surface water runoff at the expense of natural infiltration. The magnitude of impacts

associated with individual projects cannot be accurately determined at this

programmatic stage of analysis. Nevertheless, given the overdrafted nature of some

of the County’s groundwater basins, the reduction in groundwater recharge is

considered to be potentially significant. The following mitigation measures address

potential impacts to water supplies:

Water-1: The project sponsor shall ensure that, where economically feasible and

available, reclaimed and/or desalinated water is used for dust suppression during

construction activities. This measure shall be noted on construction plans and shall

be spot checked by the local jurisdiction.

Water-2: The project sponsor shall ensure that low water use landscaping (i.e.,

drought tolerant plants and drip irrigation) is installed. When feasible, native plant

species shall be used.

Water-3: The project sponsor shall ensure that, if feasible, landscaping associated

with proposed improvements is maintained using reclaimed and/or desalinated water.

Water-4: The project sponsor shall ensure that porous pavement materials or other

drainage features are utilized, where feasible, to allow for groundwater percolation.

Rural bicycle trails shall be left unpaved, where appropriate.



b. Changes in percolation rates, drainage patterns or the rate and amount of

surface water runoff?

d. Discharge, directly or through a storm drain system, into surface waters

(including but not limited to wetlands, riparian areas, ponds, springs,

creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, tidal areas, bays, ocean, etc.) or

alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature,

dissolved oxygen, turbidity, or thermal water pollution?

j. The substantial degradation of groundwater quality including saltwater

intrusion?

l. Introduction of storm water pollutants (e.g., oil, grease, pesticides,

nutrients, sediments, pathogens, etc.) into groundwater or surface water?

Less than Significant with Mitigation. Implementation of proposed regional

bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and network improvements included in the

Regional Active Transportation Plan would result in both short-term and long-term

impacts to water quality. Due to the programmatic nature of the Regional Active

Transportation Plan, a precise, project-level analysis of the specific impacts of

individual projects on water quality is not possible at this time. However, the general

nature of water quality impacts is described below.

Certain projects, such as the addition of new bike paths and sidewalks, would increase

overall impervious surface area throughout the County. These projects may generate

significant adverse impacts to surface water quality. Pollutants and chemicals

associated with urban activities would run off new impervious surfaces flowing into

nearby bodies of water during storm events. These pollutants would include, but are

not limited to: oil, grease, debris, and air pollution residues. Such contaminated urban

runoff may remain largely untreated, thus resulting in the incremental long-term

degradation of water quality.

Short-term adverse impacts to surface water quality may also occur during the

construction periods of individual improvement projects because areas of disturbed

soils would be highly susceptible to water erosion and downstream sedimentation.

This impact is of particular concern where projects are located on previously

contaminated sites. Without effective erosion and storm water control, contaminated

soils exposed during construction activities may result in surface water

contamination. In addition, grading and vegetation removal in proximity to creeks for

construction, widening, and repair of bridges could result in an increase in erosion

and sedimentation of creek banks. This could affect both water quality and the

stability of slopes along the creeks. Regulations under the federal Clean Water Act

require that a NPDES storm water permit be obtained for projects that would disturb

greater than an acre. Acquisition of the General Construction permit is dependent on

the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that contains

specific actions, termed Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the discharge

of pollutants, including sediment, into the local surface water drainages. Some of the

individual bicycle and pedestrian projects listed in the Regional Active Transportation



Plan may be subject to these regulations. The following mitigation measures are

required to reduce potential impacts to water quality:

Water-5: The project sponsor shall ensure that fertilizer/pesticide application plans

for any new right-of-way landscaping are prepared to minimize deep percolation of

contaminants. The plans shall specify the use of products that are safe for use in and

around aquatic environments.

Water-6: Where new bicycle or pedestrian corridors are planned that would use

impervious surfaces, the project sponsor shall ensure that the improvement directs

runoff into an appropriate treatment device or feature that would allow for the

removal of urban pollutants, fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals. Such devices

or features can include (but are not limited to) grassed drainage swales, retention

buffer strips, and bioretention filters.

Water-7: For any project that would disturb at least one acre, a Storm Water Pollution

Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed prior to the initiation of grading and

implemented for all construction activity on the project site. The SWPPP shall include

specific BMPs to control the discharge of material from the site and into the creeks

and local storm drains. BMP methods may include, but would not be limited to, the

use of temporary retention basins, straw bales, sand bagging, mulching, erosion

control blankets and soil stabilizers.

f. Exposure of people or property to water-related hazards such as flooding

(placement of project in 100-year flood plain), accelerated runoff or

tsunamis, sea level rise, or seawater intrusion?

Less than Significant with Mitigation. Implementation of the proposed bicycle

and pedestrian improvements listed in the Regional Active Transportation Plan in

low-lying areas and in proximity to waterways and/or dam inundation zones may be

subject to flood hazard. The effects of flooding could include temporary inundation of

a facility that impedes its use, or causes long-term damage to the facility. Flooding

may also cause immediate damage to adjacent roadways, sidewalks, bikeways, and

bridges, particularly during high-velocity flood events that wash away or erode

facilities. This would typically occur adjacent to rising rivers or streams. Unpaved

bikeways are particularly vulnerable, although any facility within the flood zone of a

stream would be subject to impacts. Erosion caused by flooding can damage paved

facilities, and bridge supports can be undermined or washed away. Impacts would be

potentially significant and mitigated to a less than significant level with the

implementation of the following measure:

Water-8: If a Regional Active Transportation Plan project is located in an area with

high flooding potential due to a storm event or dam inundation or sea level rise due

to climate change, the project sponsor shall ensure that the structure is elevated at

least one foot above the 100-year flood zone elevation and that bank stabilization and

erosion control measures are implemented along creek crossings.



VI. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Table VI-1 summarizes each of the Regional Active Transportation Plan impacts and

recommended mitigation measures.



TABLE VI-1: SUMMARY OF REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact Area Potential Impacts Less than

Significant with Mitigation


Mitigation Measure

1. Aesthetics Change to the visual character of an

area?

Visually incompatible structures?

Aesthetics-1: The project sponsor shall obtain local design review

approval for project design. All project elements (e.g., design, scale,

character, colors, materials and landscaping) shall be compatible

with vicinity development. The project sponsor shall submit

architectural drawings of the project for local design review prior to

issuance of building permits. Grading plans, if required, shall be

submitted concurrent with or prior to plan filing.

Glare or night lighting which may affect

adjoining areas?

Aesthetics-2: Project sponsor shall ensure that lighting of Class I

bicycle paths and multi-use paths adjacent to open space areas shall

be limited to that required for safety. Lighting shall be directed away

from open space areas and onto the bicycle path itself. Individual

network segments directly within open space areas shall be designed

without night lighting to prevent any impact from light or glare on

adjacent biological resources.

2. Agricultural

Resources

Convert prime agricultural land to

non-agricultural use, impair

agricultural land productivity (whether

prime or non-prime) or conflict with

agricultural preserve programs?

An effect upon any unique or other

farmland of State or Local Importance?

Agricultural Resources-1: When new bicycle or pedestrian

infrastructure or network improvements are planned, the project

sponsor shall assure that project-specific environmental reviews

consider alternative alignments that reduce or avoid impacts to

agricultural lands.

Agricultural Resources-2: Rural roadway alignments shall follow

property lines to the extent feasible, to minimize impacts to the

agricultural production value of any specific property. Farmers shall

be compensated for the loss of agricultural production at the margins






Mitigation Measure

of lost property, based on the amount of land deeded as road right-of-

way, as a function of the total amount of production on the property.

Agricultural Resources-3: Project sponsors should consider corridor

realignment, buffer zones, setbacks, and fencing to reduce conflict

between agricultural lands and neighboring uses.

3. Air Quality Extensive dust generation? Air Quality-1: The project sponsor shall ensure that SBCAPCD Rule

329 and standard dust control measures are implemented. The

measures shall be noted on all construction plans and the project

sponsor shall perform periodic site inspections.

4. Biological

Resources

A loss or disturbance to a unique, rare

or threatened plant community?

A reduction in the numbers or

restriction in the range of any unique,

rare or threatened species of plants?

A reduction in the numbers, a

restriction in the range, or an impact to

the critical habitat of any unique, rare,

threatened or endangered species of

animals?

Bio Resources-1: Biological Resources Screening and Assessment. On

a project-by-project basis, a preliminary biological resource screening

shall be performed to determine whether the project has any

potential to impact biological resources. (see p. 32 for additional

information)

Bio Resources-2: Jurisdictional Delineation. If projects implemented

under the Regional Active Transportation Plan occur within or

adjacent to wetland, drainages, riparian habitats, or other areas that

may fall under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish

and Game, US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water

Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or California Coastal

Commission (CCC), a qualified biologist shall complete a

jurisdictional delineation. The jurisdictional delineation shall

determine the extent of the jurisdiction for each of these agencies

and shall be conducted in accordance with the requirement set forth

by each agency. (see p. 32-33 for additional information)

Bio Resources-3: Wetland and Riparian Habitat Restored. Impacts to

jurisdictional wetland and riparian habitat shall be mitigated at a






Mitigation Measure

minimum ratio of 2:1 (acres of habitat restored to acres impacted),

and shall occur on-site or as close to the impacted habitat as possible.

A mitigation and monitoring plan shall be developed by a qualified

biologist and shall be implemented for no less than five years after

construction of the segment, or until the SBCAG/local jurisdiction

and/or the permitting authority (e.g., CDFG or USACE) has

determined that restoration has been successful.

A reduction in the extent, diversity, or

quality of native vegetation (including

brush removal for fire prevention and

flood control improvements)?

An impact on non-native vegetation

whether naturalized or horticultural if

of habitat value?

The loss of healthy native specimen

trees?

Bio Resources-4: Landscaping Plan. If landscaping is proposed for a

specific project, a qualified biologist/landscape architect shall prepare

a landscape plan for that project. This plan shall indicate the

locations and species of plants to be installed. Drought tolerant,

locally native plant species shall be used. Noxious, invasive, and/or

non-native plant species that are recognized on the Federal Noxious

Weed List, California Noxious Weeds List, and/or California Invasive

Plant Council Lists 1, 2, and 4 shall not be permitted. Species

selected for planting shall be similar to those species found in

adjacent native habitats.

Bio Resources-5: Invasive Weed Prevention and Management

Program. Prior to start of construction for each project, an Invasive

Weed Prevention and Management Program shall be developed by a

qualified biologist to prevent invasion of native habitat by non-native

plant species. (see p. 34 for additional information)

Bio Resources-6: When new bicycle or pedestrian infrastructure or

network improvements are planned, the project sponsor shall assure

that project-specific environmental reviews consider alternative

alignments, follow property lines, and/or consider corridor

realignment, buffer zones, setbacks and fencing to avoid loss of






Mitigation Measure

healthy native specimen trees, native vegetation and/or other

vegetated areas of special habitat value.

Introduction of herbicides, pesticides,

animal life, human habitation, non-

native plants or other factors that

would change or hamper the existing

habitat?

A reduction in the diversity or numbers

of animals onsite (including mammals,

birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish or

invertebrates)?

A deterioration of existing fish or

wildlife habitat (for foraging, breeding,

roosting, nesting, etc.)?

Introduction of barriers to movement of

any resident or migratory fish or

wildlife species?

Introduction of any factors (light,

fencing, noise, human presence and/or

domestic animals) which could hinder

the normal activities of wildlife?

Bio Resources-7: Fence and Lighting Design. All projects including

long segments of fencing and lighting shall be designed to minimize

impacts to wildlife. Fencing should allow wildlife movement through

riparian or other natural habitat when feasible. Where fencing is

required for public safety concerns, the fence shall be designed to

permit wildlife movement by incorporating design features. (see p. xx

for additional information).

Bio Resources-8: Construction Best Management Practices.

Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be

incorporated into all grading and construction plans. (For more

information see p. 36)

5. Cultural

Resources

Disruption, alteration, destruction, or

adverse effect on a recorded prehistoric

or historic archaeological site?

Cultural Resources-1: In the event archaeological remains are

encountered during grading, work shall be stopped immediately or

redirected until a qualified archaeologist and Native American

representative are retained by the project sponsor to evaluate the

significance of the find. (For more information see p. 39)






Mitigation Measure

Disruption or removal of human

remains?

Increased potential for trespassing,

vandalizing, or sabotaging

archaeological resources?

Ground disturbances in an area with

potential cultural resource sensitivity

based on the location of known historic

or prehistoric sites?

Disruption of or adverse effects upon a

prehistoric or historic archaeological

site or property of historic or cultural

significance to a community or ethnic

group?

Increased potential for trespassing,

vandalizing, or sabotaging ethnic,

sacred, or ceremonial places?

The potential to conflict with or restrict

existing religious, sacred, or educational

use of the area?

7. Fire

Protection

Introduction of development into an

existing high fire hazard area?

Project caused high fire hazard?

Fire Protection-1: The project sponsor shall consider alternative

alignments to avoid high fire hazard areas if feasible or signage to

indicate to users that the area is within a high fire hazard area.

Fire Protection-2: The project sponsor shall work with the local

jurisdiction prior to initiating construction and ensure measures

shall be taken to mitigate the potential for brush or grass fires from






Mitigation Measure

use of heavy equipment, welding, vehicles with catalytic converters,

etc. (For additional information see p. 42)

8. Geologic

Processes

The destruction, covering or

modification of any unique geologic,

paleontologic or physical features?

See Mitigation measure Cultural Resources-1

Any increase in wind or water erosion of

soils, either on or off the site?

Changes in deposition or erosion of

beach sands or dunes, or changes in

siltation, deposition or erosion which

may modify the channel of a river, or

stream, or the bed of the ocean, or any

bay, inlet or lake?

Geo-1: Erosion and Sediment Control Plans can be implemented on a

project-level basis, as needed, by the local jurisdictions within which

these projects are being implemented. Grading and erosion and

sediment control plans shall be designed to minimize erosion during

construction and shall be implemented for the duration of the

grading period and until re-graded areas have been stabilized by

structures, long-term erosion control measures or permanent

landscaping. The project sponsor shall submit the Erosion Sediment

Control Plan using Best Management Practices designed to stabilize

the site, protect natural watercourses/creeks, prevent erosion, and

convey storm water runoff to existing drainage systems keeping

contaminants and sediments onsite.

12. Noise Short-term exposure of people to noise

levels exceeding County thresholds?

Noise-1: The project sponsor shall ensure that, where residences or

other noise sensitive uses are located, appropriate measures shall be

implemented to ensure consistency with local noise ordinance

requirements relating to construction. Specific techniques may

include, but are not limited to, restrictions on construction timing,

use of sound blankets on construction equipment, and the use of

temporary walls and noise barriers to block and deflect noise.

Noise-2: Project sponsors shall ensure that equipment and trucks

used for project construction utilize the best available noise control






Mitigation Measure

techniques (including mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine

enclosures and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds).

Noise-3: Project sponsors shall ensure that impact equipment (e.g.,

jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project

construction be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever

feasible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from

pneumatically powered tools. (For more information see p. 64)

Noise-4: Locate stationary noise sources as far from sensitive

receptors as possible. Stationary noise sources that must be located

near existing receptors will be adequately muffled.

15.

Transportation/

Circulation

Generation of substantial additional

vehicular movement (daily, peak-hour,

etc.) in relation to existing traffic load

and capacity of the street system?

Effects on existing parking facilities, or

demand for new parking?

Alteration to waterborne, rail or air

traffic?

Increase in traffic hazards to motor

vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians

(including short-term construction and

long-term operational)?

Inadequate sight distance,

ingress/egress, general road capacity,

and emergency access?

Transportation-1: A traffic study shall be prepared by the project

sponsor during design of a proposed network improvement to

adequately assess and mitigate the potential impacts associated with

the project. The traffic study shall include assessment of existing

Levels of Service (LOS), shall evaluate the feasibility of

accommodating the proposed alternative transportation facility or

route within the existing roadway so that it does not impact safety or

traffic service levels, and assess the effect the project may have on

vehicle parking demand. Adequate design features shall be

recommended and incorporated into the project to allow for a safe

facility and adequate traffic service levels. Loss of on-street parking

should be quantified and disclosed in the traffic study.






Mitigation Measure

16. Water

Resources/

Flooding

Change in the amount of surface water

in any water body?

Change in the quantity of groundwater,

either through direct additions or

withdrawals, or through interception of

an aquifer by cuts or excavations or


Overdraft or over-commitment of any

groundwater basin? Or, a significant

increase in the existing overdraft or

over-commitment of any groundwater

basin?

Substantial reduction in the amount of

water otherwise available for public

water supplies?

Water-1: The project sponsor shall ensure that, where economically

feasible and available, reclaimed and/or desalinated water is used for

dust suppression during construction activities. This measure shall

be noted on construction plans and shall be spot checked by the local

jurisdiction.

Water-2: The project sponsor shall ensure that low water use

landscaping (i.e., drought tolerant plants and drip irrigation) is

installed. When feasible, native plant species shall be used.

Water-3: The project sponsor shall ensure that, if feasible,

landscaping associated with proposed improvements is maintained

using reclaimed and/or desalinated water.

Water-4: The project sponsor shall ensure that porous pavement

materials or other drainage features are utilized, where feasible, to

allow for groundwater percolation. Rural bicycle trails shall be left

unpaved, where appropriate.

Changes in percolation rates, drainage

patterns or the rate and amount of

surface water runoff?

Discharge, directly or through a storm

drain system, into surface waters

(including but not limited to wetlands,

riparian areas, ponds, springs, creeks,

streams, rivers, lakes, estuaries, tidal

areas, bays, ocean, etc) or alteration of

surface water quality, including but not

limited to temperature, dissolved

Water-5: The project sponsor shall ensure that fertilizer/pesticide

application plans for any new right-of-way landscaping are prepared

to minimize deep percolation of contaminants. The plans shall

specify the use of products that are safe for use in and around

aquatic environments.

Water-6: Where new bicycle or pedestrian corridors are planned that

would use impervious surfaces, the project sponsor shall ensure that

the improvement directs runoff into an appropriate treatment device

or feature that would allow for the removal of urban pollutants,

fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemicals. Such devices or features






Mitigation Measure

oxygen, turbidity, or thermal water

pollution?

The substantial degradation of

groundwater quality including

saltwater intrusion?

Introduction of storm water pollutants

(e.g., oil, grease, pesticides, nutrients,

sediments, pathogens, etc.) into

groundwater or surface water?

can include (but are not limited to) grassed drainage swales,

retention buffer strips, and bioretention filters.

Water-7: For any project that would disturb at least one acre, a

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be developed

prior to the initiation of grading and implemented for all construction

activity on the project site. The SWPPP shall include specific BMPs

to control the discharge of material from the site and into the creeks

and local storm drains. BMP methods may include, but would not be

limited to, the use of temporary retention basins, straw bales, sand

bagging, mulching, erosion control blankets and soil stabilizers.



VII. MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

CEQA requires the development of feasible mitigation measures to reduce the severity and

magnitude of potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the plan. The

Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Regional Active Transportation Plan includes

mitigation measures to reduce potential environmental effects of the project to a less than

significant level. The environmental review completed for the MND considered the potential

environmental effects of the project on a plan-level basis. It should be noted that additional

environmental review may be needed on a project-level basis by the individual project

sponsors, as the lead agencies for the individual projects contained within the proposed

Regional Active Transportation Plan, prior to project implementation.

Monitoring of the adopted mitigation measures is required by Public Resources Code Section

21081.6. The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project provides a list of mitigation

measures and describes the process whereby these measures will be monitored. Following

certification of the MND by SBCAG, the mitigation measures included in the MND would be

monitored as described in this MMP. The mitigation measures and monitoring program are

summarized in Table VII-1.



TABLE VII-1: REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM

Mitigation Measure Responsible Entity Monitor Action by Monitor Timing/ Frequency

Aesthetics-1 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Submittal of architectural and

grading plans

Submittal of all required

plans prior to issuance of

permits by the local

jurisdiction

Aesthetics-2 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Submittal of architectural plans Submittal of all required

plans prior to issuance of

permits by the local

jurisdiction

Agricultural Resources-1 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Consider alternative alignments in

project-level environmental review

Project-level environmental

review by local jurisdiction

Agricultural Resources-2 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Determine loss of agricultural

production and compensation to

property owner, if any



Agricultural Resources-3 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Consider corridor realignment,

buffer zones, setbacks, and fencing

in project-level environmental

review



Air Quality-1 Project Sponsor Santa Barbara County

Air Pollution Control

District

Ensure implementation of

SBCAPCD Rule 329 – Standard

Dust Control Measures

Note measures on all

construction plans and

perform periodic site

inspections to ensure

compliance

Bio Resources-1 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Biological Resources Screening and

Assessment



Bio Resources-2 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction; CA

Dept. of Fish and

Game, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers,

Regional Water

Quality Control Board,

and/or California

Coastal Commission

Jurisdictional Delineation Project-level environmental


and responsible agencies

Bio Resources-3 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction; CA

Dept. of Fish and

Game, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers,

Regional Water

Quality Control Board,

Wetland and Riparian Habitat

Restored: Restore wetland and

riparian habitat at a ratio of 2:1

and have qualified biologist develop

a mitigation and monitoring plan



and responsible agencies;

implemented no less than five

years after construction.




and/or California

Coastal Commission

Bio Resources-4 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Qualified biologist to prepare a

Landscape Plan



Bio Resources-5 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Qualified biologist to prepare an

Invasive Weed Prevention and

Management Program



Bio Resources-6 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Consider corridor realignment,

buffer zones, setbacks, and fencing

in project-level environmental

review



Bio Resources-7 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Design fencing and lighting to

minimize impacts to wildlife



Bio Resources-8 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Incorporate construction Best

Management Practices (BMPs)

BMPs shall be shown on

grading plans and reviewed by

the local jurisdiction prior to

issuance of building permits

Cultural Resources-1 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Conduct an archaeological survey

prior to any ground disturbance. If

potential for archaeological remains

are discovered, retain a qualified

archaeologist to conduct a more

extensive study of potential remains

on-site, consistent with local

jurisdiction policy.



Fire Protection-1 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Avoidance of high fire hazard

areas–consider alternative

alignments or signage


review or design review by

local jurisdiction

Fire Protection-2 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Use of construction Best

Management Practices in high fire

hazard areas

Project-level review by local

jurisdiction prior to issuance

of permits

Geo-1 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Prepare an Erosion and Sediment

Control Plan



Noise-1 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Ensure consistency with local noise

ordinance requirements



of permits

Noise-2 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Ensure equipment and trucks

utilize best available noise control

techniques



of permits




Noise-3 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Ensure that impact equipment used

for project construction be

hydraulically or electrically

powered wherever feasible



of permits

Noise-4 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Locate stationary sources as far

from sensitive receptors as possible



of permits

Transportation-1 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Prepare a Traffic Impact Study, if

necessary



local jurisdiction

Water-1 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Ensure that reclaimed water used

for dust suppression on-site



local jurisdiction

Water-2 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Ensure that drought tolerant

landscaping and/or native

vegetation installed



local jurisdiction

Water-3 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Ensure that installed irrigation

system will utilize reclaimed water



local jurisdiction

Water-4 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Utilize porous pavement materials

and leave rural bicycle trails

unpaved



local jurisdiction

Water-5 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Fertilizer/pesticide plans should

minimize deep percolation of

contaminants and specify use of

products that are safe adjacent to

aquatic environments



local jurisdiction

Water-6 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Where impervious surfaces are

installed, ensure that the

improvement directs runoff into an

appropriate treatment device or

feature that allow for the removal of

urban pollutants.



local jurisdiction

Water-7 Project Sponsor Local Jurisdiction Prepare a Stormwater Pollution

Prevention Plan for any individual

project that would disturb at least

one acre or more



local jurisdiction



[left intentionally blank]



VIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE


Poten.

Signif.

Less than

Signif.

with

Mitigation

Less

Than

Signif.

No

Impact

1. Does the project have the potential to substantially

degrade the quality of the environment, substantially

reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish

or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,

threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,

substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of

a rare or endangered plant or animal, contribute

significantly to greenhouse gas emissions or significantly

increase energy consumption, or eliminate important

examples of the major periods of California history or

prehistory?

X

2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-

term to the disadvantage of long-term environmental

goals?

X

3. Does the project have impacts that are individually

limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively

considerable” means that the incremental effects of a

project are considerable when viewed in connection with

the effects of past projects, the effects of other current

projects and the effects of probable future projects.)

X

4. Does the project have environmental effects which will

cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,

either directly or indirectly?

X

5. Is there disagreement supported by facts, reasonable

assumptions predicated upon facts and/or expert opinion

supported by facts over the significance of an effect which

would warrant investigation in an EIR?

X

Discussion

1. Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of

the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife

species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining

levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially

reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or

animal, contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions or significantly

increase energy consumption, or eliminate important examples of the major

periods of California history or prehistory?

Less than Significant with Mitigation. The proposed project would not

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife

population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or threaten to eliminate a plant or

animal community. With implementation of mitigation measures identified to avoid,



minimize, and if necessary mitigate impacts to biological resources, impacts to

biological resources would be avoided or reduced to less than significant. The proposed

project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California

history or prehistory. Construction of the proposed bicycle network would only involve

minimal subsurface grading in undeveloped areas, and is not anticipated to affect

cultural or historic resources.

Mitigation measures designed to minimize construction-related and operational

environmental effects to aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, biological

resources, cultural resources, fire protection, geological processes, noise,

transportation/circulation, and water resources/flooding are listed in Sections 1, 2, 3,

4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15, and 16.

2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the

disadvantage of long-term environmental goals?

No Impact. The list of projects contained within the Regional Active Transportation

Plan would occur mostly within or adjacent to existing roads and would achieve long

term goals for regional bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. With approval and

future implementation of the Plan, air quality may be improved with commuters

electing to bike and walk as an alternative mode of transportation. Mitigation

measures designed to reduce air quality impacts during the construction phase would

not jeopardize or conflict long-term goals and long-term pollutant emissions would not

be considerable and could be decreased with project implementation.

3. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but

cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the

incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection

with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the

effects of probable future projects.)

No Impact. Potential impacts have been identified with the proposed project.

However, with the mitigation measures proposed, which focus on avoidance and

minimization of impacts to resources, these impacts are not considered cumulatively

considerable.

4. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial

adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

No Impact. As discussed in this IS/MND, the proposed project would not cause any

substantial adverse environmental effects on humans. Please refer to specific

discussions under Aesthetics, Air Quality, Energy, Hazardous Materials/Risk of

Upset, Historic Resources, Land Use, Noise, Public Facilities, Recreation, and

Transportation/Circulation.

5. Is there disagreement supported by facts, reasonable assumptions

predicated upon facts and/or expert opinion supported by facts over the

significance of an effect which would warrant investigation in an EIR?



No Impact. There has been no disagreement to regarding the contents of this

IS/MND.

IX. DETERMINATION

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the

environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the

environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project

have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and

an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or

"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect

1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal

standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis

as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but

it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the

environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in

an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)

have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,

including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,

nothing further is required.

Signature: Initial Study Date: May 8, 2015

Signature: Mitigated Negative Declaration Date: May 29, 2015

Signature: Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Date: August 20, 2015

Project Evaluator: Andrew Orfila, Senior Transportation Planner



X. REFERENCES

Draft Regional Active Transportation Plan, SBCAG, June 2015.

2040 Santa Barbara County Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities

Strategy Final Environmental Impact Report, SBCAG & Rincon Consultants, August 2013.

San Diego Regional Bicycle Plan Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, San

Diego Association of Governments, May 2010.

Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, County of Santa Barbara Planning &

Development, October 2008.

A Planner’s Guide to Conditions of Approval and Mitigation Measures, County of Santa

Barbara Planning & Development, November 2014.

Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan: Coastal Land Use Plan, County of Santa

Barbara Planning & Development, Adopted 1982, re-published May 2014.

Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan: Scenic Highways Element, County of Santa

Barbara Planning & Development, Adopted 1975, re-published May 2009.

Santa Barbara County Crop Report, County of Santa Barbara Agricultural Commissioner’s

Office, 2013.

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program – Santa Barbara County, California

Department of Conservation webpage:

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SantaBarbara.aspx

Santa Barbara County Trust Resources List, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, accessed March

11, 2015.

Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan: Seismic Safety & Safety Element, County of

Santa Barbara Planning & Development, Adopted 1979, re-published May 2009.

California Office of Historic Preservation, website, 2012.

Santa Barbara County Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee, website, 2012.

2040 Santa Barbara County Regional Transportation Plan-Sustainable Communities

Strategy, SBCAG, August 2013.

Santa Barbara Countywide Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, Santa Barbara

County Water Resources, 2007.

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/SantaBarbara.aspx



XI. PREPARERS

Peter Imhof Deputy Director, Planning

Andrew Orfila CEQA Analyst, Senior Transportation Planner

Michael Becker Project Manager, Senior Transportation Planner


Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Page A-1

APPENDIX A REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROPOSED BICYCLE NETWORK

MAPS

Figure A-1: Goleta and Goleta Valley Bicycle Network



Figure A-2: Santa Barbara and Montecito Bicycle Network



Figure A-3: Carpinteria Bicycle Network



Figure A-4: Santa Maria Bicycle Network



Figure A-5: Guadalupe and Santa Maria Valley Bicycle Network



Figure A-6: Lompoc Valley Bicycle Network



Figure A-7: Buellton Bicycle Network



Figure A-8: Solvang and Santa Ynez Valley Bicycle Network



[BLANK]


Final Mitigated Negative Declaration Page B-1

APPENDIX B REGIONAL ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN PROJECT LIST

Regional Transportation Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects (Page 1 of 2)



Regional Transportation Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects (Page 2 of 2)



City of Buellton Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects



City of Carpinteria Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects



City of Goleta Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects



City of Guadalupe Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects



City of Lompoc Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects



City of Santa Barbara Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects



City of Santa Maria Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects (Page 1 of 3)



City of Solvang Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects



Santa Barbara County Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects (Page 1 of 2)



Santa Barbara County Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects (Page 2 of 2)

Metropolitan Transit District Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects



University of California, Santa Barbara Planned Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects

Draft Santa Barbara County Regional Active Transportation Plan April 2015

Initial Study Page B-1

[blank]

Draft Santa Barbara County Regional Active Transportation Plan April 2015

Initial Study Page B-1

santa barbara county association of governments …meetings.sbcag.org/meetings/sbcag/2015/08...

Documents