Bishop Ranch Property Study Master 072111 JMC

BISHOPRANCHPROPERTYSTUDY
96GLENANNIEROAD(APN077020045)
PREPAREDFOR: CityofGoleta Planning&EnvironmentalServicesDepartment 130CremonaDrive,SuiteB Goleta,CA93117 8059617500
PREPAREDBY: ICFInternational 1Ada,Suite100 Irvine,CA92618 Contact:CharlesSmith 9493336600
DISTRIBUTEDON: July21,2011
ICFInternational.2011.BishopRanchPropertyStudy.(ICF650.10.)Irvine, CA.PreparedforCityofGoleta,Goleta,CA.
Bishop Ranch Property Study (Case No. 10-052)
Contents
CONTENTS
Page CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 INTENDED USE OF THIS REPORT ................................................................................ 1-1 1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE ......................................................................... 1-1 CHAPTER 2 SETTING ........................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 LOCATION ....................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.2 PREHISTORY AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY ...................................................... 2-1 2.3 LAND USE AND ZONING ................................................................................................ 2-2 2.4 WATER RIGHTS .............................................................................................................. 2-3 CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................ 3-1 3.1 VIEWS TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY ....................................................................... 3-1 3.2 AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................... 3-2 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ISSUES .......................................................... 3-5 3.4 BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................. 3-6 3.5 CULTURAL / PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES ....................................................... 3-10 3.6 REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS, HOUSING, AND LAND USE ........................................ 3-10 3.7 ONSITE GEOLOGY AND SOILS.................................................................................... 3-13 3.8 POTENTIAL FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................... 3-13 3.9 SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................... 3-14 3.10 NOISE ISSUES............................................................................................................... 3-14 3.11 STATUS OF FIRE, POLICE, LIBRARY, SCHOOL, PARKS/RECREATION SERVICES 3-15 3.12 REGIONAL AND ONSITE WATER SUPPLY, WASTEWATER, UTILITIES ................... 3-16 3.13 REGIONAL AND ONSITE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION ........................... 3-19 CHAPTER 4 PROPERTY OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS ..................................... 4-1 4.1 OVERVIEW AND RATING SYSTEM METHODS ............................................................. 4-1 4.2 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS .......................................................................... 4-3 4.3.1 Opportunities and Constraints Existing Vacant Land Use Scenario .................. 4-3 4.3.2 Opportunities and Constraints Active Agriculture Land Use Scenario ............... 4-4 4.3.3 Opportunities and Constraints Urban/Suburban Developed Land Use Scenario ........................................................................................................ 4-4 4.4 REGULATORY AND PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS ................................................ 4-5 4.4.1 Opportunities and Constraints Existing Vacant Land Use Scenario .................. 4-5 4.4.2 Opportunities and Constraints Active Agriculture Land Use Scenario ............... 4-6 4.4.3 Opportunities and Constraints Urban/Suburban Developed Land Use Scenario ........................................................................................................ 4-7 4.5 SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................... 4-8 4.5.1 Opportunities and Constraints Existing Vacant Land Use Scenario .................. 4-9 4.5.2 Opportunities and Constraints Active Agriculture Land Use Scenario ............... 4-9 4.5.3 Opportunities and Constraints Urban/Suburban Development Land Use Scenario ...................................................................................................... 4-10 4.6 GENERAL RESOURCE CAPACITY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................. 4-10 CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC PLANNING PROCESS ....................................................................... 5-1 5.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS .................................................................... 5-1 5.2 SPECIFIC PLAN PROCESS ............................................................................................ 5-1
July 21, 2011 i
Contents
5.3 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROCESS ..................................................................... 5-1 CHAPTER 6 REVIEWERS AND PREPARERS ..................................................................... 6-1 6.1 CITY OF GOLETA REVIEWERS ...................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 ICF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................. 6-1 CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 7-1
July 21, 2011
ii
Contents
FIGURES
Figure Follows Page
2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5
Regional Location .............................................................................................. 2-2 Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................... 2-2 Aerial Photo of Site ............................................................................................ 2-2 Land Use Designations ..................................................................................... 2-2 Zoning ............................................................................................................... 2-2 Views from the Property ................................................................................... 3-2
3-1 3-2
Property Soils .................................................................................................... 3-4 Vegetation Communities and Potentially Sensititve Biological Areas ................ 3-6 Place of Historic Merit ...................................................................................... 3-10
3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6
Slopes over 15% ............................................................................................. 3-14 Hydroloic Features and Flood Zones ............................................................... 3-14 Public Service Facilities ................................................................................... 3-16 Service Area Boundaries ................................................................................. 3-16
July 21, 2011
iii
Contents
TABLES
Table On Page
3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 4-1
Soil Characteristics ............................................................................................ 3-4 Goleta Jobs-to-Housing Ratio.......................................................................... 3-12 Summary of Tajiguas Landfill .......................................................................... 3-19 Existing Traffic Volumes and Los on Arterial Roadways ................................. 3-19 Summary of Opportunities and Constraints ..................................................... 4-13
July 21, 2011
iv
Contents
ACRONYMS AFY
CEQA City
acre-feet per year

California Environmental Quality Act City of Goleta
EDR EIR LAFCO UEC US-101 USBR
Envrionmental Data Resources Environmental Impact Report Local Agency Formation Commission University Exchange Corporation U.S. Highway 101 United States Bureau of Reclamation
July 21, 2011
Bishop Ranch Property Study
Chapter 1. Introduction
CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT
The Bishop Ranch property consists of approximately 240 acres of vacant, agriculturally designated land located at 96 Glen Annie Road in the City of Goleta (City). The purpose of this report is to provide the City in information about of the property. This report provides preliminary research, evaluation, and documentation about the property. More specifically, this report discusses existing conditions, describes a constraints and opportunities, and details a public planning process that may follow a possible land use conversion.
1.2
INTENDED USE OF THIS REPORT
This report is for informational purposes only. It provides information about the property characteristics that may be useful in consideration of a redesignation of the land use of the property. This report is not a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document, nor is it intended to support any other environmental regulation.
1.3
REPORT ORGANIZATION AND SCOPE
This report identifies: the existing environmental conditions on the property; how the property fits within the context of the community of the City; any additional topical issues or resources that would need to be further studied should the property be redesignated for urban land use, remain vacant under current conditions, or resume active agricultural activities; and implications for a public planning process to consider changing the land use of the property.
The report is organized as follows: Chapter 1, Introduction, identifies the purpose and scope of this report. Chapter 2, Setting, summarizes the propertys history and the existing setting, including land use and zoning, water rights, and the status of active permits. Chapter 3, Environmental Characteristics, describes the existing environment, by resource. Chapter 4, Property Opportunities and Constraints, presents an overview of constraints and opportunities for the property should it be redesignated for urban land use or resume active agricultural activities compared to the current vacant conditions.
July 21, 2011
1-1
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 5, Public Planning Process, reviews general procedures, and costs related to the developmental agreement process, General Plan amendment process, and the permitting path in the event that the General Plan amendment request is initiated for further study.
This report is supported by information in Appendices A through M. Each Appendix identifies the environmental setting of the resource and provides a preliminary evaluation of the specific resources constraints, opportunities, and future areas of study.
July 21, 2011
1-2
Chapter 2. Setting
CHAPTER 2 SETTING 2.1 LOCATION
The 240-acre property is located within the City at 96 Glen Annie Road (APN 077-020-045) (Figure 2-1, Regional Map). The property is bordered by Cathedral Oaks Road to the north, U.S. Highway 101 (US-101) to the south, Los Carneros Creek and an adjoining active agricultural property to the east, and Glen Annie Road and adjoining agricultural property to the west (Figure 2-2, Vicinity Map and Figure 2-3 Aerial Photo).
2.2
PREHISTORY AND HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY
The Goleta area was occupied by a Native American group speaking a distinct dialect of the Chumash language at the time of first European contact in 1542. Historically, this group became known as the Barbareno Chumash. The Chumash were hunters and gatherers and had developed a number of technologies and subsistence strategies that allowed them to successfully utilize surrounding natural resources. At the time of Spanish contact, the Goleta area and immediate vicinity was highly populated with at least ten Chumash villages. A number of these settlements were situated around what was in prehistoric times a much larger Goleta Slough. The slough, which may have resembled a bay in prehistoric times, contained an abundance of marine resources including shellfish, fish, birds, and marine mammals. Human-made modifications and/or uses of natural resources in the Goleta area began in the Mission Period (1786-1834) at which time the land may have been used for sheep grazing and bean farming as part of the Mission San Miguel Rancho (Social Process Research Institute 1979). The 240-acre property that is currently known as Bishop Ranch (or the lower ranch) was originally part of a much larger ranch that changed hands multiple times since the 1840s, including ownership by the Mexican government and several Santa Barbara- and San Francisco-area citizens. The use of the property for some type of ranching dates back approximately 165 years, and it is known to have been repeatedly cleared of native vegetation over the past 78 years. The property was originally part of the Santa Barbara Mission Lands, of which approximately 42,000 acres of the Los Dos Pueblos Ranchos were deeded to Nicholas Den in the 1840s. Den used much of the land for cattle ranching until his death in the 1860s. At that time, half the ranch went to his wife; the other half, including the property, was held in trust for Dens minor heirs. (Tomkins 1966.) A severe drought in the mid 1860s almost crippled the land held in trust and, to avoid bankruptcy, the executors sold the land without the appropriate authority to do so. The land was sold to Colonel William W. Hollister, who incorporated 5,000 acres into his ranchlands under the name Glen Annie Ranch. Hollister planted a number of exotic plants throughout the ranch that he had imported from foreign lands. During Hollisters ownership, the Glen Annie Ranch was used for dairy farming and grazing, and contained a number of orchards that produced limes, lemons, walnuts, olives, almonds, and grapes. (Tomkins 1966). Hollister may have housed
July 21, 2011
2-1
Chapter 2. Setting
agricultural laborers on the lower ranch, as it generally served as the operational center of the ranch (Social Process Research Institute 1979). In the late 1870s, the Den heirs filed suit against Hollister to regain control of the land, hiring San Francisco attorney, Thomas B. Bishop, to represent them. The Den family offered Thomas B. Bishop part of the ranch should the decision favor the Dens, and in 1890, they won their suit. The lawsuit resulted in a favorable outcome for the Den heirs and, as a result, Thomas B. Bishop assumed title of what he called the Corona del Mar ranch, a portion of which is the property. (Tomkins 1966). Thomas B. Bishop owned the Corona del Mar ranch throughout the first half of the twentieth century. A house was built on the 240-acre property in approximately 1912. During the time Thomas B. Bishop owned the Corona del Mar ranch, it was primarily used as a large cattle and farming operation (Tomkins 1966). In 1957, the entire Corona del Mar Ranch was sold to Henry Crown of Chicago / University Exchange Corporation (UEC) (Tomkins 1966). Today, Crowns UEC owns approximately 3,200 acres of the former Corona del Mar ranch, including the 240-acre property that is the subject of this study. According to aerial photographs, the property has not been actively farmed since approximately 1975 as shown by aerial photographs. Aerial photographs reviewed in the 1990 do not readily depict orchards; however, due to the quality they are generally inconclusive (Sage 2011). Cattle were grazed from 1985 to 1990 and approximately 10 acres of citrus were planned in the northeastern corner of the property (CH2M Hill 2006). Several other attempts to grow Christmas Trees and strawberries in approximately 1990 were made (CH2M Hill). Bishop Ranch 2000, LLC, a limited liability company, acquired an interest to purchase the 240acre property that is the subject of this report in 1999. This interest to buy is active today. Bishop Ranch 2000, LLC is understood to be making annual payments to maintain this option to buy.
2.3
LAND USE AND ZONING
This section describes the propertys existing land use and zoning designations, as well as previous land use designations and zoning designations from when the property was within the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Barbara.
Existing Land Use and Zoning

The Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (General Plan) land use designation for the property is Agriculture. The zoning map designation for the property is Agriculture, 40-acre Minimum Parcel Size (Ag-I-40). The Ag-I-40 zoning district generally permits all types of agriculture except commercial livestock feed or sales yard. Figure 2-4 identifies the existing General Plan land use designation of the site and surrounding area, and Figure 2-5 identifies the existing zoning of the property and surrounding area.
July 21, 2011
2-2
San Luis Obispo
Kern
Santa Barbara Ventura Los Angeles
PA C I F I C OCEAN
Los Padres National Forest

Orange Orange
154
101 El Capitan Beach State Park

K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\2011Jul\Fig2_1_Regional_Location.mxd SM (07-14-11)
Unincorporated County of Santa Barbara
Property
192
Mission Mission Canyon Canyon
Goleta
Ellwood Pier
Santa Barbara
192
Santa Barbara Municipal Airport

Isla Vista
Coal Oil Pt Goleta Pt
UCSB
Goleta Pier
225
225
PAC I FI C O CE AN
1.5 Miles
Legend City of Goleta City of Santa Barbara Coastal Zone

Source: ESRI StreetMap North America (2008)
Figure 2-1 REGIONAL LOCATION
BISHOP RANCH PROPERTY STUDY
W inch est er C an yon R d
P a t er a L
Gl
ch
Rd
Cathedral Oaks R d
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\2011Jul\Fig2_2_Vicinity_Map.mxd SM (07-19-11)
Ca
ee k
l le
Real
e dr oC re
ek
Union Pacific RR
Hollister Ave
La sV eg
n
n klin Ra
V
erhelle Rd
as
Cre e
Fr
L os
k ree Ca r n e r o s C
Santa Barbara Airport

ve r
Moffett Pl
eu
er os Rd
x C reek
Storke R d
r Fow le
Rd
Los Carn
Univers
n
Rd
Rd
Feet
Legend Property City of Goleta

Ocea
1,500
3,000
t sp i nd Sa
Rd
Figure 2-2 VICINITY MAP
More Ranc
Golet aS lou gh
Ward Dr
ie Rd en Ann
ni Gle n A n eC
Sa n
C reek cadero At a s
Rd
it y
MI N CA
o os tur en OV
CA
N MI
Ca
ta se
in Cov
Way gton
Lo
arn sC s ero
Rd
Agricultural Property
L os C a
l Oaks Cathedra
Rd
rn
eros
Cr
ee
Dos Pueblos High School
Bishop Ranch House
CALL E
al Re
Del Nort
n Gle
eD r
Rd An nie en An Gl
e ni k ee Cr
Union Pacific
Ramp
RR
VIA L
0 500 Feet 1,000
K
r lian D Casti
uisa
in Cam
Drivewa
Legend City of Goleta Property

Source: City of Goleta; ESRI (2008)
Figure 2-3 AERIAL PHOTO OF SITE
Vi s
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\2011Jul\Fig02_4_city_county_LU.ai.mxd SM (07-18-11)
Los C
ar n er
y os W a
12.8
Cortona Dr
500 Feet
1,000
Hollister Ave
Legend County Land Use Goleta Land Use Residential Use Categories Office and Industrial Single-Family Planned Residential Medium Density Multi-Family High Density Multi-Family Business Park Office and Institutional General Industry Hotel Overlay Other Use Categories Agriculture Open Space/ Passive Recreation Open Space/ Active Recreation Public/Quasi Public Other Features Goleta City Boundary Vacant Sites Property
Open Land Uses Commercial Use Categories Intersection General Commercial
Figure 2-4 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
Source: City of Goleta
Aero Camino
G le
R nnie nA
d
Los
ro s rn e Ca
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Rd
l Calle Rea
ic RR Union Pacif
ra L n La Pate
Rd rke St o
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\2011Jul\Fig2_5_city_county_zoning.ai.mxd SM (07-18-11)
DR-20 PU MHS
500 Feet
County Zoning AG-II-#, Open Land Uses Goleta Zoning Residential Districts R-1, Single Family Residential PRD, Planned Residential Developement
M-RP
Cortona Dr
ar n er Los C
y os W a
C-2 RES-40 C-2
PRD
12.8
M-RP
Hollister Ave
M-RP
0
1,000
C-3
M-RP
CH
PI
CH, Highway Commercial CS, Service Commercial Office and Industrial Districts PI, Professional and Institutional M-RP, Indusrtial Research Park M-1, Light Industry AG, Agriculture REC, Recreation RES, Resource Management PU, Public Works Utilities and Private Services Facilities Other Features Goleta City Boundary Property
DR, Design Residential MHS, Multiple/Mobile Home Subdivision Commercial Districts CN, Neighborhood Commercial C-2, Retail Commercial C-3, General Commercial
Figure 2-5 ZONING
Aero Camino
G le
REC 8-R-1
R nnie nA
d
AG-II-40
AG-II-100
Los
ro s rn e Ca
Cathedral Oaks Rd
REC CH
Rd
CN AG-I-40 DR-4.6 CS CN REC PRD-275 7-R-1 CN DR-20 M-1 M-RP PI

l Calle Rea
ic RR Union Pacif
DR-20
Rd rke St o
Chapter 2. Setting
Previous Land Use and Zoning

The land use designation for the 240-acre property has changed over time; therefore, this section summarizes the various previous designations and identifies the local agencies which have held authority over the property. The propertys zoning and land use was previously controlled by the Santa Barbara County until the City of Goleta was incorporated in 2002. In 1951, the County zoned the property as highway residential and highway commercial. In 1957, the property was re-zoned as single family residential. From 1961 to 1975, the property was designated residential (6,000- to 8,000-square-foot lots) and in 1976, the Countys Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element called for 2 to 5 residential units per gross acre of the property. In 1984, the County zoning identified residential lots at 6,000 to 8,000 square feet. In 1993, the Santa Barbara Goleta Community Plan placed the property within Goletas urban boundary line and noted that the land use designation would be A-1 (urban agriculture) for the life of the plan or for 10 years from the adoption of the plan. In 2002, the City was incorporated and the property was included within the City limits by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The land use designation and zoning for the property has remained agriculture since the Citys incorporation.
2.4
WATER RIGHTS
Cachuma Water As discussed previously, in approximately 1890, Thomas B. Bishop acquired the title of Corona del Mar ranch, including the property, from successfully winning the Dens suite. In 1952 a dispute arose between the Thomas B. Bishop Ranch Company and the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) over the construction of the Cachuma water facilities, specifically the Tecolote Tunnel, which the Thomas B. Bishop Company claimed intercepted subterranean water that would otherwise reach the upper ranch property (all property north of where Cathedral Oaks Road currently exists). The 1952 dispute between the Thomas B. Bishop Ranch Company and USBR was settled through the Cachuma Exchange Agreement, which granted the Corona del Mar land holding, 100 acre-feet per year (AFY) of water (American Title Company 2011). The 100 AFY water entitlement was transferred from the Thomas B. Bishop Company to Crown, when he purchased it in 1957 and was retained by UEC, as typically the rights to water are transferred with property. According to the Cachuma Exchange Agreement, the 100 AFY water entitlement could be used anywhere on the Corona del Mar land holding or Crowns and then UECs other land holdings in the Goleta Valley, as the water transferred with the property. In 1979, Lester Girsh and Derek Westen purchased approximately 80 acres from UEC, the current site of Camino Real Market Place. Girsh and Westen and affiliates brought claims against UEC for certain deed restrictions affecting the 80-acre parcel in 1981(Santa Barbara Superior Court 2011 and American Title Company 2011). In 1986, UEC, Girsh and Westen settled their dispute (American Title Company 2011). As part of the settlement UEC assigned the 100 AFY water entitlement to Lester Girsh and Derek Westen.
July 21, 2011
2-3
Chapter 2. Setting
Well Water South of Property Between the late 1930s and early 1940s, several reservoirs were constructed to hold water in the southeast corner of the 240-acre property (Social Process Research Institute 1979 and . These reservoirs served to settle and filter water pumped from wells (one well later referred to as the Marsh Well water) located to the south of what is now Highway 101 near Hollister Avenue and was used for irrigation to support agricultural activities on the 10,000 acre site. The Marsh Well, located in the West Subbasin of the Goleta Groundwater Basin, is located south of US-101 and was drilled in 1939 (Hoover 2010). Water from this well was pumped to the study property in the past (Hoover 2010). The historic production of the Marsh Well was approximately 114.1 AFY of which the water quality was poor as a result of high chlorides and total dissolved solids. In 1991, UEC, the County, and Michael Towbes of Michael Towbes Construction and Development Inc. entered into the Marsh Well Pumpage Reduction Agreement to reduce UECs pumpage of the Marsh Well water. The Agreement allows UEC to pump 103.86 AFY of the well water for agricultural uses on the upper ranch north of Cathedral Oaks Road. (American Title Company 2011). Onsite Wells Approximately 40 onsite wells of varying depths are located in the property. Historically, these wells were generally not used and/or have been abandoned (Hoover 2010). Various geologic formations occur under the property, none of which are conducive to water production because of the narrow, thin alluvial aquifer conditions (Hoover 2010 and Sage 2011). Goleta Water District Water As detailed in the Property Title Report (American Title Company 2011), in 1993, UEC ranch management gave up their rights to water service, as provided by the Goleta Water District (GWD) on the upper ranch (north of Cathedral Oaks Road). Instead, the upper ranch relied solely on water from wells located on the upper ranch and stream diversion (e.g., McCoy Stream Diversion). This action was memorialized in an agreement between UEC and GWD (Waiver of Right to Water Service 1993) to waive UECs rights to obtain future water service from GWD on any portion of the land owned at the time by UEC (American Title Company 2011). As part of the discontinuation of service to the upper ranch agricultural operations, GWD agreed to provide UEC with 250 AFY of water to use anywhere on UECs property, except the upper ranch. UEC transferred the rights to the 250 AFY of water it received from GWD to University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB), along with some property, in 1994. UCSB assigned 50 AFY back to UEC in 1996. Since this 50 AFY of water could not be used on the upper ranch, per the original agreement between GWD and UEC in 1993, the 50 AFY is allocated only to the 240acre property.
July 21, 2011
2-4
Chapter 2. Setting
In conclusion, the 240-acre property has an allocation of 50 AFY of water provided by GWD. From a contextual perspective, the City uses approximately 14,000 AFY (GWD 2008).
July 21, 2011
2-5
Chapter 3. Environmental Characteristics
CHAPTER 3 ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS 3.1 VIEWS TO AND FROM THE PROPERTY
The property consists of gently rolling topography that affords views of the Pacific Ocean/Santa Barbara Channel, Goleta Slough, and Santa Ynez Mountains and foothills. The topography of the property ranges from an elevation of 115 feet above sea level at its highest point near the northern boundary along Cathedral Oaks Road to an elevation of 33 feet above mean sea level at its lowest point near the southern boundary along US 101. Generally the middle of the property ranges from 100 feet above mean sea level to 45 feet above mean sea level. Los Carneros Creek does not intersect the property, but is located on its eastern edge and extends north to south, terminating at the Pacific Ocean. The majority of the property has been disturbed by past agricultural activities. Different varieties of trees are present including oak tree clusters and eucalyptus trees in the form of windrows. Different types of vegetation are located on the property such as native and nonnative grasslands, coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub, and riparian forest along Los Carneros Creek. A historic period resource, the Bishop Ranch house, and associated stone pergola, garden, and plantings of mature exotic trees are also on the property. Views to the north from the property are of Cathedral Oaks Road, with orchards in the immediate foreground and then the Santa Ynez Mountains and foothills. Prominent features of the foothills and mountains can be seen throughout the property with expanses of orchards, chaparral, and rock outcroppings. Views to the east from the property consist of large trees in the immediate foreground, followed by foothills and residences. Lake Los Carneros is located east of the property; however, views of the lake are limited due to heavy vegetation that runs along the eastern property limits along Los Carneros Creek. Views from the property to the south are of US-101 in the immediate foreground, office and light industrial uses along Hollister Avenue; the UCSB campus, More Mesa, and the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport. However, many of these views are obstructed by large trees and the topography of the property depending on the viewers location. On a clear day and standing at the propertys highest elevation, the Pacific Ocean could be seen in the far background (Figure: Views from the Property). Views to the west from the property are of the Glen Annie Road in the immediate foreground, followed by a gas station, Dos Pueblos High School, and residences west of Glen Annie Road. The US-101 Glen Annie Bridge Overcrossing is also visible to the southwest. The Citys General Plan identifies scenic corridors that pass through, or provide visual access to, areas of high scenic value. The scenic corridors, or segments of those corridors, near the property include US-101, Cathedral Oaks Road, Hollister Avenue, and Los Carneros Road.
July 21, 2011
3-1
Public vantage points within the City include public streets and US-101, as well as public open spaces located throughout the City. Figure 3.1-1 of the General Plan (2006 as amended) shows the public vantage points that provide expansive views of the City and its visual resources for viewers on all of the surrounding roadways and in City public open spaces, such as Los Carneros Lake. These include views from US-101, views from other major public roadways within the City, and gateways to the City. These are described below. Views from US-101: Motorists on US-101 currently have both northerly and southerly views from the highway as it extends through the City. Between Los Carneros and Glen Annie Roads, motorists have northern views of the property. These views are of the historic period Bishop Ranch house and surrounding mature trees on the western side of the property, and gently rolling topography with some coast live oak clusters and eucalyptus windrows that run across the propertys center. The majority of the property is vacant land. Views to the north of the property are of the Santa Ynez Mountains and foothills. Prominent features of the foothills and mountains can be seen, with expanses of orchards and chaparral. Views from other Major Public Roadways within the City: Views of the property to the south of Cathedral Oaks Road include the mature trees surrounding the home, gently rolling topography with some coast live oak clusters, and eucalyptus windrows. There are limited views of US-101, office and light industrial uses found along Hollister Avenue, the UCSB campus, Hope Ranch, and the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport. Views to the north of Cathedral Oaks Road are of orchards and the foothills. Views from east of Glen Annie Road are of the property and large trees on the both sides of the road, As a motorist approaches Cathedral Oaks Road there are fewer trees, and views of the foothills and property open up again. Views to the west of Los Caneros Road are of agriculture and orchards on adjoining property. Views to the east are of Lake Los Carneros, the Goleta Depot, and residential land uses. Gateways to the City: Gateways are significant points of entry into a city or community that provide motorists with a sense of the areas character. Figure 3.1-1 of the General Plan depicts gateways to Goleta;, those applicable to the property include: views of the City, mountains, and foothills from Cathedral Oaks Road at the eastern and western City boundaries; and views of the City on Glen Annie Road, Los Carneros Road, and Fairview Avenue at the northern City boundaries.
3.2
AGRICULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS
The existing property was once part of a much larger ranch that encompassed more than 10,000 acres known as Corona del Mar or Bishop Ranch (see Chapter 2, Setting). Some of the 240-acre Bishop Ranch property was used to support the agricultural operations of the larger ranch, rather than as active production. As part of the evaluation conducted for this study, aerial photographs from as far back as 1929 were evaluated. These indicated that the following activities took place on the property from 1929 to 1975:
July 21, 2011
3-2
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\July2011\1_Views_from_thProperty.ai DD (07-20-11)
VIEWS FROM PROPERTY: SOUTH
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\July2011\2_Views_from_theProperty.ai SM (07-20-11)
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\July2011\3_Views_from_theProperty.ai DD (07-20-11)
1929: orchards cover the southwestern corner of the property. 1939: most of the upland portions of the property were planted in orchards. 1943: extensive orchards and water containment facilities existed on the east portion of the site, likely including walnuts. 1953: large portions of the orchards in the center and western portions of the site were removed with no farming evident in those areas. 1961: most of the orchards had removed in the southwestern corner of the property; windrows of hay crop existed in the north-central portions of the property; the remaining property appears uncultivated. 1967 and 1975: previous orchards were completely removed and the conditions appear similar to those of today, large nonnative fields.
Only limited active agricultural production occurred after 1975. Cattle were grazed from 1985 to 1990 and approximately 10 acres of citrus were planned in the northeastern corner of the property (CH2M Hill 2006). Several other attempts to grow Christmas Trees and strawberries in approximately 1990 were made (CH2M Hill). It is unknown why these crops were abandoned (Sage 2011). Aerial photographs reviewed in the 1990 do not readily depict orchards; however, due to the quality they are generally inconclusive (Sage 2011). . Since the early 1990s the property has remained vacant. The property has variable topography. Although it is generally flat, approximately 34 acres have a slope that is greater than 15 percent, and 19 acres have a slope that is greater than 20 percent. Active agricultural uses can be planted on slopes greater than 20 percent; however, generally, cultivated or planted slopes greater than 20 percent generate a higher rate of erosion and runoff (Sage 2011). The California Department of Conservation provides classifications for agricultural land in California based on several variables, including those considered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), plus other variables such as historical irrigation and water use and past use. The State classification system is used for the purposes of designating farmland of Statewide importance. Examples of the States agricultural land classification system, as mapped through the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program are: Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing Land and Other (Department of Conservation 2006). As part of this mapping and monitoring program, the property was previously designated Farmland of Local Importance; however, it is currently designated as Grazing Land or Other, because the property has not been in active agricultural production for several years and has not been irrigated in the last 4years (Department of Conservation 2008). Figure 3-1 identifies the location of the soil types. Based on an agriculture study conducted by Sage and Associates as part of this Bishop Ranch Study (2010), the Class I, Class II, and Class III soils currently found on approximately 200 acres of the property have the potential to qualify as Prime Farmland and/or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The agriculture study identifies the following constraints within these 200 acres: 20 acres of steep (greater than 20 percent slope) topography and, more significantly, the
July 21, 2011
3-3
lack of water supply to support irrigation for a viable agricultural operation. The agriculture study indicates that in order for these soils to qualify for Prime or Farmland of Statewide Importance status, they would have had to be irrigated and/or actively farmed within the last 4 years, a requirement under the Federal and State classification systems. The absence of the Prime or Farmland of Statewide Importance status on the property is due to a lack of available irrigation water. Refer to Figure 3-1 for the mapped locations of the California Department of Conservation designation and USDA NRCS soil classification type. Table 3-1 identifies the classification and type of soil, number of acres by soil type, and whether these soils are considered by the USDA NRCS to be prime agricultural soils. The table also summarizes the current California Department of Conservation designation and soil types that that are found on Farmlands of Statewide Importance. TABLE 3-1: SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Acres (Approximate) 12 USDA NRCS Designation Prime (irrigated or non irrigated) Prime (if irrigated) Not Prime Not Prime Not Prime Not Prime Department of Conservation Designation Grazing and Other Soil Types found on Farmlands of Statewide Importance1 Yes (if irrigated)
Class of Soil Class I
Class II Class III Class IV Class VI Class VIII
Type of Soil Aqueda (AaC) and Goleta (GcA), Aqueda and Diablo (Dac, DaD) Milpitas-Positas (MeC)
55 127 28 11 6
Yes (if irrigated) Yes (if irrigated) No No No
N/A
Gullied Land and varied Source: Sage 2010. 1 Although the property is not designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, soils exist on the property that are found on lands designated as such in the Goleta Valley. Therefore, identification of these soils is included in this table. If these soils were irrigated they may be eligible to be reclassified to Farmland of Statewide Importance.
The property is located within the Goleta Water District (GWD) service area with rights to 50 acre-feet per year (AFY) of potable water, of which current operations generally use less than 1 AFY (GWD 2011). There is a 1-inch GWD water meter installed, which serves the property. Water availability is an important factor for irrigated crop production on the property. Regionally, the same soil series found on the property has been used for lemons and avocados. Nursery and row crops could also be grown on the property with sufficient irrigation water. Irrigated truck crops or orchards would require approximately 2 AFY per acre. Therefore, approximately 400 AFY of water would be needed to irrigate approximately 200 acres on the property. If, however, only the 50 AFY of existing water were used to irrigate the property, approximately 25 acres of the property could be irrigated with this amount of water. Without irrigation water the property has a low suitability for agricultural uses. This is because dry farming would have to be implemented and because of the areas climate, dry farming generally only produces lower quality dryland hay and grain crops. The GWD can provide water service to the property for any type of land use. However, there is typically a one-time fee that would be applied equaling approximately $32,614 per acre to obtain
July 21, 2011
3-4
o os tur ta en se V Ca INO M NO CA MI CA
Covin
os
Rd
ay gton W
Los
Ca r rne
DaC (9ac)
L os C a
s Rd ral O ak Cathed
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\2011Jul\Fig3_1_ag_suitable_soils.mxd SM (07-19-11)
DaC (35ac)
DaD (11ac) DaC (4ac) MeC (51ac)
rn
e r os
Cr
ee
k
CALLE
al Re
n Gle Rd k nie ee An Cr
MeC (43ac)
Del Nort eD r
r lian D Casti
in Cam
Drivew ay
500 Feet
1,000
City of Goleta Class of Soil Property Class I Class II Class III Other
Source: City of Goleta; ESRI (2008); SSURGO
Figure 3-1 PROPERTY SOILS
Vi s
Gl A en
nn
ie
MeC (22ac) GcA (13ac)
AaC (6ac)
R Pa cific Union
R
VIA L
ui sa
additional water from the GWD.1 For irrigation purposes there would be an additional $435 per acre foot for water (2006/2008 cost; water rates are currently being revised by GWD). As discussed in Appendix L, GWDs service area, which includes the City and surrounding area, suffers from competing demands for limited water supply. In addition to the rights to 50 AFY of GWD-provided water, there are approximately 40 wells of varying depths on the property These wells are currently not used and/or have been formally abandoned (Hoover 2010). The terraced deposits that are located under the property likely do not have the quality or quantity to irrigate (Hoover 2010 and Sage 2011). Furthermore, water historically has come from offsite wells, thus the quality of water pumped on the property would likely not be suitable for use. For grazing operations production estimates are based on normal rainfall years only. The Santa Barbara County Cattlemens Association identifies that land capable of sustaining between 25 and 230 animal units per year is appropriate. The property is a suitable size for cattle grazing; however, the total carrying capacity based on an average forage production year equates to 19 animals per year. Therefore, the property is not considered viable for cattle grazing. Moreover, the Ag-1-40 zoning district does not permit a commercial livestock feed or sales yard. In summary, based on the analysis conducted by Sage Associates (2010), although property soils are suitable for agriculture, an agriculture operation is not sustainable because of the lack of water. Additionally, there is a high cost of allocated additional water beyond the existing 50 AFY. If irrigation water were available for the property, the property would be considered suitable for agricultural production based on the Santa Barbara agricultural suitability methodology. Also, the property would have a general low suitability for dryland farming based on the climate (Sage 2010), and cattle grazing is not suitable for the property based on average foraging production. Furthermore, other live animal activities such as raising chickens would not be suitable for an urban-type agriculture use (Sage 2011).
3.3
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS ISSUES
The Bishop Ranch property lies within the South Central Coast Air Basin (Air Basin), which encompasses all of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. The climate in and around the City, as well as for most of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high-pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. This high-pressure cell typically produces a Mediterranean climate with warm summers, mild winters, and moderate rainfall. This pattern is periodically interrupted by periods of extremely hot weather brought in by Santa Ana winds. Almost all precipitation occurs between November and April, although during these months, the weather is sunny or partly sunny a majority of the time. Cyclic land and sea breezes are the primary factors affecting the regions mild climate. The daytime winds are normally sea breezes, predominantly from the west, that flow at relatively low velocities. Additionally, cool, humid, marine air causes frequent fog and low clouds along the coast, generally during the night and morning hours in the late spring and early summer.
1 The GWD Board increased this fee from approximately $26,000 to approximately $31,000 in 2011. GWD may not apply the new water supply charge if a land owner has an existing entitlement to water that meets certain specifications. These conditions are discussed in Appendix L.
July 21, 2011
3-5
With some exceptions, the region generally has good air quality, and it attains or is considered in maintenance status for most ambient air quality standards. The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) is required to monitor air pollutant levels to assure that Federal and State air quality standards are being met. Criteria pollutants of primary concern include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). Although there are no ambient standards for volatile organic compounds/reactive organic gases (VOCs/ROCs) or nitrogen oxides (NOX), they are important as precursors to O3. Ozone air pollution is formed when nitrogen oxides (NOX) and ROCs react in the presence of sunlight. According to the APCD, the major sources of ozone precursor emissions in Santa Barbara County are motor vehicles, the petroleum industry, and solvent usage (paints, consumer products, and certain industrial processes). Sources of PM10 include grading, demolition, agricultural tilling, road dust, mineral quarries, and vehicle exhaust. The APCD has adopted Clean Air Plans (CAPs) that demonstrate how the County will maintain and/or meet State and Federal air quality standards, including ozone and particulate matter standards. The County currently violates the State 8-hour ozone and PM10 standards. The County is in attainment of the Federal 8-hour ozone standard and the State 1-hour ozone standard. APCD adopted the 2010 CAP and certified the related Environmental Impact Report at its January 20, 2011 meeting. The CAP provides an overview of the regions air quality and sources of air pollution, and identifies the pollution-control measures needed to meet clean-air standards. The schedule for plan development is outlined by State and Federal requirements, and is influenced by the regions air quality. The 2010 CAP is a three-year update required by the State to show how the APCD plans to meet the State 8-hour ozone standard. The 2010 CAP includes a climate protection chapter, with an inventory of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in the County. CO2 is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, and the one for which the APCD has the most accurate data. The Bishop Ranch property is vacant and, therefore, is not a source of air pollutant emissions or noxious odors. Sensitive receptors do not exist on the property. Ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. Sensitive receptors surrounding the property include Dos Pueblos High School to the west and residential land uses to the west and east. There are no identified historical odor sources on or adjacent to the property.
3.4
BIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
The vegetation communities and wildlife resources on the Bishop Ranch property are characterized below and discussed in more detail in Appendix D.2 Figure 3-2 presents a map of vegetation and is based on a previous survey conducted by LFR, Inc. (2008 and 2010), as
2
Vegetation classification conforms to Holland (1986).
July 21, 2011
3-6
M CA
IN
en OV
tur
CA
NO MI
sC Lo sR e ro a rn d
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Lo
sC
ar n e
ros
r ee
CA LLE
Re
al
De
Potentially Sensitive Biological Areas 10' Buffer Native Grasslands
SOURCE: ICF review of LRF (Arcadis) Biological Survey (2008) and ICF Site Visit (2010)
en Gl An R nie d
nn
lN
Gl
A en
0
Property Drainage Feature
25' Buffer Vegetation Communities - Upland Types Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub (0.66 acres) Coast Live Oak Woodland (4.60 acres)
ie
or te
200 Feet
50' Buffer Raptor/Monarch Habitat (Eucalyptus Woodland) Raptor/Monarch Habitat (Coast Live Oak Woodland) Raptor/Monarch Habitat (Cultivated Trees and Native Oak Trees) 100' Buffer Wetland Type Communities Eucalyptus Woodland (11.61 acres) Native Grassland (0.68 acres)
Cr
ee k
Dr
400
n Unio
P aci
fic R
Note: Vegetation mapping is based on data provided by LFR (Arcadis) and inspected for accuracy by ICF, and reflects site conditions at the time of survey. Focused biological surveys and jurisdictional delineations were not conducted for the preparation of this map.
Cam
Drivewa Figure 3-2 Non-Native Grassland (202.73 acres) VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Cultivated Trees and Native Oak Trees (14.28 acres) AND POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE Vegetation Communities - Wetland Types BIOLOGICAL AREAS Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (0.84 acres)
Southern Mixed Riparian Forest (2.17 acres) Southern Willow Scrub (2.79 acres)
verified by ICF biologists during a field survey in September 2010 (ICF 2010). Property vegetation communities, rare plants, special-status wildlife species, and jurisdictional features are discussed below from two perspectives: existing conditions and whether the community may be considered as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as defined by the General Plan Conservation Element. Nonnative Grassland: Nonnative grassland is characterized by a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses reaching up to 3 feet in height, and may include numerous native wildflowers, particularly in years of high rainfall. Invasive annual Mediterranean grasses were widely distributed in this vegetation community, and included such species as Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), slender wild oats (Avena barbata), rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), and annual fescues (Vulpia species). Nonnative grassland is the dominant habitat type on the property, accounting for approximately 203 acres covering approximately 84 percent of the property. Native Oak Trees and Other Trees: This community contains native oak trees as well as plantings of other trees, shrubs, and herbaceous perennials around the structures on the west side of the property, as well as in windrows. Both the cultivated trees and native oak trees occur in dense clusters in some locations and were observed to support raptor nests. Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) also were observed in these wooded communities and likely overwinter at these locations. Both raptor nests and butterfly aggregation/overwintering sites, including adjacent buffers, are protected as ESHA in the General Plan.. The area around the ranch house that supports a mix of native oaks and planted trees covers approximately 14 acres (6 percent) of the property. Eucalyptus Woodland: Eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus camaldulensis and E. globulus) occur in dense woodlands that were likely planted as windrows to the east of the structure (ranch house); one woodland is oriented in an eastwest direction and one is oriented in a northsouth direction perpendicular and eastwards of the first windrow. Smaller patches of eucalyptus woodlands were planted north of the ranch house and near Los Carneros Creek. The eucalyptus woodlands on the property were observed to support raptor nests. Monarch butterflies were also observed and likely overwinter at these locations. Both raptor nests and butterfly aggregation/overwintering sites, including adjacent buffers, are protected as ESHA in the General Plan. A variety of migratory and resident songbirds, as well as raptors such as turkey vultures and a variety of hawks are known to use the eucalyptus. The eucalyptus woodlands cover approximately 12 acres (5 percent) of the property. Coast Live Oak Woodland: Coast live oak woodland dominated by coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) occurs adjacent to the riparian vegetation along Los Carneros Creek on the eastern border of the property. California bay (Umbellularia californica) was also observed in this community. Shade-tolerant shrubs such as poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), blue elderberry, and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia predominate in the understory, along with vines such as California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), and herbaceous perennials such as California figwort (Scrophularia californica), coastal wood fern (Dryopteris arguta), hummingbird sage (Salvia spathacea), wood mint (Stachys bullata), and others. Santa Barbara sedge (Carex barbarae) is present under oaks in one location as well. Non native species such as Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), smilo (Piptatherum miliaceum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca
July 21, 2011
3-7
serriola), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) are scattered along the disturbed margins of the oak woodland near the agricultural fields. The coast live oak woodlands on the property likely support raptor nests given the observation of active nests in the eucalyptus woodland and other non-native trees. Oak woodlands and raptor nests, including adjacent buffers, are protected as ESHA in the General Plan. Coast live oak woodlands cover approximately 5 acres (2 percent) of the Property. Remnant Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub (Baccharis Scrub): Venturan coastal sage scrub vegetation is common on the South Coast foothills and is less common on the relatively flat topography and disturbed urban-suburban conditions in Goleta. On the property, decades of upland vegetation clearing has largely reduced the potential for this vegetation type with the exception of small, disturbed, remnant patches. These remnant patches are dominated by coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis subsp. consanguinea) and occur on the edges of ravines and in drainages, as well as scattered individual plants in the open, recently mowed fields. Other coastal scrub species observed as isolated individuals or in small patches include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), laurel sumac(Malosma laurina), black sage (Salvia mellifera), poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii ssp. menziesii), Douglas nightshade (Solanum douglasii), California fuchsia (Epilobium canum), chaparral morning-glory (Calystegia macrostegia ssp. cyclostegia), and giant-rye (Leymus condensatus). Resprouting coastal scrub species are especially vigorous in the northeast corner of the property. Coastal sage scrub, including adjacent buffers, are protected as ESHA in the General Plan. Remnant Venturan coastal scrub covers approximately 1 acre (<1 percent) of the property. Native Grassland: A native grassland dominated by alkali-rye (Leymus triticoides) occurs at the base of drainage feature to the east of the ranch house and south of two planted pecan trees. Immediately south of the property, the grassland transitions to what appears to be a wetland plantdominated feature along the banks and within the drainage feature. Native grassland, including adjacent buffers, is protected as ESHA in the General Plan. Native grassland covers approximately 1 acre (<1 percent) of the property. Southern Willow Scrub: Southern willow scrub, dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), borders the central drainage at the property. A few coast live oaks are found in this area as well. Arroyo willow is also found as an occasional understory species under the eucalyptus woodland in adjoining drainages, indicating possible wet conditions in the woodland understory. Small clumps of willows are also found along the drainage immediately east of the ranch house, as well as along the western perimeter of the property. In addition to arroyo willow, coyote bush, mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), native narrowleaved milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis), giant-rye, alkali-rye, western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), and California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) are present. Southern willow scrub, including adjacent buffers, are protected as ESHA in the General Plan. It covers approximately 3 acres (1 percent) of the property. Southern Mixed Riparian Forest: Southern mixed riparian forest forms a dense tangle of woody vegetation along Los Carneros Creek that crowds and shades out other growth in places, although openings and banks support mule fat, creek clematis (Clematis ligusticifolia), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), poison-oak, Santa Barbara sedge (Carex barbarae), and other wetland-type species. In addition, invasive species are present in these forests, especially
July 21, 2011
3-8
cape-ivy (Delairea odorata), castor-bean (Ricinis communis), and pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata). Southern mixed riparian forest, including adjacent buffers, are protected as ESHA in the General Plan. It covers approximately 2 acres (1 percent) of the property. Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh: A freshwater marsh occurs to the immediate northeast of the house near some large western sycamores and is dominated by three-square bulrush (Schoenoplectus pungens var.pungens) and occasional spear-leaved saltbush (Atriplex triangularis). Alkali-rye (Leymus triticoides) forms large patches at the margins of this marsh. Farther to the south in the same drainage, three-square bulrush forms a southward-trending line before surface saturated soils disappear. A wide swath of a wetland monocot (mowed, no diagnostic features available for identification) continues southwards towards a large planted pecan in the drainage bottom. This drainage also supports native grassland that was previously described, including the offsite wetland-type habitat located immediately downstream of the propertys southern fenceline. The native grassland supports some prairie bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus) along with tall flatsedge and nonnative wetland-type species such as curly dock, bristly ox-tongue, celery (Apium graveolens), rabbitsfoot grass, and birds foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), among others. Freshwater marsh, including adjacent buffers, are protected as ESHA in the General Plan. This vegetation community covers approximately 0.9 acre (<1 percent) of the property. Rare Plants: Rare plants were not observed on the property during field surveys conducted by LRF, Inc. biologists (LFR 2008, 2010). Figure 4-1 of the General Plan Conservation Element identifies southern tar plant (Centromadia parryi subsp. australis) on the southwestern corner of the property. This occurrence is based on data provided by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The special-status of this species is based on a rating by the California Native Plant Society. This species is not considered as a special-status species by the State or Federal government. Rare Wildlife: Based on ICFs biologists consideration of the property and reviews of the CNDDB (CDFG 2010) and LFR, Inc. study (LFR 2008; LRF 2010), the property is considered to have a low potential for hosting State or Federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species, such as the least Bells vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and red-legged frog. Regular mowing on the property, historic vegetation clearing activities, high density of nonnative species, fragmentation of habitats, and lack of ponded water are examples of the rationale behind ICFs preliminary conclusions. Refer to Appendix D for more detail. However, the property provides potentially suitable habitat for a variety of more common wildlife species, including species with other special-status ratings by the State and/or Federal governments. Refer to Appendix D for a list of possible special-status species that are known to occur or likely could occur on the site. For example, special-status wildlife species that are known to occur on the property include monarch butterfly, white-tailed kite, loggerhead shrike, and Coopers hawk. Jurisdictional Features: A formal jurisdictional wetland delineation, as defined by and afforded protections from the State and Federal governments, has not been conducted on this property. However, based on property characteristics, including identified vegetation communities, the presence of Los Carneros Creek on the eastern border of the property, and the onsite drainages that discharge to Glen Annie Creek (also called Tecolotito Creek), it is likely there are some jurisdictional features located on or immediately adjacent to the property.
July 21, 2011
3-9
3.5
CULTURAL/PALENTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The cultural and paleontological resources on the property are characterized below and discussed in more detail in Appendix E. Resource descriptions are based on a review of existing literature, database searches, and a site visit by an ICF archeologist (ICF 2010). The property is known to encompass five recorded prehistoric archaeological sites. Prehistoric archaeological sites consist of surface and subsurface deposits containing human-related artifacts, burial interments, food refuse and/or food preparation features such as hearths, and bedrock-associated features containing milling elements, rock art, or living shelters (City of Goleta 2006). The property was surveyed for cultural resources in 1978 and resurveyed in 1979 as part of earlier effort to develop the property. The descriptions of these sites over time are somewhat contradictory. CA-SBA-137 and CA-SBA-1656 are described by various researchers as either midden deposits, which imply a site with dense deposits or as low density shell and lithic scatters, which implies the opposite of midden deposits. It is also possible that the sites described as very sparse scatters of shell with very few artifacts, such as CA-SBA-1653 and CA-SBA-1655, may in fact be fossil shell deposits exposed by plowing and past agricultural development, rather than archaeological deposits. Because of this contradictory information over time, it is difficult to determine the importance of these prehistoric sites and whether they have been interpreted correctly and recorded correctly. Furthermore, it is difficult to determine if they are losing archaeological materials over time to casual collectors or past agricultural uses. The Bishop Ranch house and surrounding outbuildings and landscape on the property served as the headquarters for the Corona del Mar ranch. The present ranch house was built in 1912 (Figure: Place of Historic Merit). The house and its surroundings were documented as a Place of Historic Merit by the Santa Barbara County Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission (Santa Barbara County 1993). The Glen Annie Ranch (same as the property) was identified as a Goleta Historic Structure in the Goleta Valley Historical Society Self Guided Tour of Historic Sites and Structures in the Goleta Valley brochure (no date). Minutes of the March 14, 1994, meeting of the Santa Barbara County Historic Land Mark Advisory Commission imply that a landmark designation was not acted upon by the Commissioners and, instead, retained the Place of Historic Merit status as a result of the property owners opposition to a Landmark status (Santa Barbara County 1994). This status is carried forward in the General Plan, as identified in Table 6-1 and Figure 6-2 of the Visual and Historic Resources Element (City of Goleta 2006).
3.6
REGIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS AND HOUSING
Regional and local demographics and housing characteristics are described below. Population, Housing and Demographics: The U.S. Census Bureau (2010) identifies the following statistics for the City of Goleta: Population: Median Age: 29,888 (7 percent of the Countys population) 36.5 (as compared to 33.6 Countywide)
July 21, 2011
3-10
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\July11\3_Place_of_Merit.ai DD (07-20-11)
PLACE OF HISTORIC MERIT
Average Household Size: Over 65 Living Alone: Housing Units: Group Quarters: Housing Vacancy Rate: Occasional Use Housing: Hispanic Population: Household Size Owner Occupancy
2.72 people per household (as compared to 2.86 Countywide) 1,090 people (about 4 percent of total Goleta population) 11,473 (7 percent of the Countys housing stock) 201 individual 5 percent (as compared to 7 percent Countywide) 103 units of a total of 808 units Countywide 32 percent (as compared to 42.9 percent Countywide) is smaller for rentals compared to owner (opposite of County) 53 percent of housing stock (as compared to 52.7 Countywide)
Median Household Income: $69,304 (U.S Census Bureau 2009a) Interesting facts regarding Goletas population include a low rental housing vacancy rate; a relatively older population and, consequently, a smaller household size; an even smaller household size for rentals as compared to owner-occupied units, likely a consequence of the UCSB student influence; and a high median household income, also likely attributable to UCSB professor influence. SBCAGs Regional Growth Forecast 20052040 Report South Coast predicts that Goletas population will increase over the 20052040 period by 20.5 percent (SBCAG 2007). Housing Affordability and Costs: Goleta Valley housing prices were increasing significantly faster than the County average but slower than the prices in the city of Santa Barbara (City of Goleta 2009a). The nationwide mortgage crisis and declining economy has impacted the housing market in the City. According to the California Association of Realtors median home prices in the City have dropped by approximately 22.4 percent in the last year. The January 2009 median home price was $702,500 and dropped to $545,000 as of January 2010. Even with the drop in home prices in the City, sales prices for housing continue to exceed the ability to pay of many low and moderate-income households, particularly for first-time homebuyers and new entrants to the local housing market. Rents have increased in recent years but less rapidly than sales prices. The rental housing market is particularly influenced by demand from UCSB students (City of Goleta 2009b). Rental housing is relatively more affordable than ownership housing. Goletas vacancy rate is 5 percent based on the 2010 Census. A vacancy rate of 5.0 percent is generally used to represent equilibrium in the multifamily housing market. The traditional standard for determining housing affordability is when housing costs do not exceed 30 percent of the income of a household. This standard is recommended by the Governors Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines, which define housing
July 21, 2011
3-11
costs that exceed 30 percent of the income of a household as overpayment for housing. However, 53 percent of owners with mortgages, 10 percent of owners without mortgages, and 59 percent of renters in Goleta spent 30 percent more of their household income on housing (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a). Employment: According to SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast, approximately 24,702 jobs were anticipated within the City in 2010 and 26,146 are predicted for 2015 (SBCAG 2007). SBCAG estimates indicate that approximately 50 percent of all jobs in the Goleta Valley area are in the City. SBCAG tracks commuter activity noting large inter-county travel data, particularly on the South Coast of the County, including Goleta. UCSB employment and related research is a large contributor to the employment pool in the Goleta Valley, attracting out-of-town employees where they might not otherwise travel. Jobs-to-Housing Ratio: The jobs-to-housing balance concept is a comparison of the number of jobs provided at workplaces located in an area to the number of housing units in the same area. The jobs-to-housing concept is a way to monitor the supply of housing for employees working in an area. This ratio methodology has been used in regional planning in an attempt to define possible public policy purposes, such as presumed reductions in traffic congestion and decreases in employee long-distance commuting. The 2010 jobs-to-housing ratio for the City is shown in Table 3-2 and was generated by ICF as part of this study. For comparison purposes, ICF reviewed the jobs-to-housing ratio from the SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast (2007), which is 2.07. The ICF estimate and SBCAG projection for 2010 are nearly identical, indicating an insufficient supply of housing to meet the needs of the workforce. In-commuting and freeway traffic is a consequence, among other things. TABLE 3-2: GOLETA JOBS-TO-HOUSING RATIO
Population Jobs Total Residential Units Jobs-to-housing Ratio Notes:
1 2
29,8881 24,7022 11,4731 2.15
Based on U.S. Census Bureau 2010 population count. Based on SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast (2007)
The concept of jobs-housing balance, and of what constitutes a desirable or superior ratio remains debated and may vary from one area to another and the geographic scale evaluated. Many factors affect the location of jobs, such as the UCSB influence, and the generation of housing, such as the availability of vacant land. Worker preferences and other behavioral relationships also play a factor in where people reside and where they work. Therefore, although the Goleta jobs-to-housing ratio may appear imbalanced, other factors must be weighed into any conclusion. Another way of looking at jobs and housing is to compare total jobs in an area with the total number of resident workers. In Goleta, this comparison results in a balanced ratio of nearly 1 job
July 21, 2011
3-12
for every 1 worker residing in Goleta. For more information regarding population, housing, and demographics, refer to Appendix F.
3.7
ONSITE GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The Bishop Ranch property is generally flat with approximately 34 acres of slopes greater than 15 percent and 19 acres with slopes greater than 20 percent. The property is broken into two distinct geological sedimentary Quaternary Units: Qoa and Qa. The quaternary unit Qoa makes up the majority of the property and consists of former alluvial deposits of silt, sand, and gravel. Qa is made up of unconsolidated flood-plain alluvial deposits of silt, sand, and gravel (see Figure 3-3). The majority of the property contains soils with moderately high erodibility potential including Milpas/Positas deposits (such as MeC, MeD, and MeD2), Goleta fine sand loam (GcA), Agueda silty clay loam (AaC), Diablo clay deposits, and Aqueda clay deposits (DaD, DaC, and AaA). Diablo and Aqueda deposits characteristically have lower erodibility than other onsite soils. The property is located roughly 2,000 feet south of the Glen Annie Fault. Other fault zones in the area include the More Ranch Fault to the south and the Carneros Fault to the north. According to the City of Goleta General Plan Safety Element, none of these faults are classified as active by the State Division of Mines and Geology or subject to an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. However, the More Ranch Fault is considered active, according to the Santa Barbara County Seismic Safety and Safety Element (SSSE) (2011). Based on the proximity to the More Ranch Fault, which is considered potentially active, geologic and seismic hazards such as ground shaking and liquefaction could occur on the property or within the vicinity. The conditions for other soil-related hazards such as compressible or collapsible soils and expansive soils also occur on the property. Approximately 19 acres are compressible soils. Additionally, Rincon Formations located under the surface formations in the northern part of the property are known to support radon gas, a naturally occurring carcinogen.
3.8
POTENTIAL FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Based on the past history of agricultural production, it is likely that the property was subject to some type of pesticide, herbicide, and/or fertilizer use. However, no soil or groundwater testing has been done to determine whether residual agricultural chemicals remain on the property. A search of government sources and databases was conducted by Environmental Data Resources (EDR) to identify listed hazardous material users, hazardous materials generators, or hazardous release sites within and surrounding the property (EDR 2010). Per the EDR report, there is one Historical Underground Storage Tank (HIST UST) on the property. There is another listing for a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Site, the status of which is Completed Case Closed. There are no other listings on the property. Most of the other sites identified by the EDR report are located south of US-101, down gradient or at lower elevations than the property. The nearest listing is south of the property on the other side of US-101, which contains three hazardous material sites: a drycleaner, an industrial
July 21, 2011
3-13
facility, and a building owned by Raytheon listed as a small quantity generator. All other listings are farther away, either near these listing to the south of the property or to the west. All listings are greater than 0.25 mile from the propertys center. There are no known natural gas or oil pipelines on the property (American Title Company 2011). Transportation corridors occupied by vehicles or railcars transporting hazardous material or wastes are potential sources of accidental releases that could affect various areas of the property. Transportation of hazardous materials and wastes in the City is most likely to occur along US-101 and Cathedral Oaks Road. There are Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) tracks that run just to the south of the property that are likely to transport hazardous materials as well. Goleta is a participant in the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The City, in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the County, and the State Offices of Emergency Services, is responsible for emergency preparedness and response. The Hazard Mitigation Plan would be utilized to identify evacuation routes and secondary emergency accesses and to provide information to the community regarding appropriate individual actions in the event of accidental releases from vehicles transporting hazardous materials or wastes. The property is located within the Airport Influence Area, but outside of Clear and Approach Zones, for the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport and is subject to land use oversight by the Airport Land Use Commission.
3.9
SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Los Carneros and Glen Annie Creek (also known as Tecolotito Creek) run adjacent to the property, to the east and west, respectively. Both creeks are listed as impaired on the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list. The Los Carneros Creek is impaired for salinity, pathogens, nutrients, and miscellaneous. The Glen Annie Creek is impaired for salinity. Also, Goleta Slough, which receives flows from Los Carneros Creek, is listed as impaired for pathogens and priority organics (California EPA 2010). Currently, the property is vacant land and is 100 percent pervious, allowing percolation of precipitation into the groundwater and reducing the velocity of stormwater runoff into receiving waters during a storm. There are two drainage features located in the middle and toward the eastern edge of the property, both of which drain into Glen Annie Creek (Figure 3-4). During ICFs site visit, the easternmost water resource was noted to have no running water, but standing water was present and there were patches of soggy soils (ICF 2010).
3.10
NOISE ISSUES
The property is vacant land and has very little to no noise generating uses nor is it a host to sensitive noise receptors. Surrounding land uses such as residential, schools, roads, highways, rail, and airport generate noise, affecting the property. Some of these land uses are also sensitive noise receivers. These sensitive receptors are unaffected by the property. Existing
July 21, 2011
3-14
C Los sR e ro a rn d
Cathedral Oaks Rd
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\2011Jul\Fig3_3_slopes_over_15prcnt.mxd SM (07-19-11)
Lo s
Car
ner os
eek Cr
Feet
ilian C as t
Slopes Slope 15-20% Slope > 20%
Dr
Drive Figure 3-3 SLOPES OVER 15%
way
in Cam
Property Drainage Feature
SOURCE: City of Goleta; California Resources Agency (2007)
en Gl An R nie d
Gl
en
De
An
lN or te
e ni Cr
ee k
Dr
n Unio
Pacif
ic RR
500
1,000
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\2011Jul\Fig3_4_hydro_features.mxd SM (07-19-11)
n Gle
ie Rd Ann
Cov
on ingt
Way
Cathedral Oaks Rd
lle Ca
Del Norte Dr
Gl en An
0 Property Drainage Feature 500 Feet City of Goleta Streamside Protection Area 100 foot Buffer* (14.17 acres) 25 foot Buffer (0.88 acres) FEMA Flood Areas FEMA Flood Area: 100-Year Flood (4.93 acres)
Source: City of Goleta; ESRI (2008);FEMA
Lo sC
n Gle nie An Rd
1,000 Note: General Plan policies CE 2.2 and SE6.6 identify the setbacks and streamside protection areas related to streams. Acres presented in parenthesis are within the property boundary. *Buffers for seasonal creeks were determined by adding the buffer to the edge of mapped vegetation.
a rn e ro sC
al Re
e ni
r ee
Cr
ee k
Figure 3-4 HYDROLOGIC FEATURES AND FLOOD ZONES
FEMA Flood Area: 500-Year Flood (0.00 acres)
vibration sources on the property would potentially be from US-101 or the UPRR rail line located to the south of property.
3.11 STATUS OF FIRE, POLICE, LIBRARY, SCHOOL, PARKS/RECREATION SERVICES

Public services and facilities to the City of Goleta are summarized in this section and identified on Figure 3-5. Fire: The Santa Barbara County Fire Department (SBCFD) provides fire protection and related services to the City. The SBCFD follows the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) responsetime objectives. Under these standards, a 5-minute response time in urban areas is considered adequate (Goleta 2006, Sadecki 2011). Most of the City falls within a 5-minute response time and is adequately covered, the exceptions being the western part of the City near Winchester Canyon and in some of the most northerly neighborhoods, north of Cathedral Oaks Road between Fairview and Patterson Avenues (Goleta 2005). The property is located within an area designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) as a Local Responsibility Area. Fire services in this Local Responsibility Area are provided by SBCFD. To the north of the property on the far side of Cathedral Oaks Road, land is within a State Responsibility Area and is a high fire hazard severity zone as designated by CalFire. The other areas susceptible to high fire hazards generally include lands with steep slopes and ample vegetation, or fuel load. The existing topography of the property has over 41 acres of land at a 1020 percent slope and an additional 19 acres of land at a slope of 20 percent or greater. Although the property is currently vacant land and does not necessarily require fire services, SBCFD would provide services should a fire occur on the property. Police: The Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Department (SBCSD) provides police services to the City, which is divided into three beats with one police car assigned to each. SBCSD officers assigned to the unincorporated areas of the County are also available, as needed, for emergency response within the City limits. City police operate out of two locations: one in Old Town on Hollister Avenue and one at the Camino Real Marketplace. City police also use the SBCSD headquarters in a nearby unincorporated area between Turnpike and El Sueno Roads (Goleta 2006). The City uses the ratio of 1 police officer per 1,000 residents. Currently the City has approximately 31 officers assigned, which meets the 31 officers required by the Citys ratio (Sugars pers. comm.). The property is located within City limits and therefore is served by the SBCSD. However, the property is currently vacant land and therefore does not generate any demand for police services. Schools and Libraries: Public education services are provided to the City by the Goleta Union School District (GUSD) and the Santa Barbara School District (SBSD). GUSD owns and operates five schools within City boundaries (Brandon, El Rancho, Ellwood, Kellogg, and La Patera). According to a GUSD Demographics Report that shows 20102011 Demographic Key Points and Trends, GUSD has increased its student population by ten students (GUSD 2010). Generally, enrollment has been steady for the last few years with 3,600 to 3,700 students (Kushnerov pers. comm.).
July 21, 2011
3-15
The SBSD includes the elementary and secondary districts (Kushnerov pers. comm.) and oversee Dos Pueblos High School and the Goleta Valley Junior High School, which are both located within City boundaries. SBSD also oversees San Marcos High School in the eastern Goleta Valley. SBSD is still not at capacity and is under open enrollment (Hetyonk pers. comm.). The enrollment is no longer declining has stabilized (Hetyonk pers.comm.). Students within the district are allowed to transfer between schools because they are not at capacity (Hetyonk pers. comm.). The Santa Barbara Public Library System has eight library facilities, one of which is within the City limits. Services at the Goleta Public Library are provided by contract with the City of Santa Barbara in a facility owned by the City of Goleta at 500 North Fairview Avenue. This facility provides services for the City and nearby unincorporated areas. Annual circulation has steadily increased. Services are currently provided by 5full-time and 2 part-time employees. In 1999, an AB 1600 Fee Justification Study was conducted by David Taussig and Associates. The study concluded that the facility had a deficit of 155,855 volumes and needed an additional 26,330 square feet (Goleta 2006). The use of schools and libraries is associated with population and/or population growth. The property is currently vacant land and therefore does not generate a need for schools or libraries. Parks: The City contains 16 public parks, 4 private parks and open space areas, and 18 public open space areas totaling 526 acres, or about 17 acres per 1,000 residents. The 3 larger Cityowned regional open space preservesthe Ellwood Mesa/Sperling Preserve and Lake Los Carneros Natural and Historical Preservecollectively account for 363 acres of these 526 acres (Goleta 2006). The City has an abundance of open space and passive parks and has a shortage of active parks. There is currently a deficiency in public active parks, and there are no City recreational programs. The City is currently in the process of seeking out opportunity places, those that are large enough to accommodate active recreation. Availability of land and funding have been major obstacles for the development of active parks and public recreation programs. (Millar, pers. comm.) The use of parks and recreational facilities is associated with population and/or population growth. The property is currently vacant land and therefore does not generate a need or opportunity for parks and recreation.
3.12
REGIONAL AND ONSITE WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER
Service suppliers to the City of Goleta are summarized in this section. The boundaries of the service districts are shown on Figure 3-6.
3.12.1
Water Supply
GWD supplies drinking water to approximately 80,000 people within the South Coastal portion of Santa Barbara County, encompassing approximately 29,000 acres. As part of this service area, GWD provides water to the City, UCSB, and the unincorporated County.
July 21, 2011
3-16
Fairview Ave
Ke llog gA
ve
Mountain View
Pat terson A ve
n Goleta Valley
d nnie R Glen A
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Foothill
Property
La Patera
n
GUSD Headquaters
Kellogg
Cathedral Oaks Rd
"Los Carneros
Lake
"
Union Pacific RR
n
Brandon
Cal le R eal
n
El Rancho
n
Dos Pueblos
\
er Carn Los d os R
Calle R eal
Tu rn pike Rd
n
Pue nte Dr
San Marcos
Fairview Ave
Ellwood
!
Hollister Ave
Sa Ol d
ose nJ
Phe lps
Rd
"
Storke R d
X
" Mes n
El Colegio Rd
#
Goleta Slough
aR d
Rancho Goleta Lake
Isla Vista Devereux Slough
0 1,500 Feet 3,000
Isla Vista UCSB
Pacific Ocean
Campus Lagoon
Legend School Facilities
Fire Facilities
Law Enforcement Facilities
Other Facilities
Other Features
Goleta City Boundary City of Santa Barbara School District Boundary
n n n n
Schools - Goleta Union School District Goleta Union School District Headquarters Goleta Union School District Maintenance Facilities Schools - Santa Barbara High School District
! "
Fire Stations - Santa Barbara City Fire Department Fire Stations - County of Santa Barbara Fire Department Future Fire Station-Conceptual Location
\ Old Town Goleta ] Sheriff Substation West ] Goleta Substation Sheriff

CHP
Goleta Valley Community Center Goleta City Hall (Leased Facility) Goleta Branch Library
Figure 3-6 3-5 PUBLIC SERVICE FACILITIES
Hope Sch ool District
Gole ta Union Sc hool Dis tric t
Holli
Ave ster
Hollister Ave
ek Cr e
Sa n
An
a ater La P Ln
Fairview Ave
Ke llog gA
ve
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Pat terson A ve
d nnie R Glen A
Property
a ater La P
Foothill
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Los Carneros Lake
Calle R eal
Cal le R
Union Pacific RR
Ave ster
eal
Fairview Ave

101
Hollister Ave
er Carn Los
Holli
San Ol d
Jos
k r ee eC

Phe lps Rd
Storke R d
#
Me sa
El Colegio Rd
Rancho Goleta Lake
Goleta Slough
Rd
Devereux Slough
0 1,500 Feet 3,000
Isla Vista UCSB
Pacific Ocean
Campus Lagoon
Legend
Jurisdictional Features City of Goleta Goleta Sanitary District Goleta West Sanitary District Goleta Water District City of Santa Barbara
Other Features
Goleta Sanitary District Plant and Offices
Figure 3-6 3-5 SERVICE AREA BOUNDARIES
Pue nte Dr
d os R
217
s r
Hollister Ave
Tu rn pike Rd
San Marcos
Sa n
An
Ln
There are three supply sources for the service area: the Cachuma Project, State Water Project (SWP), and Annual Groundwater Right. The majority of the GWDs water supply comes from the Cachuma Project, which provides 9,322 AFY (GWD 2010). Water Supply: Currently, GWD is preparing the update to its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) . This document will closely re-evaluate each of the supplies described above and the amounts available in future years under differing climate conditions (GWD 2011). GWD released a Water Supply Management Plan in April of 2010. 3 The Water Supply Management Plan reveals that the service area currently has a supply of approximately 16,472 AFY during average water conditions and approximately 14,434 during drought conditions. Water Demand: The service area of the GWD is made up primarily of residential, institutional (e.g., UCSB), and agricultural uses. The GWD service area is projected to experience growth at 0.8 percent per year for the next 20years based on estimates by the Santa Barbara County of Association of Governments (GWD 2008). Evaluating past demand provides context for estimating current and future water demand in the service area. The district-wide sales between 2002 and 2007 ranged from 11,835 AFY (2005) to 15,554 (2007) (GWD 2008). The average demand over these years was 13,922 AFY (GWD 2008). GWD previously estimated the 2010 service area demand to be approximately 13,700 (GWD 2008). The Water Supply Management Plan reveals that the service area demands are slightly more than past projections, approximately 14,600 AFY during average water conditions and drought conditions. Water Sufficiency: As part of the Goleta 2006 General Plan EIR, a future water supply surplus for 2010 was estimated at 2,559 AFY in a normal water year (Goleta 2006, Table 3.9-3). This surplus was determined by comparing the demand and supply from data presented in the 2006 Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the Goleta General Plan. It is estimated there would be a surplus of approximately 662 AFY available in 2030 in a normal water year (Goleta 2006 Table 3.9-3). The Water Supply Management Plan reveals that under current demand and supply conditions there would be a surplus of water in average conditions (approximately 1,872 AFY) and multi-year drought conditions and a deficit of water in single year drought conditions (GWD April 2011).
3.12.2
Wastewater
Goleta West Sanitary District (GWSD): GWSD handled wastewater disposal for approximately 33,000 people living in western Goleta, Isla Vista, and, by contract, the Embarcadero Municipal Improvement District. GWSD maintains a network of conveyance pipes and pump stations, and conveys its wastewater from the service area to the Goleta Sanitary District (GSD) treatment plant located at the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport. GWSD has an agreement with GSD for flow capacity ownerships at the GWSD treatment plant for 40.78 percent of the treatment plants capacity (Dudek 2006). The GWSD service area currently generates approximately 1.71 million gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater; well under the 40.78 percent it is allowed and thus has
The Water Supply Management Plan was released in April of 2011 and information was incorporated into this document. However, the UWMP has not been released. Once both of these plans are released the information contained herein can be updated if needed.
July 21, 2011
3-17
approximately 1.41 MGD in remaining capacity it could use for future development within the service area. Future wastewater generation of GWSD was calculated in 2006 as part of the General Plan EIR (Goleta 2006), which accounted for General Planrelated buildout. Based on a review of this data, it is estimated that in 10 years, the GWSD service area would have an additional 0.2 MGD of wastewater flows, for a total of 1.91 MGD of wastewater flows. This would result in a remaining capacity of 1.3 MGD. At buildout, remaining capacity was estimated at 1.01 and 0.9 MGD within the 40.78 percent GWSD is allowed per the wastewater treatment facility allocation. Goleta Sanitary District (GSD): The eastern portion of the City is served by GSD, which collects, treats, and disposes all wastewater. GSDs collection boundary covers approximately 9,282 acres and serves approximately 64,500 people. The GSD service area currently generates about 2.54 MGD of wastewater. The GSD treatment plant treats not only GSD generated wastewater, but also treats the wastewater of GWSD and other wastewater generators. The treatment plant has a capacity of 9.7 MGD but is currently limited to a permitted discharge of 7.64 MGD (RWQCB, Central Region 2010). Disposal of treated effluent is by ocean outfall offshore from Goleta Beach. The wastewater treatment plant will be upgraded to full secondary treatment in 2014 (RWQCB, Central Region 2010). Future wastewater generation of GSD was calculated in 2006 as part of the General Plan EIR (Goleta 2006). The estimate was calculated using similar methods as those used for the GWSD. Based on this information, the future wastewater generation within the next 10 years is anticipated to be between 0.26 and 0.31 MGD, or a total of 2.80 and 2.85 MGD. At buildout, it is estimated the future wastewater generation would be between 0.57 and 1.51 MGD for a total of 3.11 and 4.05 MGD. Property Wastewater Generation: The Bishop Ranch property is outside the service area of GWSD. It has no existing wastewater infrastructure, and the vacant home has been served by a septic tank. Based on the historical use of the property as having laborer housing formerly located in the northern portions, there may be additional septic tanks on the property not associated with the vacant house; however, this has not been confirmed, nor corroborated.
3.12.3
Solid Waste
Solid waste collection services in Goleta are provided by MarBorg Industries. All nonhazardous solid waste in the City and the surrounding South Coast area is handled at two local facilities: the South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station, and Tajiguas Landfill. Both sites are owned and operated by the Santa Barbara County Public Works Department, Resource Recovery and Waste Management Division. The South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station is a collection point where solid waste is collected and sorted. It handles approximately 550 tons per day of solid waste, and recycles approximately 200 tons per day from the County of Santa Barbara (County of Santa Barbara Public Works 2010). The Tajiguas Landfill accepts the solid waste from the transfer station which cannot be recycled. The Table 3-3 summarizes relevant facts associated with this landfill.
July 21, 2011
3-18
TABLE 3-3: SUMMARY OF TAJIGUAS LANDFILL

Permitted Total Estimated Waste Capacity (cubic Capacity Used Processed Waste yards) (cubic yards) Processed (cubic yards 1 (Tons Per Day) per day) 1,500 1,080 23,3000,000 16,640,000 Source: County of Santa Barbara Public Works 2010 and CalRecycle 2010 1 It is assumed that 1 ton (2,000 pounds) is equal to 0.72 cubic yard. Remaining Estimated Capacity (cubic yards) 6,660,000 Closure Date
1/1/2023
The annual per capita residential waste generation in Goleta is estimated to be 0.95 tons per person. If the average household size in Goleta is 2.72 persons, a household could generate 2.6 tons per year of solid waste or 0.077 tons, or 14 pounds per day. The City averages approximately 2,400 tons each month, which is approximately 8 percent of the solid waste that goes to Tajiguas (Goleta 2006). Because it is vacant land, the property does not generate solid waste.
3.13 3.13.1
REGIONAL AND ONSITE TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Roadway System
Regional access to the property is provided by US-101 via interchanges at Glen Annie and Los Carneros Roads. US-101 is designated as a freeway for its entire length in Goleta. The rightsof-way for these routes are controlled and managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The average annual daily traffic (AADT) along US-101 between Glen Annie Road and Los Carneros Road is 55,000 vehicles per day (Caltrans 2009). Local access to the property includes three eastwest arterial roadways that generally parallel the US101 corridor: Hollister Avenue to the south of the freeway and Calle Real and Cathedral Oaks Road to the north of the freeway. Northsouth arterials that provide major access to the property include Storke-Glen Annie Road and Los Carneros Road. Calle Real, which runs east west between US-101 and Cathedral Oaks Road, does not run between Storke-Glen Annie Road and Los Carneros Road. Table 3-4 lists the functional classifications, number of lanes, and existing average daily traffic (ADT) of local access roads in the property vicinity. The existing ADTs are based on ADTs from the General Plan EIR (Goleta 2006) and a recent traffic study (Transportation Engineers 2010) conducted for the Cortona Apartments Project near the property.
TABLE 3-4: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LOS ON ARTERIAL ROADWAYS
Intersection 1 ID 6 9 11 12 2005(a) LOS Standard D C C C Intersection Location Hollister Avenue/ Storke Road Cathedral Oaks Road/ Glen Annie Road Glen Annie Road/Calle Real/US-101 NB Ramp Storke Road/ Traffic Control Signal Signal Signal Signal V/C, or Delay (s)2 0.77 0.62 0.65 0.51 LOS C B B A 2009(b) V/C 0.74 0.69 0.73 LOS C B C
July 21, 2011
3-19
Intersection 1 ID
2005(a) LOS Standard Intersection Location US-101 SB Ramp Cathedral Oaks Road/ Los Carneros Road Los Carneros Road/ Calle Real Road Los Carneros Road/ US-101 NB Ramp Los Carneros Road/ US-101 SB Ramp Los Carneros Road/ Calle Koral Road Los Carneros Road/ Hollister Avenue Traffic Control V/C, or Delay (s)2 LOS
2009(b) V/C LOS
14 15 16 17 18 20
1 2
C C C C C C
Unsignalized Unsignalized Signal Signal Signal Signal
19.8s 18.8s 0.56 0.71 0.70 0.69
C C A C B B
0.53 0.78 0.71 0.67
A C C B
To be consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element, same ID is assigned to each study intersection. Data are expressed as volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios for signalized intersections and as seconds of delay (s) for unsignalized intersections. Source: (a) Goleta 2006; (b) Associated Transportation Engineers 2010
Level of service (LOS) is a qualitative indication of the level of delay and congestion experienced by motorists using an roadway. LOS is designated by the letters A through F, with LOS A representing the best conditions and LOS F representing the worst (high delay and congestion). The City has adopted a standard of LOS C, which is applied Citywide to major arterials, minor arterials, collector roadways, and signalized intersections with the exception of the Storke-Hollister intersection, which has a standard of LOS D. Traffic operations in urban areas are generally controlled by operations of intersections. Existing intersection LOS was recently evaluated as part of the Cortona Apartments traffic study (Transportation Engineers 2010). Results indicate that all intersections were operating within standards during the PM peak hour.
3.13.2
Public Transit
The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) provides public bus transit services in Goleta and the South Coast area. The district encompasses the communities of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Carpinteria, Montecito, Summerland, and Isla Vista. In the property vicinity, service is mostly provided along the State/Hollister corridor. MTD Line 10 runs along Cathedral Oaks Road between La Cumbre and Camino Real Marketplace during the weekdays.
3.13.3
Passenger Rail Service
Passenger rail service in Goleta is provided by Amtrak and State-supported service in a corridor extending from San Diego to San Luis Obispo. These services use the UPRR tracks, which are parallel to and adjacent to US-101. The Amtrak Station is located at S La Patera Lane, 1 mile east of the property. Goleta is directly served by the Pacific Surfliner route, which offers five trains a day in each direction between Paso Robles and San Diego.
July 21, 2011
3-20
3.13.4
Nonmotorized Transportation
Nonmotorized modes of transportation include all transportation with a power source other than a motor. In the City of Goleta, the main nonmotorized modes are walking and bicycling. Within the vicinity of the property, Cathedral Oaks Road, Calle Real, Hollister Avenue, Storke-Glen Annie Road, and Los Carneros Road are all classified as a Class II bike lane.
July 21, 2011
3-21
Chapter 4. Property Opportunities and Constraints
CHAPTER 4 PROPERTY OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

This chapter presents an overview of constraints and opportunities for the property and its possible conversion to either an urban land use or active agriculture as compared to the current vacant conditions. The methods and results used to identify property constraints and opportunities are presented in this chapter.
4.1
OVERVIEW AND RATING SYSTEM METHODS
Four steps were generally used to evaluate the constraints and opportunities of the property under three land use scenarios (existing uses, urban/suburban uses, and active agriculture uses). Steps 1 through 4 are described below. Step 1 describes the environmental conditions of the property, City and region where appropriate; services based on the existing public service or utility needs or demands of the property and future public service needs in the City and/or service areas; and, regulations and permits. The environmental characteristics of the property and the City, as summarized in Chapter 3 and detailed in the appendices, were documented based on a variety of sources including a site visit; review of existing literature, reports, and data; and contact with public agencies. Regulatory and permitting information is described based on applicable federal, state, and local regulations, plans, and standards that are relevant to the existing property conditions or may be relevant to develop the property as an urban land use or as active agriculture. Step 2 identifies possible constraints and opportunities, by resource area, for the three land use scenarios. The constraints and opportunities were organized according to three issue areas, physical environment, regulatory and permitting requirements, and public service needs, based on information provided in Step 1. Within each issue area, evaluation topics were identified based upon the Goleta Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual and the CEQA Thresholds. Multiple topics were evaluated for each resource and for each issue area (e.g., environmental, regulatory and permitting, and service). For example, geologic hazards, such as liquefaction or faults, are suggested evaluation topics by the Guidelines Manual. Furthermore, they are evaluated such that certain assumptions (outlined in the appendices) were made and considered. The methods used in Step 2 generally vary by resource and the scale at which the resource is relevant to the property, the City, and the region. Some resources were principally evaluated from a property-specific perspective if they were highly relevant to the property, such as cultural resources and biological resources. The evaluation of other resources also incorporated a City or regional perspective because these resource areas are not static and include a larger range of considerations. These resources include aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, geology, hydrology/water quality, and noise. Demographics, housing, and land use, transportation/circulation, water supply, wastewater, and utilities, and public facilities were generally evaluated based on a comparison of the land use scenario with existing conditions and possible future conditions for the purpose of identifying possible deficiencies or available capacity. The regulatory and permitting issue area were evaluated in a global fashion to reflect the fact that the details for the future land use scenarios are in concept-only and lack design features, and description of the specific use.
July 21, 2011
4-1
Step 3 applies a rating system to the Step 2 generated information, to qualitatively assess constraints and opportunities that are provided by existing conditions as they apply or are compared to the urban land use scenario or active agriculture scenario. Each appendix to this study includes a table documenting the results of Steps 1 through 3 and includes the rating. The rating is not meant to completely support or eliminate a specific opportunity or constraint. The qualitative rating is defined in one of the following three ways:

Positive (+) indicates an opportunity, or an issue that would not likely pose a constraint to the land use. Neutral (/) indicates an issue that is neutral and neither very positive or negative. It may be a constraint, but it would be an easy constraint to overcome, or it may be an opportunity, but it is not a very strong opportunity for the land use. Negative (-) indicates a constraint that might be difficult to overcome for the land use. A negative rating does not imply that a constraint would be impossible to overcome. This rating simply implies that more creative solutions might be required to address the constraint. Or, it might imply that design considerations might be required to accommodate and/or plan around the constraint.
Step 4, the final step, qualitatively summarizes the constraints and opportunities identified in Steps 2 and 3 with respect to the environmental, regulatory and permitting, and service issue areas for the three land use scenarios: existing vacant conditions, possible future urban/suburban uses, and possible future active agriculture. These are discussed below and summarized in Table 4-1 at the end of this chapter.
4.2
SUMMARY
The current vacant status of the property places limited demand on environmental resources and public services. Consequently, virtually any change in future land use has the potential to result in resource alterations and public service demands. In some cases, such as the preservation of existing cultural resources under the agriculture land use scenario or the production of needed housing under the urban/suburban developed land use scenario, there would be a positive outcome (opportunity). In other cases, such as the use of pesticides and herbicides under the agriculture land use scenario or the increase in growth and related service demands under the urban/suburban developed land use scenario, the changes would be a negative outcome (constraint). The results of the individual resource evaluations are presented in Table 4-1, based on the methodology and evaluation described above. Table 4-1 identifies constraints and opportunities with respect to environmental conditions, regulations and permits, and services, and identifies whether these are applicable to the general property, to a land use change to urban/suburban uses, or to a land use change to active agricultural production. Refer to the appendices for additional details.
July 21, 2011
4-2
4.3
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS
The following section includes a summary of environmental considerations and related opportunity and constraint ratings for the three land use scenarios: existing uses, urban/suburban development uses, and active agriculture uses. This summary corresponds to Steps 2, 3, and 4 of the four-step evaluation process described in Section 4.1. Positive, neutral, and negative ratings are identified. It should be noted that environmental considerations are discussed by evaluation topic, and each evaluation topic is rated for compatibility with the land use scenario. Each resource area may include multiple evaluation topics. Therefore, each resource can have can have multiple ratings within an individual land use scenario. For example, under the urban/suburban land use scenario noise results in both a positive and negative rating. The positive rating is related to the fact that the property is physically located outside the airport and it would be compatible with airport noise and the noise contours. The negative rating results from the likely increase in operational noise levels associated with traffic and other stationary sources that would affect existing sensitive noise receptors.
4.3.1
Opportunities and Constraints Existing Vacant Land Use Scenario
Under the existing vacant land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in generally positive ratings for the following resource areas: air quality, aesthetics, biology, cultural/paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, water supply, wastewater and utilities, and transportation. The property, in its vacant condition, received generally positive ratings because it has no sensitive receptors to air quality emissions and produces no odors; provides and supports aesthetic views; supports different biological habitats; is a historic resource and contains five prehistoric sites; has no known hazardous material sites; does not use, dispose, or transport hazardous materials and would not be affected by hazardous materials transported on US-101 or by rail; is compatible with the existing noise environment; generates either no demand or minimal demand for water supply, wastewater, and utilities; and produces no daily vehicular trips. Under the existing vacant land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in neutral ratings for the following resource areas: agriculture, air quality, demographics and housing, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality. These neutral ratings reflect known issues within the region or adjacent areas. For example, the property does not generate air quality emissions but is located in a region of nonattainment for some pollutants. Also as an example; the property as vacant land would not be affected by faults, but there are known faults in proximity to the property. Additionally, the property is adjacent to receiving waters with water quality concerns but is not known to directly influence these water quality issues in a positive or negative way. Although the property has no hazardous materials on site, past agricultural uses could have used hazardous herbicides and pesticides. Additionally, while the property does not provide jobs or housing, the City has a jobs-to-housing imbalance as of 2010 and is projected to have a jobs-to-employed residents imbalance. There were no negative ratings for any resource area under the existing vacant land use scenario.
July 21, 2011
4-3
4.3.2
Opportunities and Constraints Active Agriculture Land Use Scenario
Under the active agriculture land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in positive ratings for the following resource areas: cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise. The property, if used as active agriculture, received positive ratings because complete removal of cultural resources located on the property would not be required, there are no currently known hazardous material sites or hazardous uses on site that require the use, disposal, or transport of hazardous materials that would preclude active agriculture uses from occurring; and active agriculture would be compatible with the airport, which is in close proximity. Under the active agriculture land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in neutral ratings for the following resource areas: aesthetics; agriculture; biology; cultural resources; demographics and housing; geology; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise; water supply, wastewater, and utilities; and transportation/circulation. The property received neutral ratings because, when compared to the existing vacant land conditions, these resources would be only somewhat modified under active agriculture conditions. For example, the active agriculture uses would generally have similar topography and would retain existing natural resource conditions, thus generally maintaining similar views, most of the potentially sensitive biological resources, and likely similar stormwater generation. While cultural resources may be left in place, they would likely undergo continued slow degradation. The existing jobshousing balance would generally be maintained with active agriculture uses because it would not be expected to substantially change the number of employees or housing units, but the existing job-housing imbalance would likely remain. Active agriculture uses would generally not expose structures or people to geologic hazards. It would also not generally expose people to hazardous materials transport on US-101 or by rail, but hazardous transport occurs close by. Active agriculture is generally not considered a sensitive receptor with respect to noise; however, active agriculture could result in a change in the noise generated by the property. Finally, active agriculture would make use of existing soil conditions, but would likely need irrigation water to fully support the active agriculture use. Under the active agriculture land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in negative ratings for the following resource areas: air quality, biology, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality. The property received negative ratings because active agriculture typically involves some type of ground-disturbing activities, nonnative grassland habitat would be lost as foraging, agricultural runoff would occur and be collected in receiving waters that are already designated as impaired such as Glen Annie Creek and Los Carneros Creek, and hazardous herbicides/pesticides, would likely be used on site. Design considerations, such as modifying agriculture methods, could address some, but likely not all, of these constraints.
4.3.3 Opportunities and Constraints Urban/Suburban Developed Land Use Scenario

Under the urban/suburban developed land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in positive ratings for the following resource areas: hazards and hazardous materials, noise and demographics, land use and housing. The property received positive ratings because there are
July 21, 2011
4-4
no known hazardous materials sites or waste sites located on the property and the property is compatible with airport noise and airport contours. Furthermore, urban/suburban uses could provide additional housing stock to correct the existing and projected jobs housing imbalance. Under the urban/suburban developed land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in a neutral rating for the following resource areas: geology, hazards and hazardous materials, and transportation/circulation. The property received neutral ratings for these resource areas because generally they would not constrain urban uses on the property. For example, the property has moderately erodible soils and urban development would ultimately reduce erodibility of the soils. Additionally, there are no major industrial uses requiring large quantities of hazardous materials around the property, but there may be some slight exposure to hazardous materials transport on US-101 or by rail. Finally, public transit opportunities are available within the general vicinity of the property. Under the urban/suburban developed land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in negative ratings for the following resource areas: aesthetics, agriculture, air quality, biology, cultural, demographics, housing and land use, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, water supply, wastewater and utilities, and transportation/circulation. The property received negative ratings because, when compared to the existing vacant conditions, urban/suburban uses would substantially alter views of the property. Additionally, urban/suburban uses would place added demands on public services and water supply, wastewater, and utilities, some of which are currently insufficient and projected to be insufficient in the future. Urban/suburban uses, absent substantial 20 housing units per acre zoning and onsite production of affordable housing, would likely have a negative effect on the outcome of the States regional housing needs allocation process (RHNA) beyond 2014. When compared to existing vacant conditions, urban/suburban uses would expose people and structures to existing geologic hazards. Urban/suburban uses, when compared to the existing vacant conditions, would generate large areas of impervious surfaces that would alter groundwater recharge, surface water quality, and biological resources. Development design considerations, such as locating buildings in the least visually intrusive location, could address some, but likely not all, of these development constraints. .
4.4
REGULATORY AND PERMITTING CONSIDERATIONS
The following section includes a summary of regulatory and permitting considerations and related opportunity and constraint ratings for the three land use scenarios: existing uses, urban/suburban uses, and active agriculture uses. This summary corresponds to Steps 2, 3, and 4 of the four-step evaluation process described in Section 4.1. Positive, neutral, and negative ratings are identified. It should be noted that regulatory and permitting considerations are discussed by evaluation topic and each evaluation topic is rated for compatibility with the land use scenario. Each resource area may include multiple evaluation topics. Therefore, each resource can have can have multiple ratings within an individual land use scenario.
4.4.1
Under the existing vacant land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in generally positive ratings for the following resource areas: agriculture, aesthetics, biology,
July 21, 2011
4-5
cultural/paleontological resources, hydrology and water supply, and transportation/circulation. The property, in its vacant condition designated as agricultural land, received generally positive ratings because it requires little or no regulatory and permitting requirements related to these resource areas. In addition, in its current condition the property may support General Plan policies related to these resources. Under the existing vacant land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in neutral ratings for the following resource areas: air quality, biology, geology, wastewater, utilities, agriculture, and noise. Ratings were neutral because the existing conditions of the property would not be completely inconsistent with existing regulations; however, within a larger context (e.g., the regional air quality basin) there may be conflicting issues. For example, Senate Bill (SB) 375 requires a new planning process to coordinate land use, housing, and transportation planning to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The property does not support roadways and is regularly mowed, affecting greenhouse gas emissions in both a direct and indirect way. These types of emissions and possible land use strategies might be addressed via recommendations to reduce related-emissions in the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy required under SB 375. Also, as an example, although the property does not place a demand on the use of public services and water, wastewater, and utilities, some of these services and utilities are known to have existing deficiencies and related regulatory constraints; therefore, a neutral rating is applied. Under the active agriculture land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in negative ratings for the following resource area: agriculture. The property received negative ratings because the existing vacant land conditions conflict with various existing regulations. For example, for agriculture, although Goleta zoning regulations allow agriculture uses, they do not allow grazing, as supported by the California Department of Conservation. In addition, the property is designated and zoned for agriculture use, but in its current vacant condition it does not support this General Plan designation.
4.4.2
Under the active agriculture land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in positive ratings for the following resource areas: agriculture, biology, demographics and housing, geology, and hydrology and water quality. The property, if used as active agriculture, received positive ratings because it would support General Plan policies or other policies regarding agriculture, biology, and demographics, housing, and land use. Specifically, active agriculture uses would generally support the land use designation and zoning and would not require a General Plan Amendment or zone change; would generally occur in the nonnative grassland area, which are not protected vegetation types by either the General Plan or other regulations; would not result in critical structures that would be subject to policies associated with geologic hazards and would on occur on steep slopes; and would be consistent with the current SBCAG regional growth forecast. Under the active agriculture land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in neutral ratings for the following resource areas: aesthetics; air quality; biology; cultural/paleontological resources; demographics, land use, and housing; geology; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; noise; water supply, wastewater, and utilities; and
July 21, 2011
4-6
transportation/circulation. The property received neutral ratings because active agriculture uses would not be completely inconsistent with existing regulations and General Plan policies. For example, because active agriculture uses would generally maintain similar topography, existing natural resource conditions, and similar views, most of the potentially sensitive biological resources areas and a similar quantity of stormwater runoff would likely be maintained, thereby resulting in general support of existing General Plan policies and other regulations for these resources. Furthermore, active agriculture may have less likelihood to trigger some of the biological, hydrology and water quality, and hazardous materials regulatory requirements. For example, active agriculture uses may not trigger a permit or regulation associated with biological resources or traffic/circulation because of the low potential of a biological resource to occur on site based on the existing habitat characteristics or because of the low potential to generate traffic during peak periods of time. Under the active agriculture land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in negative ratings for the following resource areas: agriculture; air quality; biology; hydrology and water quality; and water supply, wastewater, and utilities. The property received negative ratings because active agriculture would be inconsistent with some existing policies and regulations. For example, some agriculture uses, such as livestock, would be disallowed based on City zoning restrictions. Furthermore, new regulations and permits may be triggered under existing regulations because of the likely negative effects on the existing conditions on or surrounding the property. For example, depending on the type and location of active agriculture, permits would likely be required from local, State, and Federal agencies to address air quality because agriculture would likely create new sources of emissions (e.g., stationary sources); biological resource protection would likely be required because agriculture would likely result in indirect modifications to existing water resources (e.g., Section 404); and stormwater runoff General Plan policies would likely be transgressed because agriculture would likely produce polluted stormwater runoff. Goleta Water District growth management tools (SAFE Ordinance) limiting the allocation of water could affect the availability of water to the property.
4.4.3 Opportunities and Constraints Urban/Suburban Developed Land Use Scenario

Under the urban/suburban developed land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in positive ratings for the following resource area: biology. The property received positive ratings because it consists primarily of nonnative grasslands, which are not protected vegetation types by either the General Plan or other regulations. Under the urban/suburban developed land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in a neutral rating for the following resource areas: biology; geology; hazards and hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; and water supply, wastewater, and utilities. The property received neutral ratings because urban/suburban uses would not be completely inconsistent with existing regulations and General Plan policies. For example, General Plan policies for public safety require urban development located in certain geologic features to follow specific requirements; the development proposed for the property is allowed and would, therefore, not be inconsistent with the policies. Similarly, the Santa Barbara County Fire Department (SBCFD) allows urban development in fire hazard areas; however, they require defensible space to be implemented. Also, urban/suburban uses would generate wastewater; however, the NPDES
July 21, 2011
4-7
permitted capacity of the existing wastewater treatment facility is expected to be increased to accommodate additional wastewater. Furthermore, urban/suburban uses may have less likelihood to trigger some biological regulatory requirements because of the low potential of a biological resource to occur on the property based on the existing habitat characteristics. Under the urban/suburban developed land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in a negative rating for the following resource areas: aesthetics; agriculture; air quality; biology; cultural/paleontological resources; demographics, land use, and housing; geology; hydrology and water quality; noise; water supply, wastewater, and utilities; and transportation/circulation. The property received negative ratings because new regulations and permits would be applied to allow urban/suburban developed uses on a site currently designated and zoned for agriculture uses, which would likely generate negative effects on the existing conditions on and surrounding the property, such as:
A General Plan Amendment would be required to change the current agriculture land use to urban/suburban developed land use. Related policies would be amended to allow the change. A re-assessment of the General Plan buildout would be required to include a future urban/suburban use on what is now vacant property. The General Plan improvements required to address full buildout within the City would likely be the subject of amendments to accommodate additional growth associated with a future development at the property. For example, growth connected with urban development on the property could trigger the need for new transportation improvements and public facilities that are not envisioned under the existing General Plan. Alternatively, urban/suburban developed land uses on the property could lead to changes in identified scenic views that would be lost as a result of such development. General Plan policies protecting cultural resources would apply to the site and constrain development and/or require extensive study and investigation. Permits would be required from local, state, and federal agencies to address air quality, biological resource protection, surface and groundwater protection, volume and quality of stormwater runoff likely to be generated by urban/suburban uses, and noise. Goleta Water District growth management tools (SAFE Ordinance) limiting the allocation of water could affect availability of water to the property. A Water Supply Assessment would be required by the Goleta Water District to ensure the availability of potable water. The jobs-to-housing balance would have to be re-assessed under the General Plan requirements and as part of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Regional Growth Forecast process. If growth on the property creates more jobs than housing, additional pressure on the regional transportation system would result, triggering regulatory requirements to address the imbalance locally.
4.5
SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS
The following section includes a summary of service considerations and related opportunity and constraint ratings for the three land use scenarios: existing uses, urban/suburban uses, and active agriculture uses. This summary corresponds to Steps 2, 3, and 4 of the four-step
July 21, 2011
4-8
evaluation process described in Section 4.1. Positive, neutral, and negative ratings are identified. It should be noted that environmental considerations are discussed by evaluation topic, and each evaluation topic is rated for compatibility with the land use scenario. Each resource area may include multiple evaluation topics. Therefore, each resource can have can have multiple ratings within an individual land use scenario.
4.5.1
Under the existing vacant land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in generally positive ratings for the following resource area: public facilities (law enforcement, schools, and passive parks) and water supply, wastewater, and utilities (wastewater, solid waste, and stormwater). The property, in its vacant condition, received generally positive ratings because it generates either no demand or minimal demand for these services and generally these services were identified as having no existing deficiencies. Under the existing vacant land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in neutral ratings for the following resource areas: agriculture (water supply); water supply, wastewater, and utilities (water supply); and public facilities (fire, active parks, and libraries). The property received these neutral ratings because although these resource areas are not currently demanded by the property, they are known to pose issues within the region or adjacent areas. For example, although the property does not place a demand on the use of libraries, libraries are known to have existing deficiencies. There were no negative ratings for any resource area under the existing vacant land use scenario.
4.5.2
Under the active agriculture land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in positive ratings for the following resource area: water supply, wastewater, and utilities (wastewater and solid waste) and public facilities (law enforcement, schools, and passive parks). The property, if used as active agriculture, received positive ratings because it would not generate a substantial demand or need for certain services, and those services would continue to have adequate supply/capacity. For example, active agriculture uses would not generate a demand for wastewater services, and the existing and future wastewater services would have adequate capacity. Under the active agriculture land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in neutral ratings for the following resource areas: water supply, wastewater, and utilities (stormwater), and public facilities (fire, libraries, and active parks). The property received neutral ratings because active agriculture would generally not increase the demand for public services, but the services that are currently experiencing deficiencies may continue to do so. For example, active agriculture would not generally increase the demand for libraries, but libraries in the area would continue to experience deficiencies. Under the active agriculture land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in negative ratings for the following resource areas: agriculture (water supply); public facilities; and water
July 21, 2011
4-9
supply, wastewater, and utilities (water supply). The property received negative ratings because active agriculture uses would intensify an already existing deficiency or future deficiency with public facilities or utilities. For example, active agriculture use would likely require irrigation water from the GWD. The service area of the GWD has experienced water supply shortages and will likely continue to experience such shortages because water supplies are reliant upon sources outside of the service area, which are influenced by other circumstances (e.g., Bay Delta endangered species issues and reductions in Californias overall water supply). Onsite or offsite provisions for impacted service could address some of the service issues, but it is speculative at this point to assess the level of offset that could be achieved.
4.5.3 Opportunities and Constraints Urban/Suburban Development Land Use Scenario

Under the urban/suburban developed land use scenario, no topics were identified that resulted in positive ratings. Under the urban/suburban developed land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in a neutral rating for the following resource area: public facilities (schools, law enforcement, and passive parks) and water supply, wastewater and utilities (wastewater and solid waste). The property received neutral ratings because the urban/suburban developed land use scenario may increase the use of public facilities and utilities, but it would not result in an exceedance of current or projected capacity. For example, urban/suburban uses would increase the volume of wastewater compared to existing conditions, but that increase would not exceed the planned capacity of the wastewater treatment plant. Under the urban/suburban developed land use scenario, topics were identified that resulted in negative ratings for the following resource areas: agriculture (water supply); public facilities and services (fire, libraries, and active parks); and water supply, wastewater, and utilities (water supply and stormwater). The property received negative ratings because urban/suburban uses would increase the Citys population, placing increased demands on City infrastructure, services, and recreational facilities. Onsite or offsite provisions for impacted services could address some of the service issues, but it is speculative at this point to assess the level of offset that could be achieved (or not).
4.6
GENERAL RESOURCE CAPACITY CONSIDERATIONS
General resource capacity considerations are summarized below: Housing: Based on the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) projections in the Regional Growth Forecast (2007), the City has an imbalance of jobs to housing, with the assumption that one job triggers the need for one house. New housing supplies within City limits could improve what is identified by the SBCAG as an imbalance. Agriculture: Local agriculture supply is low, which is to be expected in an urban core setting such as a city.
July 21, 2011
4-10
Fire: Fire Department response time exceeds the recommended standard, thus triggering the need for a new fire station in Western Goleta. A change in land use would likely put pressure on the response time in Central Goleta, potentially triggering the need for yet another fire station or a reconfiguration of the existing stations fire response resources. Police: Police services in Goleta were recently reduced from historic levels. As such, additional growth, whether it is residential or commercial, places additional demands on an already challenged police service per capita ratio. Library: Library services in Goleta and the region do not meet the demand. As such, additional growth, whether it is residential or commercial, places additional demands on an already overutilized library system. Schools: The school capacity is available and enrollment is stable. As such, additional growth, whether it is residential or commercial, schools may be able to accommodate existing growth. Parks/Recreation: On a per capita basis, the City has high quality service in terms of open space passive use parks. Active recreation is in demand with a reduced per capita ratio. As such, additional growth, whether residential or commercial, places additional demands on an already challenged active recreation park system. Water Supply: The Goleta Water District Water Supply Assessment identifies adequate water sources to support the City of Goletas General Plan growth buildout with excess capacity. That said, the Goleta Water District growth management tool, the SAFE Ordinance, limits the rate at which water can be allocated, thus placing a regulatory constraint on the delivery of water to new sources. Wastewater: The wastewater treatment facility has a planned upgrade in its physical capacity to meet the NPDES permit capacity. This upgrade and the NPDES permit would allow an increase in wastewater treatment in the service area. Solid Waste: The Tajiguas Landfill has a closure date of 2023. Although it likely has sufficient capacity to satisfy additional solid waste disposal, it does not have a lengthy operating life. Transportation: Growth anticipated by full buildout of the Citys General Plan is accommodated via required General Plan transportation improvements. These improvements are identified specifically to address the General Plan buildout and do not accommodate land use conversions, such as a possible future land use change at the property. Under the scenario provided by the General Plan buildout, assuming all identified transportation system improvements are in place, some excess trip capacity remains without exceeding the level of service thresholds that are specified in the General Plan. New modeling would be required to address a land use change to urban/suburban uses to ensure that the remaining capacity could accommodate new growth not envisioned in the General Plan. Where new growth could not be accommodated, new transportation system improvements would need to be identified to accommodate the growth. These improvements would be required to be economically viable. Additionally, Caltrans would apply their standards and requirements on highway-related
July 21, 2011
4-11
vehicular trip projection increases, because the capacity of the highway currently exceeds State standards at some locations, local and regional.
July 21, 2011
4-12
TABLE 4-1: SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS1

Existing Condition Resource Opportunity or Constraint Aesthetics and Visual Resources (Appendix A) Aesthetics and Visual ResourcesEnvironmental The property, grounds, and specimen trees contribute to the Citys agricultural heritage; open spaces and views of natural features all contribute to the Citys visual character. Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint
The property is currently vacant land which has a number of trees, open space views, and grounds around an existing vacant historic period resource.
A change in the land use designation to urban uses that could result in the removal of the historic period resource, specimen trees, natural features, and vacant lands would result in a change to the visual character of the property and City. A change to active agricultural use would alter; however generally maintain the visual character of the property and City. The existing natural features that represent scenic resources found at the property could be significantly modified by the future use of the property. Placement of urban structures allowed by an urban land use designation on the property could impact views of visual resources including the ocean, islands, and mountains.
Sensitive viewers that could be affected by future development on the property include the residences found east and west of the property and patrons of the Glen Annie Golf Course. Daily commuters driving along US-101, Glen Annie Road, and Cathedral Oaks would have a lower visual sensitivity.
The property, grounds, and specimen trees, open space, and views of natural features could be important to viewers traveling along US-101, Glen Annie Road, and Cathedral Oaks; and residents and patrons of the Glen Annie Golf Course. In addition, views of the ocean, Channel Islands, and mountains are also available.
There are two designated City gateways near the property. City gateways are significant points of entry into a city or community.
The General Plan identifies ten scenic viewpoints/viewsheds from the four adjoining roads looking onto or including the property.
A change to active agricultural use would alter; however generally maintain the views of sensitive viewers. Aesthetics and Visual ResourcesRegulatory and Permitting Motorists are presented with the visual character of the A change in the land use designation to urban uses could City and the property: the intersection of Cathedral affect the visual character found at the gateway located at Oaks Road/Glen Annie Road and Cathedral Oaks Glen Annie Road and Cathedral Oaks Road. Road/Los Carneros Road. A change to active agriculture would generally support the visual character found at the gateway as it is currently agricultural in nature. There are existing scenic viewpoints/viewsheds from A change in the land use designation to urban uses would adjacent roadways and scenic resources on the result in a substantial change to the viewsheds and a property. potential loss of General Plan identified scenic viewpoints/ viewsheds and resources. A change to active agriculture would generally support General Plan identified scenic viewpoints/viewsheds and resources.
July 21, 2011
4-13
Existing Condition The General Plan identifies a number of policies regarding views, scenic views, and scenic resources in the City (see discussion in Section A.3, Regulations and Permits). The General Plan policies call for the preservation and retention of the general character of significant natural features; views of the ocean, foothills, and mountainous areas; and open space associated with recreational and agricultural areas including orchards, prominent vegetation, and historic structures. Development adjacent to scenic corridors should not degrade or obstruct views of scenic areas. The General Plan provides for the protection and enhancement Goletas visual character. The Citys visual character is derived from the natural landscape and the built environment. The citys agricultural heritage, open spaces, and views of natural features are all important features that contribute to the Citys character. There are two designated City gateways near the property. City gateways are significant points of entry into a city or community.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint These policies are relevant existing views, scenic resources, and viewsheds
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint A change to urban uses on the property would have to address some or all of these policies, particularly VH 1.1 and VH 1.2. A change to urban uses on the property would have to reconcile Policy VH 2.2.
The Citys General Plan identifies four scenic corridors that surround the property. They include Los Carneros Road, Glen Annie Road, Cathedral Oaks Road, and US-101. These scenic corridors provide scenic views of the ocean, channel islands, mountains and foothills, Bishop Ranch house, specimen trees, open space, and natural features on the property. The property exemplifies the Citys heritage. The open spaces and views of natural features found on the property all contribute to the Citys visual character. Moreover, the Bishop Ranch house is a historic period resource. Motorists are presented with the visual character of the City and the property: the intersection of Cathedral Oaks Road/Glen Annie Road and Cathedral Oaks Road/Los Carneros Road.
A change in the land use designation that would allow urban uses could result in the removal of the historic period resource, specimen trees, natural features, and vacant lands. This would result in a change to the visual character of the City, as well as a potential loss of a historic period resource. A change in the land use designation to urban uses could affect the visual character found at the gateway located at Glen Annie Road and Cathedral Oaks Road.
Aesthetics and Visual ResourcesService There are no service constraints for Aesthetics and Visual Resources. Agriculture and Farmland (Appendix B) Agriculture and FarmlandEnvironmental 240 acres of vacant land with good soil, good Approximately 200 acres of good soil and topography topography, and surrounding agricultural land uses. could be used for active agriculture. However, it is currently not being used for agriculture.
Possible change of land use designation that would result in the loss of agricultural potential would constrain the existing condition because it would not be available for agriculture. A future use such as active agriculture could enhance the existing conditions; however, it would likely require water for irrigation (see discussion below).
The land use designation and the zoning ordinance for the existing property is Agriculture.
Agriculture and FarmlandRegulatory and Permitting The existing use as vacant land is not supported by the Possible change of land use designation that would result existing land use designation and zoning. in the loss of agricultural potential would constrain the existing condition because it would not be available for agriculture.
July 21, 2011
4-14
Existing Condition
Resource Opportunity or Constraint
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint A future use such as active agriculture could enhance the existing conditions; however, it would likely require water for irrigation (see discussion below). A change in the land use designation that would result in future urban uses would remove the agricultural potential and would result in an inconsistency with some or all of these policies. A change to active agriculture would enhance the agricultural potential.
The General Plan identifies a number of policies regarding agricultural resources including: preserve existing agricultural lands and reserve vacant lands suitable for agriculture to maintain the option of future agricultural uses (LU 7); preserve Goletas existing open space areas, sensitive habitat areas, and agricultural lands (OS 7); and Preservation of Agricultural Lands to promote and retain Goletas agricultural heritage by conserving existing agricultural resources for future generations and supporting agriculture production by minimizing activities and uses that may conflict with agriculture use of the land (CE 11). The property is currently designated as Grazing Land and Other Land by the California Department of Conservation.
The General Plan protects and maintains existing agricultural lands through various policies and the property is currently designated as agriculture.
This designation is inconsistent with the finding that the property cannot support livestock and with the zoning (Ag-1-40) that the property is not allowed to support livestock. Agriculture and FarmlandService The property is currently not irrigated with the 50 AF. The service area of the Goleta Water District will likely have future constraints on water supplies (see Appendix L for additional information).
The property cannot support livestock as an alternative use. A change in land use designation to support urban uses would not conflict with grazing potential. The Goleta Water District would likely have to provide additional water to the property under a change in land use designation or under active agricultural use. 50 AF is not enough per year to irrigate approximately 200 acres of available land for agricultural uses, and it is not enough to support urban land uses resulting from a change in land use designation.
The property has 50 AFY of water. The service area of the Goleta Water District is known to have past water supply shortages (see Appendix L for additional information).
The SBCAPCD is currently designated a nonattainment area for state ozone and particulate matter (PM10)
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases (Appendix C) Air Quality and Greenhouse GasesEnvironmental The SBCAPCD has adopted a series of CAPs and Air Quality Action Plans (AQAPs) in an effort to meet the State ambient air quality standards Dos Pueblos High School is located to the west of the property. Residential land uses are currently located to the west and east of the property.
Sensitive receptors are currently located less than 200 meters away from the property.
Future change to urban or active agricultural use of the property would result in an increase to emissions including ozone precursors and particulate matter, likely resulting in inconsistencies with the CAP and/or AQAP. Future change to urban or active agricultural use of the property would result in increased emissions possibly affecting the existing sensitive receptors within close proximity.
July 21, 2011
4-15
Existing Condition The property is vacant land.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint There are no sensitive receptors currently located on the property.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future urban uses would likely increase the number of sensitive receptors on the property. Active agricultural uses would not increase the number of sensitive receptors on the property. Land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Future urban uses would likely be residential or commercial in nature and would not involve heavy industrial activities that may generate odors. However, these urban uses may produce some odors.
The property is vacant land.
The property currently produces no odors.
Future active agricultural uses would likely produce some odors, but would not likely produce the type of odors related to livestock. Air Quality and Greenhouse GasesRegulatory and Permitting These permits help regulate major sources of pollutants Any new stationary source added to the property from SBCAPCD is responsible for issuing permits for all new stationary sources. new urban or agricultural development would result in increased emissions and would be required to obtain a permit. The release of ozone precursors (NOX and ROG) The SBCAPCD has adopted a series of CAPs and Future change to urban or active agriculture would result 3 AQAPs in an effort to meet the State ozone standard. contribute to increased ozone concentrations. in an increase to emissions including NOX and ROG, possibly resulting in the delay of an attainment Emissions of these two pollutants must be reduced in demonstration. order to demonstrate ozone attainment. The State and Federal governments have set air quality standards at concentrations that provide a sufficient margin of safety to protect public health and welfare. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of Statewide GHG emissions. SB 375 (Steinberg) provides for a new planning process to coordinate land use planning and regional transportation plans and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals The Basin occasionally exceeds State standards for ozone and PM10, and is therefore designated a nonattainment area for these standards. The City is currently working on a city wide CAP to inventory and find ways to reduce emissions of GHGs. Future change to urban or active agriculture would result in an increase to emissions including all criteria pollutants for which standards exist, possibly resulting in exceedances of these standards. Future change to urban or active agriculture would result in an increase to GHG emissions, possibly conflicting with the Citys CAP. Future change to urban uses would likely result in increased traffic and the potential need for additional roads.
The property does not currently contain public roadways.
July 21, 2011
4-16
Existing Condition established in AB 32.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Active agricultural uses would likely use existing roadways and not have a potential need for additional roads.
Air Quality and Greenhouse GasesService There are no service constraints for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases. Biological Resources (Appendix D) Biological ResourcesEnvironmental There are high numbers of trees on the property. Native and ornamental trees provide nesting opportunities for raptors and other birds, and roosting space for monarch butterflies. The majority of trees are within sensitive biological areas. The current vacant nature of the property preserves these features.
Future change to urban use would likely encroach on potentially sensitive biological areas. Active agriculture would likely maintain larger parts of potentially sensitive biological areas. Future change to urban use would likely encroach on wetlands or drainage features. Active agriculture would generally maintain wetlands or drainage features. Urban uses or active agricultural uses could be constrained by sensitive species observations within nonnative grassland or removal of nonnative grasslands.
There are wetlands and riparian habitat on the property. They comprise approximately 6 acres and are shown on Figure D-1.
Large expanses of approximately 203 acres of nonnative grasslands are present on the property.
Property is subject to CWA Section 401.
Grasslands provide foraging habitat for raptor species including burrowing owls. Nonnative habitat also serves as transitional habitat for species and can be used as a wildlife corridor. Biological ResourcesRegulatory and Permitting Protected stream courses exist within the property and immediately adjacent to the property (Los Carneros and Glen Annie).
The trigger associated with this permit is: impacts on Waters of the United States, including water quality impacts. Future change to urban or active agricultural use would likely result in impacts on waterways or wetlands via nonpoint source pollution discharge or other means and may require a Regional Water Quality Control Board certification. The trigger associated with this permit is: Impacts on Waters of the United States (fill, dredge, or otherwise indirectly impact). Future change to urban use would likely result in impacts on waterways or wetlands and usage would require an USACE 404 permit.
Protected stream courses exist within and immediately adjacent to the property.
July 21, 2011
4-17
Existing Condition
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future change to active agriculture use would generally maintain existing topography and may not meet the trigger of the 404 permit. The trigger associated with this permit is: impacts on Waters of the State, which include modifications to the bed and banks of existing streams. Future change to urban use would likely result in impacts (fill) on waterways or channels and requirement of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Future change to active agricultural use would generally maintain existing topography and drainage features and therefore may not trigger the 1600 permit. The triggers associated with these regulations include: impacts on federally or state listed species and/or critical habitat where an agency has discretionary action; impacts on federally or state listed species and/or critical habitat. Future change to urban or active agricultural use would be unlikely to result in California or federal ESA involvement because there is a low potential for threatened or endangered species to occur on site. Future urban use would likely encroach on potentially sensitive biological areas and possibly remove them. Active agriculture would generally maintain potentially sensitive biological areas. This policy constrains future urban land use designs, and affects timing of potential construction activities. There would be limited or no development of non habitable structures under active agricultural use. Initiation of construction associated with future urban land or limited development of non habitable structures for agricultural purposes should be avoided during bird breeding season (Feb 15 Aug 15). This policy restricts the available land on the property for urban or agricultural uses.
Property is subject to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game code.
Protected stream courses exist within the property.
Property is subject to FESA, CESA, and Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 protections.
There is low potential for threatened or endangered species to occur on the property.
General Plan Policy CE 1.6 protects ESHAs and buffers.
Potentially sensitive biological areas exist on the property.
General Plan Policy CE 1.9 provides standards for development projects.
This policy seeks to reduce or avoid direct and indirect impacts upon ESHAs.
Development timing restrictions adjacent to ESHA (General Plan Policy CE 1.9 and CE 8.4, and the MBTA). General Plan Policy CE 3 protects wetlands.
These provisions reduce disturbance during breeding season and help ensure that wildlife is able to successfully reproduce. The CE provides protection for a broader definition of wetlands than otherwise afforded by state and federal
July 21, 2011
4-18
Existing Condition General Plan Policy CE 4 protects Monarch Butterfly Habitat Areas. General Plan Policy CE 5.2 protects native grassland. General Plan Policy CE 5.3 protects coastal sage scrub.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint laws. Monarch roosting areas have been observed near the eastern boundary but not on site. Native grassland on site is protected by this policy. The 0.7 acre of coastal sage scrub on the northern boundary is protected by this policy. This policy would protect habitat of any rare plants, as well as monarchs and roosting raptors. Native woodlands are designated as ESHAs and are protected by this policy The majority of the property is nonnative grasslands. Biological ResourcesService
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint If any monarch roosting areas were to be discovered on site, they would very likely be in areas already designated as ESHAs. Future change to urban or active agricultural use may not avoid the 0.7 acre native grassland. The coastal sage scrub on site is noted to be low-quality; however, urban or active agricultural uses may not avoid the 0.7 acre of coastal sage scrub. No rare plants have been observed on the property. Raptors are expected to use trees on site for roosting. Native woodlands reduce availability of land for changes in property usage and urban uses would likely encroach on native woodlands. No regulatory constraints are associated with nonnative grasslands as a vegetation type.
General Plan Policy CE 8 protects special-status species. General Plan Policy CE 9. To maintain and protect existing trees and woodlands as a valuable resource needed to support wildlife and provide visual amenities. Nonnative grasslands are not protected by the General Plan. There are no service constraints for Biological Resources.
There are five prehistoric sites known to exist within the property that were disturbed by previous agricultural activities on the property.
Cultural Resources (Appendix E) Cultural ResourcesEnvironmental The five known prehistoric sites are currently undisturbed due to the vacant nature of the property; thus, they remain generally preserved subsequent to their original disturbance by the previous agricultural activities.
Future change of land use designation of the property to urban uses could result in destruction of the currently undisturbed prehistoric sites associated with grading, trenching, and other construction activities. Past agricultural practices have already disturbed the sites to a certain extent due to plowing, tree planting and removal, construction of water features, etc. Therefore, active agricultural uses would continue to preserve in place the buried and undisturbed potions of these five sites. However, it would probably result in continued slow degradation of the sites. Future change of land use designation of the land to urban uses may result in the destruction of the historic period resource. Future active agricultural land uses would generally maintain existing topography and would be generally
One historic period resource, the Bishop Ranch House, outbuildings and grounds, are present and mostly intact on the property.
The current buildings are preserved due to the vacant nature of the property.
July 21, 2011
4-19
Existing Condition The property has a past agricultural history.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The property could be considered representative of the agricultural history of the City.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint preserve the historic period resource. Future change to urban use would not support the past agricultural history of the property. Future active agricultural use would support the past agricultural history of the property and the City.
Policy OS 8 Protection of Native American and Paleontological Resources. Objective: To identify and protect prehistoric and historic cultural sites and resources from destruction or harmful alteration.
Cultural ResourcesRegulatory and Permitting This policy is meant to protect existing open land, prehistoric sites, and historical sites, such as the ones identified on the property.
Future change to urban use could likely result in an inconsistency with this policy because it may destroy the five known prehistoric sites and may destroy the historic period resource on site. Future active agricultural use would probably result in continued slow degradation of archaeological and historic period resources and would not be inconsistent with this policy. Future change to urban uses resulting from a land use designation change would result in an inconsistency with this policy because it may destroy the five known prehistoric sites and the existing historic period resource on site. Future active agricultural use would probably result in continued slow degradation of archaeological and historic period resources and would not be completely inconsistent with this policy. Future change to urban uses resulting from a land use designation change would result in an inconsistency with this policy because it may destroy the existing historic period resource on site. Future active agricultural use would probably result in continued slow degradation of archaeological and historic period resources and would not be inconsistent with this policy.
Policy VH 5 Historic Resources. Objective: To identify, protect, and encourage preservation of significant architectural, historic, and prehistoric sites, structures, and properties that comprise Goletas heritage.
This existing prehistoric and historic sites identified on the property represent Goletas heritage as defined by the City in its policies. The prehistoric archaeological sites are a non-renewable resource, and therefore need to be treated carefully. The historic period resource, which is representative of a certain time in the Citys history, is also unlikely to be replaced if lost.
Policy VH 6 Historical and Cultural Landscapes. Objective: To identify, preserve, protect, and enhance significant historic landscaping, gardens, and open spaces, including agricultural areas and heritage trees, which contribute to the setting and context of Goleta.
The existing historic landscape surrounding the historic period resource is currently undisturbed.
Cultural ResourcesService There are no service constraints for Cultural Resources.
July 21, 2011
4-20
Resource Opportunity or Constraint Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Demographics, Housing, and Land Use (Appendix F) Demographics, Housing, and Land UseEnvironmental The property currently has no population or demographic The property is vacant and does not contribute or The jobs/housing imbalance trend is projected to continue associated with it and it currently generates no jobs. As detract from this balance. in the future. Additional residential homes provided by described above, a jobs/housing imbalance has existed urban uses would contribute to correcting this imbalance. since 2010. These numbers indicate there is an insufficient supply of housing to meet the needs of the According to the City Housing Element, currently zoned local workforce which means that those who work in the sites for residential development have a total unit City would likely not be able to afford to live in the City potential for 1,645 units, which is far above the remaining and would have to commute in. total RHNA need of 938 units (City of Goleta 2010). By adding sites planned for rezoning (an additional 631units) the total unit capacity is 1,338 units above the remaining total RHNA for the 2007-to-2014 planning period. Based on this information, it appears that the City will meet its regional housing needs allocation of 1,641 units for the 2007-to-2014 planning period. Continuation of Existing active agriculture uses in accordance with Policy LU-7 would have minimal impacts on the jobs-to-housing balance, considering it is not anticipated that a large number of jobs associated with agricultural operations would be created in the limited area remaining in the City in active agricultural use. The jobs-to-employed residents trend will become unbalanced within the City in the future. It is likely the urban development would involve neighborhood serving and would likely not result in a significant increase in the net out-commute and in-commute. Active agriculture uses would have minimal impacts on the jobs-to-employed residence balance because it is not anticipated that a large number of jobs would be created. A change to urban use could provide additional affordable housing; however, urban uses, absent substantial 20housing-units-per-acre zoning and onsite production of affordable housing, might be a constraint on the outcome of the States RHNA process. The affordability status of completed projects within the City is ensured with affordability agreements and covenants (deed restrictions) as a condition of approval
Existing Condition
The property currently has no population or demographic associated with it and it currently generates no jobs. The jobs-to-employed residents ratio was balanced as of 2000.
The property is vacant and does not contribute or detract from this balance.
The property currently has no affordable housing requirements. Based on an analysis of potential housing sites conducted for the Housing Element, the City has concluded that there are enough adequate sites within the city to build housing to meet it share of the regional housing needs for the RHNA 2007-to-2014 planning period.
Housing affordability has become a key factor in housing choice in the City and the South Coast. More workers may live in less expensive areas to afford the cost of housing and commute further to their jobs. Lack of affordable housing in the City has caused many workers to live out of town and commute to their jobs. The City currently has a plan for affordable housing and could provide the needed affordable housing through
July 21, 2011
4-21
Existing Condition 2014.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint with the City. For example, the Sumida Gardens project, providing a total of 200 rental units, sets affordability requirements based on the median area income. Affordability levels are based on the income limits published by HCD. The number of units by affordability level and the terms of restriction are specified in Table 10A-32, Approved and Existing Affordable Housing Units of the Housing Element. The affordability of future extremely low-, very-low, low-, and moderate-income households will be ensured through affordability covenants. See Housing Element Policy 10.2Other Incentives for Affordable Housing Developments, as implemented through Program IP-11BMonitoring and Long Term Affordability. Refer to Housing Element Policies HE 8.3, HE 10.2, and HE 11.7 and Implementation Program IP-11B for related policies that assure long-term affordability of units at the very low-, low-, and moderate-income affordability levels.
Active agricultural uses would not generally influence the Citys ability to provide equal housing since they are currently forecasted to meet the 2014 needs. Demographics, Land Use, and HousingRegulatory and Permitting The property is currently designated as agriculture for The property is currently vacant land that has been Any change of the existing land use designations and both land use and zoning. actively cultivated in the past. zoning to urban use would need general plan amendments and zone changes. Active agriculture would not require general plan amendments or zone change and likely no discretionary action would be taken. Future urban development on the property would be inconsistent with the land use assumptions and growth forecasts made in the SBCAGs Regional Growth Forecasts. Active agriculture would be consistent with the growth forecasts in the most recent SBCAG Regional Growth Forecasts. Any change to urban use could alter the future jobs/housing imbalance predicted by Plan buildout. Additional residential homes provided by urban uses
The property is designated as agriculture.
Currently the land is vacant and is designated as agriculture and the SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast presumes no possible change of land use designation for lands with a general designation of agriculture.
Population growth and buildout as planned for in the General Plan indicates that there would be a slight jobs/housing imbalance at Plan buildout.
The property currently does not contribute to jobs or housing because it is vacant land.
July 21, 2011
4-22
Existing Condition
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint would contribute to correcting this imbalance. Active agricultural uses would have minimal impacts on the jobs-to-housing balance because it is not anticipated that a large number of jobs would be created. Any change to urban use could provide needed housing that is projected to be lacking by SBCAG. . Any future development on the property could result in a change to the current jobs-to-housing balance and therefore could result in an inconsistency with some or all of these policies, including Policy HE3, HE 3.1, HE 3.2, and HE 3.3. It is likely the urban development would involve neighborhood servicing and may not result in a jobs-to-housing imbalance. Conducting active agricultural uses would have minimal impacts on the jobs-to-housing balance since it is not anticipated that a large number of jobs would be created. Urban uses on the property do not have the ability to affect meeting the Citys RHNA requirements for the years 2000 and 2014 because the City has concluded that there are enough adequate sites within the City to build housing to meet its share of the regional housing needs for the RHNA 2007-to-2014 planning period. However, a change to urban use in the future could provide additional affordable housing. Although developed uses, absent substantial 20-housing-units-peracre zoning and onsite production of affordable housing, might be a constraint on the outcome of the States regional housing needs allocation process (RHNA). Active agricultural uses would have minimal impact on the Citys ability to provide equal housing by 2014. The affordability status of completed projects within the City is ensured with affordability agreements and covenants (deed restrictions) as a condition of approval with the City. For example, the Sumida Gardens project, providing a total of 200 rental units, sets affordability requirements based on the median area income.
Population growth and buildout as planned by SBCAG indicates there would be a jobs housing imbalance in the City of Goleta. The General Plan identifies a number of policies regarding the importance of linking housing and jobs. (Policies HE 3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3). The objective of these policies is to create housing near to where people work and encourage participation in the Citys affordable housing program from commercial, office, industrial, and other nonresidential uses.
The property currently does not contribute to jobs or housing as it is vacant land. The property currently does not contribute to jobs or housing because it is vacant land.
The General Plan identifies a number of policies regarding the importance of providing equal housing opportunities. Based on an analysis of potential housing sites conducted for the Housing Element, the City has concluded that there are enough adequate sites within the city to build housing to meet it share of the regional housing needs for the RHNA 2007-to-2014 planning period.
The property currently does not contribute to affordable housing as it is vacant land.
July 21, 2011
4-23
Existing Condition
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Affordability levels are based on the income limits published by HCD. The number of units by affordability level and the terms of restriction are specified in Table 10A-32 Approved and Existing Affordable Housing Units of the Housing Element. The affordability of future extremely low, very-low, low and moderate-income households will be ensured through affordability covenants, see Housing Element Policy 10.2 Other Incentives for Affordable Housing Developments, as implemented through Program IP-11B Monitoring and Long Term Affordability and Refer to Housing Element Policies HE 8.3, HE 10.2, and HE 11.7, and Implementation Program IP-11B for related policies that assure long-term affordability of units at the very low, low, and moderate income affordability levels.
Demographics, Land Use, and HousingService There are no service constraints for Demographics, Land Use, and Housing Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards (Appendix G) Geology, Soils, and Geologic HazardsEnvironmental The More Ranch Fault. The More Ranch Fault is located to the south of the Future change to urban use could result in the exposure property and is considered active. of people or structures to seismic shaking located along the More Ranch Fault. Structures developed would be subject to seismic shaking. Expansive soils. Most of the property is underlined by both Rincon and Future change to urban use could result in the exposure Monterey formations, which are associated with the of structures to expansion from underlying soils and potential presence of expansive soils. possible damage. Liquefaction. The property could potentially be subject to liquefaction Future change to urban or active agricultural use could associated with water within the alluvial substrate and result in the exposure of people or structures to seismic events (Santa Barbara County 2009). liquefaction events. Structures would be potentially exposed to liquefiable layers, which could result in extensive damage to structures on the property. Compressible soils. The property could potentially be subject to Future change to urban or active agricultural use could compressible soils (approximately 19 acres within the result in the exposure of people or structures to property are considered compressible). compressible soils. Radon gas. The property is underlined by Rincon formations, which Future change to land use should consider the exposure are known sources of Radon Gas (approximately 47 of people to increased levels of Radon gas in light of the acres have a high potential for radon and approximately presence of the Rincon Formation underlying the 35 acres have moderate potential for radon). property. The majority of the property contains soils with moderate The property is currently vacant land. Increased agricultural use would remove much of the to high erodibility (approximately 175 acres). natural ground cover, which could increase surface
July 21, 2011
4-24
Existing Condition
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint contact to wind and accentuate erosion when and if the soil is exposed.
Urban uses would initially increase the potential for erosion during construction, when the soil is exposed; however, the potential for erosion would likely be reduced during operation by covering much of the erodible surface with impermeable layers and landscaping. Geology, Soils, and Geologic HazardsRegulatory and Permitting These policies do not apply to the existing vacant land. The General Plan identifies a number of policies Geotechnical studies would be required per the General requiring geotechnical studies for new development Plan policies for development of the property. within the City, including: SE 1.3, SE 4.3, SE 4.11, SE 5.1, and SE 5.2. SE 5.5 identifies that a minimization of grading will occur The property currently has 19 acres of slopes greater A change in land use to urban uses that does not in hazardous areas (slopes greater than 25 percent), than 20 percent. preserve steep slopes on the property or minimize while the County of Santa Barbara Environmental grading would be inconsistent with this policy because of Thresholds and Guidelines Manual designates a slope of the acreage of steep slopes on the property. 20 percent as having the potential for significant impacts. The zoning ordinance recommends minimization of Agricultural uses would not involve development on steep grading on slopes greater than 30 percent. slopes. Geology, Soils, and Geologic HazardsService There are no service constraints for Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards. Hazards and Hazardous Materials (Appendix H) Hazards and Hazardous MaterialsEnvironmental The property is free of known hazardous material sites. There are no currently known hazardous material sites Future use of the property would not likely be hindered by or hazardous material waste sites located on the hazardous material sites or hazardous materials waste property. sites There are currently no uses on the property that require The property is free of the use, disposal, or Future use of the property may use hazardous materials the use, disposal, or transport of hazardous materials. transportation of hazardous materials. that could result in exposure to humans or the environment The property is located outside of Safety Zone 3 of the Hazards associated with the airport currently do not There are no constraints on land use on the property due airport. occur. to its proximity to the airport. The property was previously used as agricultural land. Lands that were previously used for agricultural Future urban use of the property may be constrained if purposes are known to use herbicides, pesticides, and the property soil has residual pesticides or herbicides. fertilizers, which can be hazardous to human health and the environment. It is unknown if soils on the property currently have residual pesticide or herbicides from past use or if they have degraded below regulatory levels.
July 21, 2011
4-25
Existing Condition There are no major industrial uses using large quantities of hazardous materials around the property.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future urban use of the property would not likely be constrained by the surrounding properties because there are no major industrial uses using large quantities of hazardous materials on site. Some of the uses surrounding the property may handle The property is vacant and not exposed to these types Future urban use of the property would likely not be of hazardous uses. constrained by the surrounding properties handling or or transport hazardous materials, such as the orchards to the north and east and US-101 and Glen Annie Road transport of hazardous materials. Any transport of to the south and west. hazardous materials on US-101 would comply with regulations identified in the regulatory and permitting setting, and the agricultural use of pesticides and herbicides to the north and east of the property would also be highly regulated Hazards and Hazardous MaterialsRegulatory and Permitting SBCFD requires 30 feet of clear space immediately The property is vacant land and does not have to SBCFD would require urban development to comply with adjacent to the building or structure; extending beyond comply with the defensible space requirement. the defensible space requirement to protect structures and buildings. that 30-foot buffer, it is required that there be 70 feet where flammable vegetation is spaced to reduce plantto-plant, plant-to-tree, and tree-to-tree transfer of fire both vertically and horizontally. N/A Other regulations associated with hazards are projectOther constraints and opportunities related to the future and site specific. Because the property has no currently use would be project- and site-specific with regards to known hazardous materials sites and has no current use hazards. Therefore, a discussion of future use(s) as it of hazardous materials, the regulations are not relates to regulations is not applicable at this time. applicable to the existing conditions. Hazards and Hazardous MaterialsService There are no service constraints for Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Hydrology and Water Quality (Appendix I) Hydrology and Water QualityEnvironmental The eastern edge of the property and a portion of the The property currently contains no development or There is only a small area of the existing property within property in the south west are located in the 100-year structures in the 100-year floodplain. the 100-year floodplain compared with the rest of the floodplain. This area is approximately 5 acres. property available for either urban uses or active agricultural uses. There are two onsite drainages located on the property. These creeks provide drainage routes for the existing Alteration of the drainage features themselves could property during storm events and provide riparian result in direct impacts to their ability to handle habitat (See Appendix C, Biology for discussion of stormwater runoff and ability to provide habitat. habitat provided). Furthermore, alteration of the pervious and impervious surfaces on the property could indirectly alter the drainage features via water quality changes or streambed changes (e.g., erosion).
Resource Opportunity or Constraint Generally the property is not surrounded by uses that are considered hazardous, such as industrial uses.
July 21, 2011
4-26
Existing Condition Los Carneros and Glen Annie Creeks are impaired for salinity, pathogens, nutrients, and miscellaneous.
Los Carneros Creek drains to Goleta Slough, an impaired water body for pathogens and priority organics.
The property is primarily pervious surfaces located in the Goleta Groundwater Basin.
Property is subject to CWA Section 401 and 404. Property is subject to CWA Section 402 NPDES program.
General Plan Policy CE 2.1. Los Carneros and Glen Annie Creek are designated by the General Plan as Protected Creeks. General Plan Policy CE 2.3. Streamside protection areas required along both sides of the Los Carneros Creek and Glen Annie Creek.
Alteration in the pervious nature of the property as a result of future urban uses could have an impact on groundwater recharge. Active agricultural would retain a majority of the pervious nature of the property; however, it could contribute to water quality degradation in the Goleta Groundwater Basin. Hydrology and Water QualityRegulatory and Permitting See Appendix D, Biology. See Appendix D, Biology. Currently, there are no permits associated with the Urban uses or active agricultural uses could result in property that regulate stormwater runoff because they polluted stormwater discharges. Urban uses would likely are not needed. require construction stormwater discharge permits and water quality management plans for operation. Active agricultural uses may be required to control their stormwater discharges as well. These watercourses provide flow of stormwater runoff Alteration in drainage patterns and an increase of and floodwaters from the vacant property. impervious area as a result of urban uses could result in impacts on flow of stormwater runoff and floodwaters. The property is vacant land and maintains a vegetative buffer along Los Carneros Creek. Roads are located in between the property and Glen Annie Creek. Urban uses which require a change in the buffer areas resulting from urban development in streamside protection areas along the Los Carneros and Glen Annie creeks would result in a violation of this policy. Active agricultural operations are an allowed activity under this policy provided it is compatible with preservation of riparian habitats. Alteration of drainage patterns could result in impacts to the capacity the two drainage features that drain into the Los Carneros, Glen Annie and the two onsite drainages. Urban development would result in impacts on surface water quality stormwater runoff in the Goleta Slough and the Los Carneros and Glen Annie creeks. Although urban uses associated with the land use designation change
Resource Opportunity or Constraint Property may currently contribute soil to these creeks; however, because the property is currently vacant and pervious, it likely does not contribute many other possible pollutants. Property may currently contribute soil to the Goleta Slough; however, because the property is currently vacant and pervious, it likely does not contribute many other possible pollutants. Some groundwater recharge is assumed to take place on the property because of its pervious nature.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future urban uses or active agricultural uses could result in polluted stormwater runoff to the existing impaired Los Carneros and Glen Annie creeks. Future urban uses or active agricultural uses could result in polluted stormwater runoff to the existing impaired Los Carneros and Glen Annie creeks.
General Plan Policy CE 2.5. Capacity of natural drainage courses cannot be diminished. General Plan Policy CE 10.1. Cannot degrade water quality of groundwater basins or surface waters.
The existing property does not constrain the capacity of drainage to and within the Los Carneros, Glen Annie and the two onsite drainages. The existing property is not a source of polluted runoff or contaminated groundwater recharge.
July 21, 2011
4-27
Existing Condition
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint would not result in industrial uses generally known to contaminate groundwater. Spills and discharges associated with urban uses such as gas stations are also known sources of groundwater degradation. Additionally, agricultural development would retain the pervious nature of the property and thereby allow limited groundwater recharge; however, active agriculture could contribute to water quality degradation in the Goleta Groundwater Basin. Urban development of the property could substantially reduce the amount of pervious surfaces in the City and potentially conflict with this policy. Agricultural development would retain a majority of the pervious surface on the property; however, active agriculture could conflict with the policy and disturb the natural drainage features and vegetation on site. Alteration in drainage patterns and urban and agricultural development could result in impacts on water quality. Future urban use could expose people and structures to areas subject to local urban flooding. However the area in which flooding occurs is very small on the property. The City may requirement development plans to include measures that lessen the urban flooding hazard. Active agriculture would not likely expose people or structures to local urban flooding. Future urban or active agricultural uses could contribute to polluted stormwater runoff and non-stormwater discharges and potentially degrade the quality of watercourses and two onsite drainages and creeks adjacent to the property. Future urban use could expose people and structures to areas subject to 100-year flooding. Development in these areas would be subject to additional regulations and agency approvals. Active agriculture would not include habitable structures in these areas.
General Plan Policy CE 10.2. Limits increases in impervious surfaces; limits land disturbances such as clearing of vegetation, cut-and-fill, and grading; limits disturbance of natural drainage features and vegetation.
The existing property is considered all pervious with steep grades and inclines at the east, middle, and western boundaries of the site. The existing property also has two ephemeral creeks located toward the eastern edge of the property and is adjacent to the Los Carneros and Glen Annie Creeks. Currently, there are no control plans associated with the property that regulate polluted runoff and stormwater contamination. The existing property does not expose people or structures to areas subject to local urban flooding.
General Plan Policies CE 10.6, 10.7, 10.8. Requires the development of polluted runoff and stormwater contamination control plans. General Plan Policy SE 6.2. 100-year flood plain.
Goleta Ordinance 13.04. Stormwater Management and Discharge Control to protect and enhance quality of watercourses and water bodies.
The existing property is currently not considered a source of polluted stormwater runoff and nonstormwater discharges and it currently drains into two impaired water bodies. The property currently contains no development or structures in the 100-year floodplain.
Goleta Ordinance 15.10. Floodplain Management 100year floodplain.
July 21, 2011
4-28
Existing Condition Water supply and services
Surrounding land uses are compatible with the noise profile from the existing property.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint Hydrology and Water QualityService See Appendix L, Utilities Noise (Appendix J) NoiseEnvironmental Limited land use activity on the property (as is) does not affect noise levels at nearby sensitive land uses.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint See Appendix L, Utilities
Future change to urban use could result in increased noise levels associated with the activity on the property. Future change to urban use could result in increased noise levels associated with the construction on the property. The property is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL contour for the airport; therefore, no design considerations are required for a future change to urban use. Sensitive land uses located on the property could experience noise generated by the UPRR rail line. If the land use changes to a more sensitive land use type (i.e. urban/residential), there would be a different land use compatibility threshold designation for the property. Therefore, from an acoustical prospective this could cause potential conflict with respect to the existing or future noise level. Active agriculture uses would increase the noise generated on the site, but would not likely violate the land use compatibility threshold for surrounding land uses. Future change to an urban land use could result in a potential incompatibility with the General Plan policies regarding noise and may not be consistent with residential developments. Active agriculture would increase noise generated on the site and would increase noise associated with increased traffic to and from the site. However this increase would be expected to be marginal and would not violate Policy NE 1.1.
The property is located near Santa Barbara Municipal Airport and the Union Pacific Rail Line (UPRR).
The property is located outside the airport approach zone for the Santa Barbara Airport. Both the 60 and the 65 dBA CNEL contour reach within the property. However, noise from the UPRR rail line would not affect the property in its present form. NoiseRegulatory and Permitting The existing agricultural land use is consistent with the existing noise environment (e.g., adjacent to US-101, UPRR rail line).
The Citys General Plans Noise and Land Use Compatibility Criteria Matrix (Table 9-2) designates agricultural land to be 5070 CNEL, Ldn, or dBA (Normally Acceptable) and 70-75 CNEL, Ldn, or dBA (Conditionally Acceptable). These noise levels likely characterize the existing noise profile located on the property, due to the location of US-101, the UPRR rail line, and approach or departure of aircraft out of Santa Barbara Airport to the south of the property. The General Plan Noise Element Policies NE 1.1, NE 1.2, NE 1.3, NE 1.4, NE 2.1, NE 4.1 present noise thresholds and acceptable ranges of noise levels with specific land uses within the City.
These policies establish noise thresholds for different types of land uses located within the City. These policies ensure compatibility of land uses based on the type of noise generated during construction and/or land use activity. Portions of the property are located within the unacceptable threshold of the noise and land use compatibility matrix.
July 21, 2011
4-29
Existing Condition NoiseService There are no service constraints for Noise.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint
The fire stations serving the City have a total of 15 firefighters per shift, which gives a ratio of 1 firefighter for every 4,866 people in the area. According to NFPA standards, the minimum guideline is a firefighter-to-population ratio of 1 to 4,000. Law enforcement services for the City are provided by officers assigned to each of the Citys three beats and officers in the unincorporated portion of the County. The service is currently meeting the recommended ratio of officers per resident, with approximately 31 officers on staff. Enrollment within the school districts is not at capacity and is stable.
Public Facilities (Appendix K) Public FacilitiesServices The existing firefighting service ratios for the City are below the NFPA guidelines.
A change in the land use designation to urban uses could potentially result in an increase in population, which would place an increased strain on fire services. A change to active agriculture would not result in an increase demand in fire services but fire services may still be deficient. Police services are considered appropriately sized for the City, currently but and in the future.
The existing service standards for police for the City are currently met and are likely to be met in the future.
As vacant land, the property currently does not require school services.
A change in land use would likely not result in a need for additional school services. Furthermore, the aging population of the area would likely require less school services in the future. A change to active agriculture would not result in an increase in population; thus, no increase in student enrollment. An increase in population and would place further strain on a library that is inadequately serving the population. A change to active agriculture would not result in an increase in population thus additional use of libraries; however, libraries would continue to be deficient.
The Goleta Public Library has a deficit in the resources it provides to the public and will continue to have a deficit because additional library services are not projected for the future. Therefore, library services provided to the City are inadequate. There is sufficient amount of passive parks and recreation in the City.
The existing and future library services do not meet the needs of the city.
The passive parks and recreational opportunities meet the needs for the City.
An increase in population could use the existing passive recreational opportunities. A change to active agriculture would not result in an increase in population, thus no increase in the use of passive parks.
July 21, 2011
4-30
Existing Condition There is a shortage of active parks and recreation programs within the City. Lack of funding and budget issues will likely continue to prohibit the development of active parks in the City.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The existing and future active recreation opportunities do not meet the needs of the City.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Additional active recreation services are needed currently and in the future. A change to active agriculture would not result in an increase in population thus no increase in the use of active parks, but there would still be a deficiency in the City.
The property consists primarily of pervious surfaces.
Water Supply, Wastewater, and Utilities (Appendix L) Water Supply, Wastewater, and UtilitiesEnvironmental Pervious surfaces typically generate limited volumes of Future change to urban uses as a result of a land use stormwater runoff because precipitation is able to designation change to urban uses could generate percolate into the ground. substantially more stormwater runoff, which would be required to be contained either by existing flood control channels/creeks or would require the modification of existing flood control channels or creeks. Specifically, runoff generated by South Coast residential land uses ranges between 0.41 and 0.78 cubic feet per second.
The high end of the range of runoff generated by South Coast agriculture is less than that generated by urban uses (0.33 and 0.74 cubic feet per second); however, active agriculture would generate more runoff than existing conditions. Water Supply, Wastewater, and UtilitiesRegulatory and Permitting SAFE requirements apply to the GWD service area. The property has a negligible demand for water. Future change to urban uses as a result of a land use designation change or to active agricultural uses would increase the demand for potable water over what the property currently demands. This change in demand would be subject to SAFE and would be assessed on a first come first serve basis. The SAFE requirements could limit a change in land use or prevent full development of the property. The property does not generate wastewater. The existing GSD wastewater treatment facility will be The permitted capacity would allow GSWD to upgraded and allowed to operate at its permitted NPDES accommodate additional wastewater flows generated by capacity of 9.72. future urban uses as a result of a land use designation change. Active agricultural uses would likely not result in the generation of wastewater. The property does not currently demand potable water. The GWD is currently updating their current UWMP, per Changes in the UWMPs quantification of existing and the UWMP Act. future water supplies and demand in the GWD service area could restrict the future use of the property.
July 21, 2011
4-31
Existing Condition SB610 requires the preparation of a water supply assessment if a project meets certain criteria.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The property does not currently demand potable water.
FEMA identifies flood zone areas per the Flood Insurance Program. The property currently does not demand potable water service.
Approximately five acres of the property is located in designated flood zones. Water Supply, Wastewater, and UtilitiesServices The property must use water from the GWD.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Any future land use change may require the preparation of a WSA if it meets SB610 criteria; the WSA must identify any deficiencies in water supply and propose remedies for them. Development in the floodplain would be subject to regulations and insurance. Future change to urban uses as a result of a land use designation change or active agricultural use would increase the demand for potable water over what the property currently demands. Future change to urban uses as a result of a land use designation change or active agricultural uses would increase the demand for potable water over what the property currently demands. The change in land use would likely demand more water than currently associated with the property (50 AF); thus, additional water would have to be purchased from GWD. Additionally, this would result in a decrease in GWD existing and projected future water supply. This could result in an inadequate supply of water for the property and for the entire GWD service area. Future change to urban uses as a result of a land use designation change would result in an increasing demand for wastewater service, which would result in a substantial change in the current wastewater generation of the property; however, based on the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment facility and its existing capacity, it is likely the increase in wastewater could be accommodated. Future change to urban uses as a result of a land use designation change would result in an increase in solid waste generation which would require disposal at the Tajiguas Landfill. However, any change to urban land use would result in an increase in solid waste generation, which for the next 13 years would be disposed at the Tajiguas Landfill. It is estimated the Tajiguas landfill would be able to accommodate the solid waste generated by the urban land use during construction and operation. It is likely that active agriculture use would not generate solid waste.
The property currently has 50 AFY associated with it.
Same as above.
The property does not generate wastewater.
The property does not receive wastewater service.
The property does not generate solid waste.
The Tajiguas Landfill now has a closure date of 2023 and a remaining capacity of 6,660,000 cubic yards.
July 21, 2011
4-32
Existing Condition The property has two drainage features and is adjacent to two offsite creeks.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The two drainage features and offsite creeks act as the current stormwater and flood control management for the property.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Urban land uses would likely result in the need for additional stormwater capacity to handle the velocity and volume generated because of the substantial impervious surfaces added to the existing property. Active agriculture would likely result in a change of the velocity and volume of stormwater flows generated, but they likely would not need additional stormwater infrastructure.
Roadway and 10 intersections within the property vicinity are operating within the Citys LOS standards.
Transportation and Circulation (Appendix M) Transportation and CirculationEnvironmental These roadways and intersections could accommodate additional traffic.
Future change to urban use could result in increased traffic on roadway system and could potentially degrade the operation of roadways and intersections. Active agricultural uses would generally have a limited volume of traffic and not increase traffic during peak hours such that a degradation of roadways and intersections would occur. Future change to urban land use could increase the demand and utilization of existing bus services. Future change to urban land use could increase the demand and utilization of existing rail services.
MTD Bus Line 10 runs along Cathedral Oaks Road between La Cumbre and Camino Real Marketplace during the weekdays. The Amtrak Station is located at S La Patera Lane, one mile east of the property. The Pacific Surfliner route offers five trains a day in each direction between Paso Robles and San Diego. Cathedral Oaks Road, Calle Real, Hollister Avenue, Storke-Glen Annie Road, and Los Carneros Road are all classified as a Class II bike lane.
There are two bus stops adjacent to property at Glen Annie Road and Los Carneros Road. There are public transit opportunities within the vicinity of the property.
Future change to urban land use could increase the demand and utilization of existing sidewalks and bike lanes in the property vicinity. Transportation and CirculationRegulatory and Permitting General Plan Policy TE 4 establishes the LOS standards Roadway and intersections within the property vicinity Change to the property could result in increased traffic on for roadways and intersections. The policies maintain an are operating within the Citys LOS standards. the roadway system and could potentially cause the adequate LOS on the city street system, including at following roadways and intersections to exceed LOS intersections, to provide for the mobility needs of the standards: community; and to avoid further degradation of service Storke Road south of US 101 Interchange (roadway) levels at roadways and intersections where existing Cathedral Oaks Road/Los Carneros Road service levels do not meet target standards. (intersection) Los Carneros Road/Calle Real (intersection)
There are bike lanes in all directions from the property.
Los Carneros Road/US 101 SB Ramp (intersection)
July 21, 2011
4-33
Existing Condition Same as above.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint Same as above.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Change to the property could result in increased traffic on the roadway system and could potentially cause the following intersections to exceed LOS standards for cumulative effects: Hollister Avenue/Storke Road Storke Road/US-101 SB Ramp
Los Carneros Road/Hollister Avenue

Transportation and CirculationService There are no service constraints for Transportation and Circulation.
Notes: 1 In some cases, descriptions of Service Considerations or Environmental Considerations are absent, reflecting the fact that they are not applicable to the resource area
July 21, 2011
4-34
Chapter 5 Public Planning Process
CHAPTER 5 PUBLIC PLANNING PROCESS 5.1 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS
The General Plan amendment process is governed under State Planning and Zoning Law, Government Code Section 65250 et seq. The process begins with a formal initiation the General Plan Amendment by the City Council. If initiated, City staff will commences the amendment processing of the General Plan Amendment including environmental analysis. At the completion of that process, the General Plan amendment is brought before the Planning Commission and the City Council, in public hearings, for deliberations and decision-making. The decision is a legislative action. Again, if initiated by the City Council for further processing, staff proceeds with an environmental analysis for the General Plan amendment proposed. Staff evaluates the proposed General Plan amendment, adds clarity where required, and conducts a consistency analysis with respect to the General Plan which would be evaluated in a CEQA document that would tier off of or replace the existing General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A staff report and related resolutions for the certification of the environmental document and adoption of the General Plan amendment is prepared and the matter is set for public hearing before the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission conducts a public hearing, deliberates on the request and analysis, and forwards a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council conducts a public hearing and renders a final decision on whether to amend the General Plan. A General Plan amendment is adopted by resolution and is a legislative action.
5.2
SPECIFIC PLAN PROCESS
A specific plan is a tool that systematically implements a General Plan in a defined area, usually addressing the phasing of development and the timing of public and private improvements in support of that development. The specific planning process enables a more consistent vision to be implemented and phased over time. Specific plans are subject to environmental review. This process would likely run concurrently with the General Plan amendment environmental review process. Specific plans are dynamic and may, over time, change with the future development phases of a project within the specific planning area. A specific plan does not vest development by statute, but its entitlements may be defined by development agreements and vesting tentative maps.
5.3
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROCESS
A development agreement is a contract between the City and a developer. It is a tool for comprehensive planning which maximizes efficient use of resources at the least economic cost to the public. A development agreement provides assurance to the developer that development may progress in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations, subject to conditions of approval. In return, the development agreement may provide for funding and timing for
July 21, 2011
5-1
Chapter 5 Public Planning Process
construction of public facilities, thereby providing the City with certainty of funding and control of needed public facilities and the ability to more comprehensively plan for the needs of the public. The development agreement process begins with initiation of the development agreement by the City Council during a public hearing. Following initiation, the City and developer negotiate the terms of the development agreement subject to the limitations of the law. Development agreements are subject to environmental review. This process would likely run concurrently with any other required environmental review process. Upon completion of negotiation of the development agreement, the development agreement is considered by the Planning Commission for a recommendation to the City Council during a public hearing. The development agreement is then considered, along with the recommendation of the Planning Commission, by the City Council during a public hearing. A development agreement is adopted by an ordinance by the City Council and is a legislative action.
July 21, 2011
5-2
Bishop Ranch Study Project
Chapter 6. Reviewers and Preparers
CHAPTER 6.0 REVIEWERS AND PREPARERS
6.1
CITY OF GOLETA REVIEWERS

Director of Planning and Environmental Services Advance Planning Manager Assistant City Attorney Steve Chase Anne Wells Joanna Smith
6.2
ICF PREPARERS
Project Director Project Manager Reviewer Aesthetics Agriculture Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Demographics, Land Use and Housing Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards and Noise Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Public Facilities Hydrology and Water Quality Water, Wastewater, and Utilities Transportation and Circulation Graphics and GIS Editing Charles Smith, AICP Nicole Williams Jonathan Riker Mari Piantka Orrin Sage (Sage Assoc) Nicole Williams Victor Ortiz Phil Richards Dale Ritenour Mark Robinson Mari Piantka James Harry Peter Hardie Steve Bossi Tanya Jones Nicole Williams Kai-Ling Kuo Soraya Mustain Ken Cherry Christine McGeever
July 21, 2011
6-1
Chapter 7. References
CHAPTER 7 REFERENCES
This chapter includes all references cited in the Bishop Ranch Property Study and its appendices.
Airport Land Use Plan. 1993. Originally referenced in Preliminary Draft Goleta General Plan / Coastal Land Use Plan, September 23, 2005 Draft Safety: Coastal and Other Hazards. American Title Company. 2011. Plotted Easements Map. Reference No. 2909919. County: Santa Barbara. American Title Company. 2011b. Exhibit: Waiver Agreement. Associated Transportation Engineers. 2010. Traffic and Circulation Study for the Cortona Apartments. Prepared for the City of Goleta, CA. January 22, 2011. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1980. Visual Resource Management Program. California Air Resources Board. 2009. 2010 Area Designations for State Ambient Air Quality Standards Ozone. December 2009. California Air Resources Board. 2011.Historical Air Quality Data. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php. Accessed: February 28, 2011. California Association of Realtors. 2010. January 2010 Median Prices. <http://www.car.org/marketdata/historicalprices/2010medianprices/jan2010medianprices />. Date Accessed March 15, 2011. California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 19 Public Safety, Division 2 Office of Emergency Services, Chapter 4.5 California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program. 2004. Final CalARP Program Regulations. June 28.California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Proposition 65. Available: <http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65.html>. Accessed: November 15, 2010 California Department of Conservation. 2006. Santa Barbara Important Farmland 2006 Map. California Department of Conservation. 2007. California Watersheds Map. Watershed Portal. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/watershedportal/ InformationResources/Pages/informationResources.aspx. Accessed February 28, 2010. California Department of Conservation. 2008. Santa Barbara Important Farmland 2008 Map.
July 21, 2011
7-1
California Department of Conservation. 2011. Radon. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous_minerals/radon/Pages/Index.as px. Accessed: February 2011. California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. California Natural Diversity Database. Wildlife Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Habitat Conservation Division, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Element reports for the Goleta Valley, CA, and immediately surrounding USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. Data date: May 2006. California Department of Water Resources. 2003. Guidebook for Implementation of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221 of 2001 to assist water suppliers, cities, and counties in integrating water and land use planning. Prepared by the California Department of Water Resources. California EPA. 2010. California 2010 303(d) Combined List. Available: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml. Accessed: February 28, 2011. California Soil Resources. 20101. Available: <http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/ soilweb_gmap/ >. Accessed: February 2011. California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2009. 2009 Average daily and peak hour traffic volumes. Traffic Vehicle Data Systems Unit. Traffic Operations Division. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/2009all/ 2009TrafficVolumes.htm. Accessed: March 2011. California State Water Resources Control Board. Construction Storm Water Program. Construction General Permit 99-08-DWQ. Available: <http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/ water_issues/programs/stormwater/gen_const.shtml>. Accessed: November 15, 2010. CalRecycle. 2010. Waste Stream Information Profiles. Active Landfill Profile for Tajiguas Sanitary Landfill (42-AA-0015) Website. Available: http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/ Profiles/Facility/Landfill/LFProfile1.asp?COID=56&FACID=42-AA-0015 Accessed: February 28, 2010. CH2M Hill. 2006. Goleta Valley Agriculture Viability Analysis for the Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce. City of Goleta. 2006. Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Environmental Impact Report. September. City of Goleta. 2008. Environmental Review Guidelines, August 19. City of Goleta. 2009a. Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Draft Housing Element and Housing Element Technical Appendix. June 18, 2009. City of Goleta. 2009b. Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Draft Supplemental EIR, Section 3.8 Population and Housing. January 2009.
July 21, 2011
7-2
City of Goleta. 2010. Coastal General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Housing Element 2007 to 2014. November 16, 2010. County of Santa Barbara Fire Department. 2003. Originally referenced in DRAFT 4 City of Goleta May 2004 BACKGROUND REPORT NUMBER 19 Hazardous Materials. December 9. County of Santa Barbara Public Works. 2010. County of Santa Barbara Public Works: South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station Website. Available: http://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/rrwmd/facility_south_coast.htm Last updated: July 1, 2008. Accessed: February 28, 2010. County of Santa Barbara. 2011a. County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Places of Historic Merit. Available: < http://www.sbcountyplanning.org/boards/hlac/places.cfm>. Accessed: July 16, 2011. County of Santa Barbara. 2011b. County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development. Available: < http://www.sbcountyplanning.org/boards/hlac/faq.cfm>. Accessed: July 16, 2011. Delaplane, Keith S. 1996. Pesticide Usage in the United States: History, Benefits, Risks, and Trends. Delaplane, Keith S., North Carolina State University. March 1996. Dudek. 2006. Joint Goleta Sanitary District and Goleta West Sanitary District Land Use Survey/Wastewater Generation Projections Study 2006 Updated. Prepared for Goleta Sanitary District and Goleta West Sanitary District. Prepared by Dudek and Associates, Inc. Dated January 13, 2006. Dudek. 2010. Memorandum regarding Bishop Ranch Archaeological Site Data. From Ken Victorino, Senior Archaeologist and David Stone, Cultural Resources Manager to Anne Wells, Planning and Environmental Services, City of Goleta. October. EDR. 2010. Originally referenced in DRAFT 4 City of Goleta May 2004 BACKGROUND REPORT NUMBER 19 Hazardous Materials. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1988. Visual Impact Analysis for Highway Projects. FHWA-HI-88-054. Flood Control District. 2011. Downloads Webage: Updated Rainfall Curves Rainfall Coefficients vs. Rainfall Intensity. Available: <http://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/water/downloads.htm> Accessed: March 10, 2011. Geotracker. 2011. Available: http://geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov/ Accessed: March 6, 2011. Goleta Union School District. 2010. Demographics Report. Donna Madrigal, Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services. November 17, 2010.
July 21, 2011
7-3
Goleta Valley Urban Agricultural Newsletter. 2011. Available: <http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/programs/Newsletters/documents/Goleta_Urban _Ag/3.pdf>. Accessed: February 2011. Goleta Water District (GWD). 2005. Urban Water Management Plan. Goleta Water District. 2008. Water Supply Assessment for the Goleta General Plan. Goleta Water District. 2010. USCB 2010 Long Range Development Plan and attachment of March 20, 2009 Letter re Comment Letter to the University of California at Santa Barbara 2008 Long Range Development Plan, Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report Sections. Letter from John McInnes, General Manager of the Goleta Water District to Ms. Leslie Tang Schilling, Chair, Committee on Grounds and Building University of California Regents. Dated August 30, 2010. Goleta Water District. 2011. Bishop Ranch Information Request. Letter from John McInnes, General Manager, GWD to Anne Wells, Advanced Planning Manager. Dated January 12, 2011. GWD. 2011. Records from meter at 96 Glen Annie Road. GWD. 2011. Water Supply Management Plan. April. Available: <http://www.goletawater.com/ assets/documents/water_supply/Water_Supply_Management_Plan_Final_3-31-11.pdf>. Accessed: July 20, 2011. Gray, Allison. Santa Barbara Public Library System. Supervising Librarian/Branch Supervisor, Goleta Branch Library. Personal Communication. Phone Conversation. March 14, 2011. Harris, C. M. (ed.). 1979. Handbook of Noise Control. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Hennessy, Patrick. 2011. Department of Conservation. Personal Communication. Telephone conversation, March 2011. Hetyonk, David. 2011. Santa Barbara High School District. Director of Facilities and Operations. Personal Communication phone conversation, March 1, 2011. Historical Advisory Landmarks Commission. 1993. Brochure Information Sheet. Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 156 pp. Hoover, Michael F. 2010. Hydrologic Analysis Bishop Ranch, LLC Site Goleta California. June 21, 2010. Horne, Stephen P., and Steve Craig. 1978. Letter to Mr. Dean Harqis of Dames and Moore. Santa Barbara CA. October. ICF International. 2010. Land Use and Zoning Designation Research.
July 21, 2011
7-4
ICF International. 2010. Site visit by Mark Robertson. September. Kushnerov, Valerie. 2011. School District Board Member. Personal Communication-email. July 20, 2011. LFR, Inc. (Arcadis). 2008. Sensitive Species Habitat Survey. Bishop Ranch, Goleta, California, January. LFR, Inc. (Arcadis). 2010. Revision to Wetland Mapping at Bishop Ranch. Millar, Bill. 2011. City of Goleta Community Services. Manager of Parks and Open Space. Personal Communication phone conversation. March 1, 2011. Pachter, Ralph. 2011. Goleta Union School District. Assistant Superintendent, Fiscal Services. Personal Communication phone conversation, February 28, 2011. Penfield & Smith. 2007. Draft Preliminary Traffic Analysis for the Bishop Ranch Development. September 12, 2007. RWQCB, Central Region. 2010. Order No. R3-2010-0012, NPDES No. CA0048160 Waste Discharge Requirements for the Goleta Sanitary District Wastewater Treatment Plant Santa Barbara County. Available: <http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/npdes/ pdf/ca/GoletaSdNpdesPermitFinalOrder.pdf> Accessed: February 2011. Sadecki, David. 2011. Public Information Officer for SBCFD. Personal Communication phone conversation. March 10, 2011. Sage and Associates. 2010. Agricultural Study of Bishop Ranch. Prepared for ICF International (as part of a larger report for the City of Goleta). Sage, Orrin. 2011. Personal Communication telephone conversation. July 18, 2011 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD).1988. 1998 Clean Air Plan. December. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. 2002. Regional Growth Forecast 2000 2030. March 2002. Santa Barbara County Association of Government. 2007. Regional Growth Forecast 2005-2040. August 2007. Santa Barbara County Association of Government. 2008. Regional Housing Needs for Santa Barbara County. June. Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. 2011. 2010 Census Data Results for Santa Barbara County. June.
July 21, 2011
7-5
Santa Barbara County Fire Department, Fire Prevention Division. Defensible Space Standards: Development Standard #6. Santa Barbara County. October 15, 2010 Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 2010. Flood Control Maintenance Activities in the Goleta Slough. Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report. State Clearinghouse Number 2000031092. October 2010. Available: <http://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/pwwater.aspx?id=21178>. Accessed: March 15, 2011. Santa Barbara County Public Works Water Resources Division. 2010. Five Year Capital Improvement Plan (2011 to 2016) Website. Available: <http://www.countyofsb.org/ pwd/default.aspx?id=3676> Accessed: February 28, 2010. Santa Barbara County Seismic Safety and Safety Element. 2011. Santa Barbara County Tectonic Map. Available: <http://www.sbcountyplanning.org/PDF/maps/ COMP%20Plan%20Maps/Seismic%20Safety%20Element/SantaBarbaraCountySeismic TectonicMap.pdf>. Accessed: February 2011. Santa Barbara County. 2002. Planning and Development Department. Goleta Valley Agriculture. Prepared by Planning and Development Department. Santa Barbara County. 2002. Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. Santa Barbara County. 2007. Santa Barbara Countywide Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. Available: <http://www.countyofsb.org/pwd/ pwwater.aspx?id=16866>. Accessed: February 28, 2010. Santa Barbara County. 2009. Agricultural Production Report 2009. Available: http://www.countyofsb.org/uploadedFiles/agcomm/crops/2009CR2.pdf. Accessed: February 2011. Santa Barbara County. 2009. Santa Barbara County Groundwater Liquefaction. Available: <http://www.countyofsb.org/itd/gis/default.aspx?id=25666>. Accessed: March 8, 2011. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. 1998. 1998 Clean Air Plan. December. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. 2001. 2001 Clean Air Plan. November. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. 2006. Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents. March. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.. 2009. Santa Barbara County Attainment/Nonattainment Classification Summary 2009. Available: http://www.sbcapcd.org/sbc/attainment.htm. Social Process Research Institute. 1979. Office of Public Archaeology. University of California, Santa Barbara. Final Report Cultural Resource Management Report on Archaeological Sites at Corona Del Mar Ranch, Goleta, California. UCSB Proposal No. 099-78.
July 21, 2011
7-6
Prepared For Dames and Moore, Environmental Consultants. Prepared by Social Process Research Institute. State of California, Department of Finance, 2010a. Table E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2010, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, California, May 2010. State of California, Department of Finance, 2010b. Table 2. Housing Units, Households, and Vacant Units: 2000 and 2010 Incorporated Cities by County in California. Stenshol, Gary. 2008. Ag Land Services. Letter to Honorable Michael Bennett, Mayor City of Goleta regarding developing the Bishop Ranch property for economically viable agricultural use. August. Sugars, Drew. 2011. Public Information Officer for Santa Barbara Sheriffs Office. Personal Communication email. March 29, 2011. Tompkins, Walker. 1966. Goleta: The Good Land. Goleta Amvets Post No. 55. Goleta, California. Co-sponsored by Santa Barbara News-Press. Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Special Report 209. Washington, DC: National Research Council. U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. 2005-2009a. 2005-2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates Goleta CDP, California. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010., 2010 Census.2010 Census Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, Tables P1, P2, P3, P4, H1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, April, 1995. DOT-T-95-16. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. (Prepared under contract by Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson). Burlington, MA. U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 1978. Procedure to establish priorities in landscape architecture. Washington, D.C. United States Forest Service (USFS). 1995. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management. Washington, D.C. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services.2011. Wind Erodibility. Available: <http://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/contents/part618ex.html#ex16>. Accessed: February 2011. Wilcoxon, Larry. 1982. Cultural Resources Evaluation for University Exchange Corporations Proposed Glen Annie Creek Water Diversion Program, Goleta, California; and Cultural Resources: Potential Impacts Associated with University Exchange Corporations Proposed Phase I and Phase III Residential Developments. December. Report Reference Number E-66.
July 21, 2011
7-7
Appendix A Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Appendix A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES
This section discusses the aesthetics and visual resources of the Bishop Ranch property (property) and adjacent areas. This section describes the following:

existing scenic vistas, corridors, and landscapes within the property and adjacent to it, environmental setting (existing conditions and regulatory setting) for aesthetics and visual resources, and constraints and opportunities associated with aesthetics and visual resources.
This section uses the Visual and Historic Resources Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/CLUP) to generally determine if existing scenic vistas, corridors, and landscapes within and adjacent to the property constrain the property.
A.1
Aesthetics Terminology
The aesthetic value of an area is a measure of its visual character and quality, combined with the viewer response to the area (FHWA 1988). Scenic quality can best be described as the overall impression that an individual viewer retains after driving through, walking through, or flying over an area (BLM 1980). Viewer response is a combination of viewer exposure and viewer sensitivity. Viewer exposure is a function of the number of viewers, number of views seen, distance of the viewers, and viewing duration. Viewer sensitivity relates to the extent of the publics concern for a particular viewshed. Natural and artificial landscape features contribute to the visual character of an area or view. Visual character is influenced by geologic, hydrologic, botanical, wildlife, recreational, and urban features. Visual quality is evaluated based on the relative degree of vividness, intactness, and unity, as modified by its visual sensitivity. High-quality views are highly vivid and relatively intact, and exhibit a high degree of visual unity. Low-quality views lack vividness, are not visually intact, and possess a low degree of visual unity. The measure of the quality of a view must be tempered by the overall sensitivity of the viewer. Viewer sensitivity or concern is based on the visibility of resources in the landscape, proximity of viewers to the visual resource, elevation of viewers relative to the visual resource, frequency and duration of views, number of viewers, and type and expectations of individuals and viewer groups. Visual sensitivity depends on the number and type of viewers and the frequency and duration of views. Visual sensitivity is also modified by viewer activity, awareness, and visual expectations in relation to the number of viewers and viewing duration. For example, visual sensitivity is generally higher for views seen by people who are driving for pleasure; people engaging in recreational activities, such as hiking, biking, or camping; and homeowners. Sensitivity tends to be lower for views seen by people driving to and from work or while at work (USFS 1995, FHWA 1988, U.S. Soil Conservation Service 1978). Commuters and nonrecreational travelers have generally fleeting views and tend to focus on traffic, not on surrounding scenery. Therefore, they are generally considered to have low visual sensitivity.
July 21, 2011
A-1
Residential viewers typically have extended viewing periods and are concerned about changes in the views from their homes. Therefore, they are generally considered to have high visual sensitivity. Viewers using recreation trails and areas, scenic highways, and scenic overlooks are usually assessed as having high visual sensitivity.
A.2
A.2.1
Environmental Conditions
Visual Character of the City of Goleta
The City of Goleta (City) lies between the Santa Ynez Mountains and the Pacific Ocean. Although the foothills and mountains are outside City boundaries, these landforms will remain largely undeveloped and provide a scenic backdrop to Goletas urbanized area. Prominent features of the foothills and mountains are seen throughout the City and include expanses of orchards, chaparral, and rock outcroppings. Visually attractive open spaces within Goleta include public recreation areas, such as the Lake Los Carneros Natural and Historical Preserve, and agricultural lands, such as Fairview Gardens and the property, all readily visible from public streets. A large lemon orchard and other agricultural areas located adjacent to the City boundary can be seen south of Hollister Avenue between Patterson Avenue and State Route 217 (SR-217). Goleta also encompasses highly scenic coastal open space areas. Santa Barbara Shores Park and the Sperling Preserve are important upland drainage areas associated with the Devereux Slough ecosystem. Home to significant natural features and one of the largest monarch butterfly overwintering sites in the United States, this open space is bordered on the west by the Sandpiper Golf Course and the east by University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB)-owned open space and the Coal Oil Point Reserve (COPR). An extensive trail system provides access to these scenic areas, which, due to the predominantly flat terrain, provide sweeping views of onsite eucalyptus trees, the Santa Ynez Mountains and foothills, the Pacific Ocean, coastal bluffs, and Devereux Slough. Goletas urban design reflects its transition from a ranching/farming region to a post-World War II suburban residential community. Today, Goleta retains its small-scale suburban character, with relatively low residential densities and few visually prominent buildings (none greater than three stories). Open spaces and broad vistas continue to provide a connection to the natural environment. Only a few pre-World War II buildings exist. The Old Town area is the historic center of Goleta and the place where an array of architectural styles are still represented. A.2.2 Visual Character of the Property
The Bishop Ranch property consists of gently rolling topography that affords views of the Pacific Ocean/Santa Barbara Channel, Goleta Slough, and Santa Ynez Mountains and foothills. The topography of the property ranges from an elevation of 115 feet above sea level at its highest point near the northern boundary along Cathedral Oaks Road to an elevation of 33 feet above mean sea level at its lowest point near the southern boundary along US-101. Generally the middle of the property ranges from 100 feet above mean sea level to 45 feet above mean sea level. Figure A-1 identifies the topography of the property. Los Carneros Creek is not located on
July 21, 2011
A-2
90 f t
*Approximate location shown. Actual location is at the intersection of Cathedral Oaks and Los Carneros.
95 ft
ft
105
115 ft
70
11 0
ft
ft
105
100 ft
ft
110 ft
Cathe
115 ft
dral O a
110 ft
65 ft
ks Rd
100 f t
105 ft
105 f
105 ft
100 ft
85
10
ft
0f
95
80 f t 70 f t
ft
100
85 f t
75 ft 85 f t
ft
65
0 ft
85 f t
90
ft
ft
75
60 f t
ft
75
95 f t
105 ft
95 ft
90
75
95
100 ft
ft
ft
ft
85 f t
90 ft
55 ft
80 ft
75 f t
90 f t
80 ft
85 ft
90
ft
50
ft
ft
70 ft
95 ft
Carn e ros R d
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\aesthetics\figa_1_topography.mxd SM (07-18-11)
80 ft
ft
90
70 ft
60 ft
55
f 55
ft
80
ft
85 f t
85 f t
75
70
ft
65 f t
60
75 ft
ft
80 f
50
50 ft
ft
ft
45
ft
55 f t
75 ft
t 0f
40 ft
f 40
45 f t
t
40 ft
70 ft
65 ft
250 Feet
500
Legend Property Goleta General Plan Designated Viewpoints
Figure A-1 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED VIEWS
Views to All Directions Views to One Direction
Source: City of Goleta; ESRI (2008); California Department of Conservation
50 f t
55
G le n
65 ft
65 ft
Rd Annie
45 ft
ft
70 f t 65 ft
60 f t
45 f t
80 ft
40
ft
55 ft
50
60 f t
ft
55 f t
60 ft
50 ft
35 ft
e Rd Stork
the property, but on its eastern edge and extends north to south, terminating at the Pacific Ocean. The majority of the property has been disturbed by ranching and agricultural activities that took place prior to the 1960s/1970s. However, different varieties of trees are present including live oak tree clusters and eucalyptus trees in the form of windrows. In addition, different types of vegetation are located on the property such as native and nonnative grasslands, coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub, and riparian forest along Los Carneros Creek. A historic period resource, the Bishop Ranch house, and associated stone pergola, garden, and plantings of mature exotic trees are also located on the property (see Figure A-2). Views to the north from the property are of Cathedral Oaks Road and orchards in the immediate foreground, and then the Santa Ynez Mountains and foothills. Prominent features of the foothills and mountains are seen throughout the property and include expanses of orchards, chaparral, and rock outcroppings (see Figure A-3). Views to the east from the property are of large trees in the immediate foreground and the foothills and residences. Lake Los Carneros is located east of the property; however, views are limited due to the heavy vegetation that runs along the eastern property limits along Los Carneros Creek (see Figure A-4). Views from the property to the south are of US-101 in the immediate foreground, office and light industrial uses found along Hollister Avenue, the UCSB campus, More Mesa, and the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport. However, many of the views are obstructed by large trees and the topography of the property depending on ones location. On a clear day and standing at the highest elevation of the property, the Pacific Ocean can be seen in the far background (see Figure A-5). However, the property is not located within the Coastal Zone. Views to the west from the property are of Glen Annie Road in the immediate foreground, a gas station, Dos Pueblos High School, and residences located west of Glen Annie Road. The US101 Glen Annie Bridge Overcrossing is also visible to the southwest of the property (see Figure A-6). A.2.3 Visual Resources
Scenic Resources Various scenic resources within and around the City contribute to its character. Views of these resources from public and private areas contribute to the overall attractiveness of the City and the quality of life enjoyed by its residents, visitors, and workforce. Natural features and scenic resources within and around the property include:

the open waters of the Pacific Ocean/Santa Barbara Channel, with the Channel Islands visible in the distance, Goletas Pacific shoreline, including beaches, coastal bluffs, and open coastal mesas, Goleta Slough,
July 21, 2011
A-3
seasonal creeks and the vegetation associated with the riparian corridors on the property, agricultural lands in the areas north and northeast of the property, Lake Los Carneros and the surrounding woodlands, and prominent natural landforms, such as the foothills and the Santa Ynez Mountains.
Scenic Corridors The Citys General Plan identifies scenic corridors that pass through, or provide visual access to, areas of high scenic value. The corridors, or segments of corridors, near the property include but are not limited to the following:

US-101, Cathedral Oaks Road, Hollister Avenue, and Los Carneros Road. Key Public Viewpoints
A.2.4
Public vantage points within the City include public streets and US-101, as well as public open spaces located throughout the City. Figure 3.1-1 of the General Plan (2006) shows the public vantage points where expansive views of the City and its visual resources are readily available to viewers on all of the surrounding roadways and in City public open spaces (Los Carneros Lake). Although views of the Citys visual resources are also available from residential areas and other private lands within the City, local regulations and guidelines generally focus on maintaining views from public vantage points. These views are described below. Views from US-101 Motorists on US-101 currently have both northerly and southerly views from the highway as it extends through the City. Between Los Carneros and Glen Annie Roads, motorists have northern views of the property. Figure A-7 shows views of the property from US-101. These views are of the Bishop Ranch house and surrounding mature trees on the western side of the property, gently rolling topography with some coast live oak clusters, and Eucalyptus windrows that run across the central portion of the property. The majority of the property consists of vacant land. Views to the north of the property are of the Santa Ynez Mountains and foothills. Prominent features of the foothills and mountains can be seen throughout the property and include expanses of orchards, chaparral, and rock outcroppings (see Figure A-3). Views from other Major Public Roadways within the City Views of the property are available from Los Carneros Road, Cathedral Oaks, and Glen Annie Road. Figures A-8, A-9, and A-10 show views of the property from these locations, respectively. Views to the west of Los Caneros Road are of agriculture and orchards that are not of the actual property, but rather the adjoining property. Views to the east are of Lake Los Carneros and the Goleta Depot and residences.
July 21, 2011
A-4
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_2_BishopRanchHouse_1.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-2 BISHOP RANCH HOUSE
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_2_BishopRanchHouse_2.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-2 CONTINUED BISHOP RANCH HOUSE
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_3_North.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-3 NORTHERN VIEWS FROM THE PROPERTY
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_4_East_1.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-4 EASTERN VIEWS FROM THE PROPERTY
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_4_East_2.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-4 CONTINUED EASTERN VIEWS FROM THE PROPERTY
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_5_South_1.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-5 SOUTHERN VIEWS FROM THE PROPERTY
Figure A-5 CONTINUED SOUTHERN VIEWS FROM THE PROPERTY
Figure A-5 CONTINUED SOUTHERN VIEWS FROM THE PROPERTY
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_6_West_1.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-6 WESTERN VIEWS FROM THE PROPERTY
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_6_West_2.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-6 CONTINUED WESTERN VIEWS FROM THE PROPERTY
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_7_from101_1.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-7 VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY FROM 101 (NORTHWARD)
Figure A-7 CONTINUED VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY FROM 101 (NORTHWARD)
Figure A-7 CONTINUED VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY FROM 101 (NORTHWARD)
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_8_fromLosCarneros_1.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-8 VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY FROM LOS CARNEROS (WESTWARD)
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_8_fromLosCarneros_2.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-8 CONTINUED VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY FROM LOS CARNEROS (WESTWARD)
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_9_fromCathedralOaks_1.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-9 VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY FROM CATHEDRAL OAKS (SOUTHWARD)
Figure A-9 CONTINUED VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY FROM CATHEDRAL OAKS (SOUTHWARD)
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_10_fromGlenAnnieRd_1.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-10 VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY FROM GLEN ANNIE ROAD (EASTWARD)
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Aesthetics\FigA_10_fromGlenAnnieRd_2.ai SM (07-18-11)
Figure A-10 CONTINUED VIEWS OF THE PROPERTY FROM GLEN ANNIE ROAD (EASTWARD)
Views to the south of Cathedral Oaks are of the property, including the mature trees surrounding the home, gently rolling topography with some coast live oak clusters, and eucalyptus windrows that run across the central portion of the property. There are limited views of US-101, office and light industrial uses found along Hollister Avenue, the UCSB campus, Hope Ranch, and the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport. Views to the north of Cathedral Oaks Road, are of orchards and the foothills. Views from east of Glen Annie Road are of the property and large trees found on the both sides of the road, As Cathedral Oaks Road is approached some of the large trees found along the road disappear and views of the foothills and the property open up again. Gateways to the City Gateways are significant points of entry into a city or community. From these gateway roads, motorists are presented with the visual character of the city. Figure 3.1-1 of the General Plan depicts the gateways to Goleta; those applicable to the property include:

views of the City, mountains, and foothills from Cathedral Oaks Road at the eastern and western City boundaries; and views of the City on Glen Annie Road, Los Carneros Road, and Fairview Avenue at the northern City boundaries.
A.3
A.3.1
Regulations and Permits

Federal
No federal laws, ordinances, or regulations apply. A.3.2 State
State Scenic Highway Designations The portion of US-101 that extends through the City is identified as an Eligible Scenic HighwayNot Officially Designated by the State Scenic Highway System A.3.3 Local
The following General Plan Elements have policies relevant to aesthetics: Visual and Historic Resources and Land Use. For the purposes of this appendix, any relevant information directly related to historic or cultural resources is discussed in Appendix E, Cultural Resources. This section only identifies historic or cultural resources as they relate to aesthetic value. For specifics regarding the preservation of historic or cultural resources and relevant policies, including VH 5 and VH 6, please see Appendix E. Additionally, only subpolicies are identified below where relevant to the property. Visual and Historic Resources Element The policies of the Visual and Historic Resources Element are intended to preserve and protect Goletas scenic and historic resources to the maximum extent feasible while allowing quality development in conformance with the provisions of the General Plan. The following principles
July 21, 2011
A-5
and goals, which are not in order of priority, provide the foundation for the detailed policies that follow. Only those principals and goals that could be considered applicable to the property are: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Recognize and preserve the unique and valuable scenic and historic resources that reflect the cultural and historical heritage of Goleta. Ensure that new development is designed to preserve and protect important natural features and scenic resources. Acknowledge that all development alters the existing environment and recognize the importance of quality design. Preserve links to Goletas architectural past whenever possible to avoid the loss of community character. Preserve the citys historic structures and sites as irreplaceable resources and protect these resources from deterioration, inappropriate alterations, and demolition. Encourage owners of local historic resources to invest in maintenance and restoration efforts, and if eligible, seek historic landmark status. Ensure that new construction and additions to existing buildings maintain the character and livability of existing neighborhoods and are designed to fit appropriately within the context of the surrounding area. Protect natural landforms by preventing excessive and unsightly grading associated with development. Lessen the visual impact of development through the use of appropriate landscaping.
8. 9.
All policies have been established to be in conformity with the guiding principles and goals. Applicable policies to a study about the Bishop Ranch property include, but may not be limited to, the following:
Policy VH 1: Scenic Views. Objective: To identify, protect, and enhance Goletas scenic resources and protect views or vistas of these resources from public and private areas. Policy VH 1.1. Scenic Resources. [GP/CP] An essential aspect of Goletas character is derived from the various scenic resources within and around the City. Views of these resources from public and private areas contribute to the overall attractiveness of the city and the quality of life enjoyed by its residents, visitors, and workforce. The City shall support the protection and preservation of the following scenic resources: a. The open waters of the Pacific Ocean/Santa Barbara Channel, with the Channel Islands visible in the distance. b. Goletas Pacific shoreline, including beaches, dunes, lagoons, coastal bluffs, and open costal mesas. c. Goleta and Devereux Sloughs. d. Creeks and the vegetation associated with their riparian corridors.
July 21, 2011
A-6
e. Agricultural areas, including orchards, lands in vegetable or other crop production, and fallow agricultural lands. f. Lake Los Carneros and the surrounding woodlands.
g. Prominent natural landforms, such as the foothills and the Santa Ynez Mountains.
Policy VH 1.2. Scenic Resources Map. [GP/CP] The Scenic Resources Map in Figure 6-1 identifies locations on public roads, trails, parks, open spaces, and beaches that serve as public vantage points for viewing scenic resources. Views from these locations shall be protected by minimizing any impairment that could result from new development. Policy VH 1.7. Scenic Easements. [GP/CP] The City shall encourage the dedication of scenic easements to preserve important views. Such easements shall be required where appropriate and legally feasible. Policy VH 2: Local Scenic Corridors. Objective: To protect and enhance the visual character and public views within and from Goletas scenic corridors and locations from which scenic vistas can be enjoyed. VH 2.1. Designated Scenic Corridors. [GP] The Scenic Resources Map in Figure 6-1 identifies corridors that pass through, or provide visual access to, areas of high scenic value. These corridors, or segments of corridors, include but are not limited to the following: a. US-101 b. Cathedral Oaks Road c. Hollister Avenue d. Los Carneros Road
VH 2.2 Preservation of Scenic Corridors. [GP] The aesthetic qualities of scenic corridors shall be preserved through retention of the general character of significant natural features; views of the ocean, foothills, and mountainous areas; and open space associated with recreational and agricultural areas including orchards, prominent vegetation, and historic structures. If landscaping is used to add visual interest or for screening, care should be taken to prevent a wall-like appearance. Bridges, culverts, drainage ditches and other roadway ancillary elements should be appropriately designed; side slopes and earthen berms adjacent to roadways should be natural in appearance. VH 2.4 Public Improvements. [GP] Public improvements visible from scenic corridors including landscaping, street lighting, signage, medians, noise attenuation walls, and other hardscape elements shall include a high level of design through appropriate detailing and use of high quality, durable materials. VH 2.5 Linkages between Scenic Areas. [GP] Corridors of high scenic value should be linked with adjacent public recreation areas such as parks and trails where feasible. VH 2.6 Gateways to the City. [GP] The City should create prominent gateways at key entrances to Goleta. Features such as specimen trees, accent plantings, signage, public
July 21, 2011
A-7
art, monuments, decorative pavement, and pedestrian amenities may be used to emphasize and enhance entries to the city including but not limited to: a. Hollister Avenue at the eastern and western city boundaries b. Cathedral Oaks at the eastern and western city boundaries d. Glen Annie Road, Los Carneros Road, Fairview Avenue, and Cambridge Drive at Cathedral Oaks Road e. Calle Real and Patterson Avenue

Policy VH 3: Community Character. Objective: To protect and enhance Goletas visual character. Policy VH 4: Design Review. Objective: To preserve, protect, and enhance Goletas character through high quality design. .
City of Goleta Ordinances The Citys ordinances identify specific details related to different zones, such as setbacks, heights, widths, and other requirements. There are numerous details for each zone; however, the most relevant zone for the property and this document is height. Section 35 216 AG1 Agricultural I and Section 35 217 Agricultural II identifies a building height limit of 35 feet for agricultural buildings. Sections 35-219, 35-220, 35-222, 35-224A, and 35-225 identify building height limits also of 35 feet for residential buildings and for commercial/industrial buildings.
A.4
A.4.1
Methodology and Assumptions

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in terms of the following issue areas: environmental, regulatory and permitting, and services. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the City of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property as an urban land use or to resume active agricultural practices on the property. Service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. The views to the property would be considered high-quality views that are relatively intact, exhibit a high degree of visual unity and are highly vivid. This is because the property is 240acres of vacant land with different types of vegetation varied topography. The large size of the property combined with the Santa Ynez Mountains and foothills to the north and agricultural uses to the east and west provides viewers of the property with an intact view of high quality natural and agricultural features. Views from the property would also be considered relatively high quality although would likely be less intact and less unified because of the different types of land uses to the south and west of the property. Such as office and industrial uses in the immediate foreground to the south of the property and the gas station, high school and residences to the west of the property. Additionally, depending on the location of where a view
July 21, 2011
A-8
is on the property, one can see views of the Pacific Ocean or have views of the surrounding area be obscured by topography and vegetation. There are a number of sensitive viewers surrounding the property including residential homes within close proximity that cannot easily change or modify their view (e.g., they are generally static) and viewers using US-101, Cathedral Oaks Road, Hollister Avenue or Los Carneros Road as a scenic highway. The quality of views to and from the property, intactness, and vividness, as well as the types of sensitive viewers were considered in the evaluation of future urban uses or active agricultural uses. Additionally, considered was the existing visual setting of the City and how this might change with either future urban uses or future active agricultural uses. A qualitative evaluation was prepared considering the aesthetic constraints and opportunities presented by future urban uses or future agricultural uses. A.4.2 Assumptions
The following assumptions were made to complete the analysis: US-101 is considered a scenic corridor. The property could accommodate all types of residential, commercial, agricultural, and open space uses. Any active agricultural use of the property would not include habitable buildings. Any active agricultural use of the property would generally maintain existing natural features located on the property and the existing historic period resource. The existing historic period resource could be removed to accommodate future urban land uses; however, it could also be incorporated into open space uses associated with urban land uses.
A.4
A.4.1
Evaluation
Summary of Opportunities and Constraints
There are several opportunities and constraints associated with the property related to aesthetics. These are summarized in Table A-1.
July 21, 2011
A-9
TABLE A-1: SUMMARY OF AESETHETICS CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Relevance to Future Property Use 2 and Rating Urban Ag /
Existing Condition Environmental The property is currently vacant land which has a number of trees, open space views, and grounds around an existing vacant historic period resource.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The property, grounds, and specimen trees contribute to the Citys agricultural heritage; open spaces and views of natural features all contribute to the Citys visual character.
Existing Condition 1 Rating +
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint A change in the land use designation to urban uses that could result in the removal of the historic period resource, specimen trees, natural features, and vacant lands would result in a change to the visual character of the City. The existing natural features that represent scenic resources found at the property could be significantly modified by the future use of the property. Placement of urban structures allowed by an urban land use designation on the property could impact views of visual resources including the ocean, islands, and mountains.
Sensitive viewers that could be affected by future development on the property include the residences found east and west of the property and patrons of the Glen Annie Golf Course. Daily commuters driving along US101, Glen Annie Road, and Cathedral Oaks would have a lower visual sensitivity..
The property, grounds, and specimen trees, open space, and views of natural features could be important to viewers traveling along US-101, Glen Annie Road, and Cathedral Oaks; and residents and patrons of the Glen Annie Golf Course. In addition, views of the ocean, Channel Islands, and mountains are also available.
July 21, 2011
A-10
Regulatory and Permitting There are two designated City gateways near the property. City gateways are significant points of entry into a city or community.
Motorists are presented with the visual character of the City and the property: the intersection of Cathedral Oaks Road/Glen Annie Road and Cathedral Oaks Road/Los Carneros Road.
A change in the land use designation to urban uses could affect the visual character found at the gateway located at Glen Annie Road and Cathedral Oaks Road.
The General Plan identifies ten scenic viewpoints/viewsheds from the four adjoining roads looking onto or including the property.
There are existing scenic viewpoints/viewsheds from adjacent roadways and scenic resources on the property.
A change in the land use designation to urban uses would result in a change to the viewsheds and a potential loss of identified scenic viewpoints/ viewsheds and resources. A change to urban uses on the property would have to address some or all of these policies, particularly VH 1.1 and VH 1.2. A change to urban uses on the property would have to reconcile Policy VH 2.2.
The General Plan identifies a number of policies regarding views, scenic views, and scenic resources in the City (see discussion in Section A.3, Regulations and Permits). The General Plan policies call for the preservation and retention of the general character of significant natural features; views of the ocean, foothills, and mountainous areas; and open space associated with recreational and agricultural areas including orchards, prominent vegetation, and historic structures. Development adjacent to scenic corridors should not degrade or obstruct views of scenic areas.
These policies are relevant existing views, scenic resources, and viewsheds
The Citys General Plan identifies four scenic corridors that surround the property. They include Los Carneros Road, Glen Annie Road, Cathedral Oaks Road, and US101. These scenic corridors provide scenic views of the ocean, channel islands, mountains and foothills, Bishop Ranch house, specimen trees, open space, and natural features on the property.
July 21, 2011
A-11
The General Plan provides for the protection and enhancement Goletas visual character. The Citys visual character is derived from the natural landscape and the built environment. The citys agricultural heritage, open spaces, and views of natural features are all important features that contribute to the Citys character.
The property exemplifies the Citys heritage. The open spaces and views of natural features found on the property all contribute to the Citys visual character. Moreover, the Bishop Ranch house is a historic period resource.
A change in the land use designation that would allow urban uses could result in the removal of the historic period resource, specimen trees, natural features, and vacant lands. This would result in a change to the visual character of the City, as well as a potential loss of a historic period resource. N/A
Service There are no service constraints for aesthetics.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table Notes 1 Existing Conditions Rating indicates how well the existing conditions support the resource area (e.g., aesthetics, agriculture, biology, etc). The rating is defined in one of the following three ways: Positive (+) indicates an opportunity, or an issue that would not pose a constraint. Neutral (/) indicates an issue that is neutral and neither positive or negative Negative (-) indicates a constraint that would be difficult to overcome 2 The Urban column indicates the property would be converted to some type of urban use, and the Ag column indicates the property would be converted to some type of active agricultural. The Future Property Use rating is the same as defined above (positive, neutral, or negative) and indicates how well an urban use or ag use would support the resource area given the identified opportunities or constraints.
July 21, 2011
A-12
A.4.2
Discussion of Evaluation
Scenic Views and Sensitive Viewers The General Plan identifies nine scenic viewpoints/viewsheds from the four adjoining roads looking onto or including the property. Any type of future urban development could affect the scenic corridors, key viewpoints, and major gateways found near the property. Although people who experience views from the roadways are not considered the most sensitive viewers to visual change, the General Plan and the City place particular emphasis on views experienced from roads as being integral to the visual character and quality of the entire City. The Visual and Historic Resources Element is intended to address and enhance visual resources and scenic views within the City. These policies would likely reduce impacts on scenic views along adjacent roadways and City gateways associated with future urban uses; however, they may not be completely eliminated. Depending on the type of future urban use, the change in visual quality may be substantial. Visual sensitivity depends on the number and type of viewers and the frequency and duration of views. Visual sensitivity is also modified by viewer activity, awareness, and visual expectations in relation to the number of viewers and viewing duration. Those who could be affected by future development on the property include the residences found east and west of the property and patrons of the Glen Annie Golf Course who have views of the property. These viewers would usually be assessed as having a high visual sensitivity. Daily commuters driving along US-101, Glen Annie Road, and Cathedral Oaks would have a lower visual sensitivity. However, those using the US-101 as a scenic highway and those using Cathedral Oaks Road and Glen Annie Road as scenic roadways and overlooks are usually assessed as having a high visual sensitivity. The vacant land, natural resources such as trees, and the historic period resource represent scenic resources found on the property that could be adversely impacted by future activities on the property. In addition, placement of urban structures on the property could impact views of visual resources including the ocean, island, and mountains. Compliance with General Plan Policies in the Visual and Historic Resources Element and the City Design Review Standards and Guidelines could promote aesthetically compatible uses in terms of scale. Restrictions on height limits, density and scale of building, removal of vegetation, natural landforms, and removal of historic structures are considerations called for by that element of the General Plan. Removal of vacant lands, creeks, and the vegetation associated with riparian corridors would certainly need to be reconciled with Policies VH 1.1 and 1.2. Policy VH 1, Scenic Views, supports the protection and preservation of scenic resources including agricultural areas. Height restrictions, landscaping requirements, and architectural treatments are common tools that reduce potential impacts on views of visual resources. The City should try to maintain natural areas within the property to help minimize impacts on these sensitive viewing groups. Placement of taller buildings in lower topographic areas and smaller buildings in higher topographic areas to maintain existing view corridors would also help minimize visual impacts. Even with these measures in place, a change in land use could potentially result in a significant visual/aesthetic impact for these viewer groups because of the subjective nature of design policies.
July 21, 2011
A-13
Visual Character of the City The property and surrounding landscaped areas contribute to the Citys agricultural heritage, and views of natural features contribute to the Citys visual character. The General Plan calls for the protection and enhancement Goletas visual character. Removal of the historic period resource and landscaped areas and vacant lands would result in a negative change to the visual character of the City. Compliance with General Plan Policies VH 3 and 4, and LU 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7; and the City Design Review Standards and Guidelines would require that any future urban development be aesthetically compatible in terms of scale, materials, and character, which would help preserve the Citys visual character. However, any type of future urban use could result in a change to the visual character of the property because design standards and policies that would be imposed on future development are subjective. Future active agricultural use on some of the vacant lands found on the property, and acquisition of the property and landscape area around the Bishop Ranch house through a protective easement, would help preserve and maintain the Citys agricultural heritage and visual character. This would be consistent with General Plan CE Policy 7.4a, which states Open space easements or deed restrictions may be acquired by dedication, where feasible, or by donation or purchase and General Plan CE Policy 11.10 which states [t]he City shall encourage the protection of agricultural lands in perpetuity through the acquisition of conservation easements or development rights by an appropriate entity such as a nonprofit land trust. A.4.3 Additional Analysis Required and Questions
The City could prepare Site-Specific Visual Assessments, with different urban development scenarios. The assessments could help the City evaluate the visual effects of any future urban development, could help determine visual compatibility, and would evaluate impacts on scenic views, scenic corridors, and scenic resources. In addition, the City should determine the feasibility and costs of acquiring and maintaining the Bishop Ranch house and landscape area in a protective easement.
July 21, 2011
Appendix B Agriculture
Appendix B: Agriculture
AGRICULTURE
This section discusses the agricultural use of the property and adjacent areas. This section describes the following:

historical agricultural usage of Bishop Ranch property; agricultural viability of the Bishop Ranch property; regulatory setting for agriculture; and constraints and opportunities associated with agriculture.
The term agriculture as it is used in this section is defined by the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as: (1) sites zoned for agriculture by the County of Santa Barbara at the time of incorporation of the City in 2002; (2) sites that are or were used for agricultural production that are devoid of structures that prevent or limit the continued or resumed use of the land for agricultural purposes; and/or (3) sites with soils or other characteristics that make them suitable for agricultural activities and are devoid of structures or other alterations that prevent or limit the use of the land for agricultural purposes (Goleta 2006). This section uses Attachment 1: Agricultural and Farmland Report prepared by Sage Associates (2010), Attachment 2: Biological Report prepared by LFR (2008), historical records from a search of University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) historical records, and information from the Goleta Water District (GWD) to identify agricultural constraints with the property.
B.1
This section briefly describes the history of agriculture in Santa Barbara County, the historic agricultural use of the 240-acre property, and the existing physical characteristics of the property that relate to agricultural production (soils, topography, water supply, etc.). For a detailed history of the property refer to Chapter 2, Setting, and Appendix E, Cultural Resources. B.1.1 Historic and Existing Agricultural Use
County and Goleta Valley Agricultural Use The County of Santa Barbara and the Goleta Valley are historically known for their contribution to Californias agricultural industry. Over 90 percent of Santa Barbara County is open land, either agriculture or developed or undeveloped open space (Goleta 2006). Agriculture is the Countys third largest employer (Goleta 2006). Agricultural production in the County has changed over the years as demand and supply for various agricultural products changes and as land use development alters and modifies the availability of arable land. However, the uniqueness and wide variety of microclimates throughout the County makes possible a great diversity in agricultural production, supporting the Countys agricultural income (Goleta. 2006). In 2009, the leading commodities in the County were strawberries ($344 million), broccoli ($149
July 21, 2011
B-1
million), wine grapes ($137 million), cauliflower ($63 million), and head lettuce ($62 million) (Santa Barbara County 2009). Orchard crops (walnuts, avocados, and lemons) have also been important to the County, and in 2008/2009 there were between 38,800 and 39,900 acres of these crops in the County, representing approximately 43 percent of the Countys agricultural production/land (Santa Barbara County 2009). In 2009, avocados came in sixth in the ranked agricultural products behind head lettuce ($47 million), and lemons came in twelfth ($14 million), but walnuts did not make the ranking (Santa Barbara County 2009). Walnuts, which used to be a major orchard crop in the County in the mid-1900s, have virtually disappeared from the County, as evidenced by the 2009 rankings, while avocados have increased and lemons have decreased. Table B-1 summarizes the orchard crop production for the County over several decades. TABLE B-1: SUMMARY OF ORCHARD CROP CHARACTERISTICS
Crop Lemon Acreage 9,000 5,500 1,800 1,700
Year 1945 1965 1985 2005
Walnut Acreage 3,500 1,700 780 Walnuts miscellaneous with no acreage Source: Attachment 1.
Avocado Acreage 300 2,200 7,400 8,500
In 2002 Santa Barbara County published the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Goleta Valley Urban Agricultural report. The purpose of the report was to provide the public and decision makers with the history and status of Goleta Valley urban agriculture. This report identified that Goleta Valley has over 1,000 acres of agricultural land; and the crops being grown included avocados, cherimoyas, lemons, vegetables, flowers, nursery plants, and strawberries. City Agricultural Use The City has approximately 375 acres of agricultural land within its limits. The agricultural land remaining in the City contains a variety of agricultural uses ranging from truck farms and greenhouses to avocado orchards and lemons. Major agricultural production still occurs on the south-facing slopes and hillsides, most of which are covered with orchards of lemon and avocado trees. Farms in the canyons and along the coastal plain grow a variety of fruits and vegetables, many of which are organically grown. The agricultural land within the City includes 67.5 acres of Prime Farmland, 0 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance, 42.5 acres of Unique Farmland, 163.8 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, and 101.1 acres that have not been designated, according to the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Property Agricultural Use The existing property was once part of a much larger ranch that encompassed more than 10,000 acres and that was known as Corona Del Mar or Bishop Ranch (as described in Chapter
July 21, 2011
B-2
2, Setting). Some of the property was historically used to facilitate the agricultural operations of the larger ranch. As part of the evaluation conducted as part of the study, aerial photographs from as far back as 1929 were evaluated. These photographs indicated the following activities took place on the property from 1929 to 1975:

1929: orchards cover the southwestern corner of the property. 1939: most of the upland portions of the property were planted in orchards. 1943: extensive orchards and water containment facilities existed on the east portion of the site, likely including walnuts. 1953: large portions of the orchards in the center and western portions of the site were removed with no farming evident in those areas. 1961: most of the orchards had removed in the southwestern corner of the property; windrows of hay crop existed in the north-central portions of the property; the remaining property appears uncultivated. 1967 and 1975: previous orchards were completely removed and the conditions remain similar to those of today; large nonnative fields.
Cattle were grazed from 1985 to 1990 and approximately 10 acres of citrus were planned in the northeastern corner of the property (CH2M Hill 2006). Several other attempts to grow Christmas Trees and strawberries in approximately 1990 were made (CH2M Hill). It is unknown why these crops were abandoned (Sage 2011). Aerial photographs reviewed in the 1990 do not readily depict orchards; however, due to the quality they are generally inconclusive (Sage 2011). Since the early 1990s the property has remained vacant. B.1.2 Soil and Topography Characteristics
The property has variable topography. Although it is generally flat, approximately 34 acres have a slope that is greater than 15 percent, and 19 acres have a slope that is greater than 20 percent. Active agricultural uses can be planted on slopes greater than 20 percent; however, generally, slopes greater than 20 percent that are cultivated or planted generate a higher rate of erosion and runoff (Sage 2011). Soils are classified by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA NRCS) as prime or not prime based on their ability to support agriculture. The Federal classification systems is used for the purposes of defining soils suitable for agriculture. The prime definition of soils (Class I and Class II soils) is based on factors such as chemical attributes, water capacity, erodibility, permeability, and soil rooting depth (Goleta Valley Urban Agricultural Newsletter 2011). The property contains several different types of soils, which are detailed in Attachment 1 and summarized in Chapter 3 and Appendix G. Approximately 28 percent of the property or a total of 67 acres of soil is considered to be prime agricultural soils either as irrigated or unirrigated. Figure B-1 identifies the location of the soil types. Table B-2 summarizes the classification of the soil, the type of soil, number of acres, and whether these soils are considered by the USDA NRCS to be prime agricultural soils.
July 21, 2011
B-3
The California Department of Conservation provides classifications for agricultural land in California based on several variables, including those considered by the USDA NRCS, plus other variables such as historical irrigation and water use and past use. The State classification systems is used for the purposes of designating farmland of statewide importance. Examples of the States agricultural land classification system, as mapped through the Farmland Mapping and monitoring program are: Farmland of Statewide Importance, Farmland of Local Importance and, and Grazing Land and Other (Department of Conservation 2006). As part of this mapping and monitoring program, was previously designated Farmland of Local Importance; however, it is currently designated as Grazing Land or Other, reflecting the fact that the property has not been in active agricultural production in recent years and is not irrigated within the last four year (Department of Conservation 2008). (See Section B.2, Regulations and Permits, for additional details regarding FMMP.) Figure B-2 identifies the Department of Conservation designation. Table B-2 summarizes the soil types and Figure B-3 identifies the location of the soils. TABLE B-2: SUMMARY OF PROPERTY SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Acres (Approx.) 12 55 USDA NRCS Designation Prime (irrigated or non irrigated) Prime (if irrigated) Department of Conservation Designation Grazing and Other Soil Types found on Farmlands of Statewide 1 Importance Yes (if irrigated) Yes (if irrigated)
Class of Soil Class I Class II
Gullied Land and varied Source: Attachment 1. 1 While the property is not designated as farmland of statewide importance, soils exist on the property that are found on lands designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance in the Goleta Valley. Therefore, identification of these soils is included in this table. If these soils were irrigated they may be eligible to be reclassified to Farmland of Statewide Importance.
Class III Class IV Class VI Class VIII
Type of Soil Aqueda (AaC) and Goleta (GcA), Aqueda and Diablo (Dac, DaD) Milpitas-Positas (MeC)
127 28 11 6
Not Prime Not Prime Not Prime Not Prime
N/A
Yes (if irrigated) No No No
Based on an agriculture study conducted by Sage and Associates as part of this Bishop Ranch Study (2010), the Class I, Class II, and Class III soils currently found on approximately 200 acres of the 240 acre property and have the potential to qualify as Prime Farmland and/or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The agriculture study identifies constraints within these 200 acres including 20 acres of steep (greater than 20 percent slope) topography and, more significantly, the lack of water supply to support irrigation for a viable agricultural operation. The agriculture study indicates that in order for these soils to qualify for Prime or Farmland of Statewide Importance status, they would have to be irrigated and/or actively farmed within the last four years, a requirement under the Federal and State classification systems. The significance of the absence of the Prime or Farmland of Statewide Importance status on the property is predicated upon the availability of irrigation water.
July 21, 2011
B-4
E l E nca nto C reek
n C re
Future Service Area Agriculture Site #1 (6.5 Acres) Existing Agriculture Site #6 (9.4 Acres).
S an P edro C reek
AhF2 AhE2 BkC2 AhE2 AhE2 AhF2 AhF2 AhE2
Future Service Area Agriculture Site #2 (2.7 Acres).
Winc hes ter C anyon C reek
a ny o
ek
C re e
od C
MeF2 MeD2 BkC2 MeF2
MeE2 MeD2 SaF2 BkC2 BaC SaD2 MeF2 AaC MeE2 BkC2
lote
k nie C re e
T eco
E llwo
F airview Ave
G le n A n
AhF2
MeF2
k Los C arneros C ree
Las V egas C reek
Rd n A nnie
Existing Agriculture Site #1 (31.5 Acres).

AhE2 AhE2 GcC DaC GdA MeF2 DaC GU DaD MeC MeE2 MeD2 DaC AhF2
EaB
BgA
Ke
Cb
llog gA
AaC
AhF2 AhE2 MeE2 C athedral O aks R d MeC
ve
GdA
MeD2
GdA
MeE2
te ra L n La P a
AhF2
MeC
Eb MeF2 GcC
MeD2
GcA MeC GdA
G le
DaD MeD2 DaC
MeF2
GU
C athedral O aks R d
AaA GU MeD2
DaC MeC MeE2 MeC GcA
DaC DaD MeD2 MeD2
GU DaC MeC
Los Carneros Lake GcA MeE2
GdA
MeE2 MeF2 od r
Be
ll
XA
F airview Ave
MeF2 MeE2 GdA MeE2 MeF2 BE MeF2
Sa
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Ag\FigB_1_Ag_Soils.ai SM (07-18-11)
MeD2 MeD2 XA MeD2 D e ve re ux C re DaD ek DaC CgC2 AC MeD2 CgE2 Cb
Ca Ca
Mc
MeC AD
S anta B arbara Municipal Airport
P he
lps R d

Goleta Slough
A ta s c ade
Rancho Goleta Lake
S torke R d
Existing Agriculture Site #3 (9 .4 Acres).
CgA
XA CgE2 BE CgC2 CgE2 CgC2 Devereux Slough
Me
E l C olegio R d
sa
Rd
Future Service Area Agriculture Site #4 (85 Acres)
Isla Vista UCSB

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service.1981. Soil Survey of Santa Barbara County, California South Coastal Part.
Goleta Pier
0 1,200 Feet 2,400
Campus Lagoon
EaA Elder sandy loam (0-2% slopes) EaB Elder sandy loam (2-9% slopes) Eb Elder-Soboba comples (2-9% slopes) GU Gullied Lands GcA Goleta fine sandy loam (0-2% slopes) GcC Goleta fine sandy loam (2-9% slopes) GdA Goleta loam (0-2% slopes) Mc Metz loamy sand MeC Milpitas-Positas fine sandy loam (2-9% slopes) MeD2 Milpitas-Positas fine sandy loam (9-15% slopes) MeE2 Milpitas-Positas fine sandy loam (15-30% slopes) MeF2 Milpitas-Positas fine sandy loam (30-50% slopes) SaD2 San Andreas-Tierra complex (9-15% slopes) SaE2 San Andreas-Tierra complex (15-30% slopes) SaF2 San Andreas-Tierra comples (30-50% slopes) XA Xerorthents (cut and fill areas) ZaE2 Zaca clay (15-30% slopes)
Legend
Soil Types
AC Aquents (fill areas) AD Aquepts (flooded) AaA Agueda silty clay loam (0-2% slopes) AaC Agueda silty clay loam (2-9% slopes) AhE2 Ayar clay (15-30% slopes)
AhF2 Ayar clay (30-50% slopes) BE Beaches BgA Botella silty clay loam (0-2% slopes) BkC2 Botella Variant silty clay loam (2-9% slopes) Ca Camarillo fine sandy loam Cb Camarillo Variant, fine sandy loam
CgA Concepcion fine sandy loam (0-2% slopes) CgC2 Concepcion fine sandy loam (2-9% slopes) CgE2 Concepcion fine sandy loam 15-30% slopes) DaC Diablo clay (2-9% slopes) DaD Diablo clay (9-15% slopes) DaE2 Diablo clay (15-30% slopes)
Other Features
Existing Agriculture Sites Goleta City Boundary Coastal Zone Boundary Future Service Area Boundary
Figure B-1 SOILS
Schools
Ma
ro C
MeD2
ria
Hollister Ave
AC
nJ
os
MeD2
AaA MeD2
DaD GcA
Ca
Ca
AC
GdA
I gn a ci o
eC
C a rn L os
re e
e ro s
Rd
s te r H olli
A ve
P atte rs on A
C al le R ea l
o ny Ca
MeD2
MeE2
ve
ee Cr
C alle R ea l
Ca
K A
k
EaA
fic R R U nion P a ci
Future Service Area Agriculture Site #3 (26.8 Acres)
AaC
Hollis ter Av
nA Gle
nnie Rd
Lo s
C ar ro s ne
Cathedral Oak s Rd
Rd
Ala meda Ave
CA LLE Real
Sto
R rke
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\ag\figb_2_fmmp.mxd SM (07-18-11)
0.5 Miles
Legend City of Goleta Project Boundary Prime Farmland Farmland of Statewide Importance
Source: FMMP (2008)
Unique Farmland Grazing Land Urban and Built-up Land Other Land
Figure B-2 FARMLAND MAPPING AND MONITORING DESIGNATIONS
o os tur ta en se V Ca INO M NO CA MI CA
Covin
os
Rd
ay gton W
Los
Ca r rne
DaC (9ac)
L os C a
s Rd ral O ak Cathed
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\ag\figb_3_ag_suitable_soils.mxd SM (07-18-11)
DaC (35ac)
DaD (11ac) DaC (4ac) MeC (51ac)
rn
e r os
Cr
ee
k
CALLE
al Re
n Gle Rd k nie ee An Cr
MeC (43ac)
Del Nort eD r
r lian D Casti
in Cam
Drivew ay
500 Feet
1,000
Legend City of Goleta Property Class I Class II Class III Other

Source: City of Goleta; ESRI (2008); SSURGO
Figure B-3 PROPERTY SOILS
Vi s
Gl A en
nn
ie
MeC (22ac) GcA (13ac)
AaC (6ac)
R Pa cific Union
R
VIA L
ui sa
B.1.3
Water Characteristics
The property is located within the GWD service area. As described in Chapter 2, Setting, UEC and GWD entered into an agreement where UEC waived its rights to obtain future water service from GWD on any portion of Rancho Corona Del Mar (including the property) in 1993 (American Title Company 2011). However, as also discussed in Chapter 2, the property currently has 50 AFY of water through the granting of water from the GWD to UEC in 1993, and the transfer between UEC and USCB in 1994 and 1996. The property has approximately 40 wells located on site at different depths; however, these are currently not used and/or have been formally abandoned (Hoover 2010). The property is currently vacant and therefore does not have a great demand for water. There is a 1-inch meter installed that serves the property. Approximately 0.08 acre-feet of water was used in 2010 (GWD 2011). During the past five years the propertys highest water use was in 2008, 2.28 acre-feet; otherwise, the water demand has been approximately 1 AFY or less (GWD 2011).
B.2
B.2.1

Federal
There are no federal regulations regarding agriculture that would be applicable to the property. B.2.2 State
Williamson Act The Williamson Act, California Government Code Sections 5120051207 enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. The act provides that local jurisdictions may establish an agricultural preserve program having the goal of retaining land in agricultural use (e.g., through implementation of Williamson Act contracts). There are approximately 547,120 acres of Williamson Act land in the County of Santa Barbara or approximately 73 percent of the Countys agriculturally zoned land. Of that 73 percent, none of the contracted parcels are located in the City. Therefore, the property is not designated as Williamson Act land. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program The state Department of Conservation runs FMMP. FMMP produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on Californias agricultural resources. The maps are updated every two years by the Department of Conservation by the use of a computer mapping system, aerial imagery, public review, and field reconnaissance. The Department of Conservation uses aerial photographs and geographic information system (GIS) data to update the maps. When areas that look fallow are identified, Department staff typically goes out and visually checks them. If land is fallow for three cycles (6 years), the status gets changed in their system (usually to grazing land) and is mapped as such. If land that has been designated as grazing land is identified as actively farmed or developed from aerial evaluation, the status is updated as necessary. Once the Department determines which land is actively being farmed, the photographs are overlaid with soil data from the USDA, and this information is used to determine areas of important farmland. (Hennessey 2011.)
July 21, 2011
B-5
Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status. The property was formerly identified as Farmland of Local Importance as defined above in Section B.1.2 in 2006. It is now identified as Grazing Land and Other Land. The definitions of these lands are as follows: Grazing Land is land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. Other Land is land that is not included in any other mapping category. Common examples include low density rural developments, brush, timber, wetland, and riparian areas not suitable for livestock grazing, confined livestock, poultry or aquaculture facilities, strip mines, borrow pits, and water bodies smaller than 40 acres. Vacant and nonagricultural land surrounded on all sides by urban development and greater than 40 acres is mapped as Other Land. See Figure B-2 for a map of the FMMP designations on the property and adjacent areas. B.2.3 Local
County Agricultural Preserve Uniform Rules The Countys uniform rules and the Williamson Act provide that agricultural preserve contracts between the County and landowners are voluntary. Therefore, there are no State mandates associated with this program. Because the Williamson Act is administered by the County, should any of the properties within the City apply for Williamson Act status, this program would be administered by the County. Goleta Water District Water Code GWD currently charges a one-time new water supply fee if a user requires service from GWD. The one-time new water supply charge is $32,614 per acre foot1 for new water allocated regardless of land use classification. If a land owner has an existing entitlement to water, the new water supply charge may not apply, depending on the specifics of the existing entitlement. For example, if there was historic water use or an agreement to use water associated with property, the new water supply charge may only apply to additional water needed beyond that which was historically used or agreed upon. The water use charge (i.e., rate) for irrigation water is $1.00 per hundred cubic feet, which is $435.60 per acre foot. The meter charge for a 10-inch meter is $3,500.72 per month (2010 rates). City of Goleta General Plan The property currently has a land use designation of Agriculture. As discussed in Chapter 2, Setting, the property has had several different land use designations over the years, including Agriculture and Residential. There are several General Plan elements that have relevant goals and policies to Agriculture. These elements and the relevant sections are discussed below.
In 2011 the GWD Board increased the cost of a one-time hook up fee for uses from $26,240 per acre foot to $32,614.
July 21, 2011
B-6
Conservation Element The policies of the Conservation Element are designed to preserve and protect Goletas environmental resources, including agriculture, to the maximum extent feasible while allowing reasonable development. The following principles or goals that are relevant to agriculture provide the foundation for the detailed policies in subsequent sections of this element: Preserve and protect agriculture, encourage future expanded agricultural production by protecting land and supporting direct marketing, and ensure compatibility of nearby development with agriculture. The following policies of the Conservation Element are relevant to existing and future agricultural land uses in the City:
Policy CE11: Preservation of Agricultural Lands to promote and retain Goletas agricultural heritage by conserving existing agricultural resources for future generations and supporting agriculture production by minimizing activities and uses that may conflict with agriculture use of the land.
Land Use Element The policies of this element are designed to balance the various concerns and needs of the City and its residents and guide future change to fit the desired character of Goleta. The following guiding principles and goals, that are relevant to agriculture, provide the foundation for the land use plan:
Preserve agricultural lands to allow future potential for agricultural production, including a locally grown food supply, specialty agriculture, and floriculture.
Policies from the Land Use Element that address agriculture and farmland issues are listed below.
Policy LU 1: Land Use Map and General Policies to maintain a land use pattern that provides continuity with the past and present use and development of the city and locates the various uses in a manner that is consistent with the fundamental goals and principals of the plan. Policy LU 7: Agriculture to preserve existing agricultural lands and reserve vacant lands suitable for agriculture to maintain the option of future agricultural uses, including local production of food commodities. Policy LU 12: Land Use in Goletas Environs to identify possible areas for future service delivery and boundary expansion by the City. To influence the amount and character of land use change and development in nearby areas of Goleta Valley that are not within the city but that may result in impacts inside the city and provide guidance to mitigation for those impacts.
Open Space Element The following guiding principles and goals, which are not in order of priority, provide the foundation for the Open Space Element as they pertain to agriculture.
July 21, 2011
B-7
Preserve Goletas existing open space areas, including its beaches and Pacific shoreline, sensitive habitat areas, and agricultural lands, to maintain and enhance these essential aspects of the communitys character.
Policies from the Open Space Element that address agriculture and farmland issues are listed below.
Policy OS 7: Adoption of Open Space Plan Map to designate, preserve and protect significant open space resources including agriculture, ecological, recreational, and scenic lands in Goleta and surrounding areas for current and future generations.
City of Goleta Ordinances The City of Goleta zoning allows for agricultural uses within the City limits. The property is currently zoned AG-I-40 (Agriculture with a minimum parcel size of 40 acres). All types of agriculture are permitted within the Ag-1-40 zoning district, with the exception of commercial livestock feed or sales yard.
B.3
B.3.1

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in terms of environmental, regulatory and permitting, and service in the sections below. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the City of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property as an urban land use or to resume active agricultural practices on the property. Service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. The analysis incorporates the findings identified in Attachment 1. These findings are based on the County agricultural resource viability methodology, as described herein. The County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development Department uses an agricultural resource viability methodology to evaluate the physical environmental agricultural resources, rather than economics. The methodology uses a system to assign relative values to particular characteristics of a sites agricultural productivity (e.g., soil type, water supply, etc.). If the points total to more than 60 using these characteristics, the land is identified as being agriculturally viable. The economics of the cost of water versus the profit of agriculture is was not included in the agricultural resource viability methodology; however, two scenarios were evaluated in Attachment 1, a scenario where irrigation water is available and one where irrigation water is not available.
July 21, 2011
B-8
B.3.2
Assumptions
Assumptions incorporated into the analysis include the following:

The property has 50 AFY of water, and this water could be used for agricultural purposes. The property would be considered Prime Agricultural Land if sufficient irrigation water was available. If the property was used for agricultural purposes, the topography and natural features would generally remain as they currently are and active agricultural uses would generally follow the areas of historical agricultural use.
B.4
B.4.1
Evaluation
There are several different opportunities and constraints associated with the property associated with agricultural resources. These are summarized in Table B-3.
July 21, 2011
B-9
TABLE B-3 SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURAL CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Existing Condition Environmental 240 acres of vacant land with good soil, good topography, and surrounding agricultural land uses.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint Approximately 200 acres of good soil and topography could be used for active agriculture. However, it is currently not being used for agriculture.
Existing Condition 1 Rating /
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Possible change of land use designation that would result in the loss of agricultural potential would constrain the existing condition because it would not be available for agriculture. A future use such as active agriculture could enhance the existing conditions; however, it would likely require water for irrigation (see discussion below).
Regulatory and Permitting The land use designation and the zoning ordinance for the existing property is Agriculture.
The existing use as vacant land is not supported by the existing land use designation and zoning.
A change in the land use designation that would result in future urban uses would require revisions to the Citys land use plan and zoning ordinance and would result in the loss of existing land designated for agriculture use. A change to active agriculture would enhance the agricultural potential. A change in the land use designation that would result in future urban uses would remove the agricultural potential and would result in an inconsistency with some or all of these policies. A change to active agriculture would enhance the agricultural potential.
The General Plan identifies a number of policies regarding agricultural resources including: preserve existing agricultural lands and reserve vacant lands suitable for agriculture to maintain the option of future agricultural uses (LU 7); preserve Goletas existing open space areas, sensitive habitat areas, and agricultural lands (OS 7); and Preservation of Agricultural Lands to promote and retain Goletas agricultural heritage by conserving existing agricultural resources for future generations and supporting agriculture production by minimizing activities and uses that may conflict with agriculture use of the land (CE 11).
The General Plan protects and maintains existing agricultural lands through various policies and the property is currently designated as agriculture.
July 21, 2011
B-10
Existing Condition The property is currently designated as Grazing Land and Other Land by the California Department of Conservation.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint This designation is inconsistent with the finding that the property cannot support livestock and with the zoning (Ag-1-40) that the property is not allowed to support livestock. The property is currently not irrigated with the 50 AF. The service area of the Goleta Water District will likely have future constraints on water supplies (see Appendix L for additional information).
Existing Condition Rating1 -
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint The property cannot support livestock as an alternative use. A change in land use designation to support urban uses would not conflict with grazing potential.
Relevance to Future Property Use 2 and Rating Urban Ag + -
Service The property has 50 AFY of water. The service area of the Goleta Water District is known to have past water supply shortages (see Appendix L for additional information).
The Goleta Water District would likely have to provide additional water to the property under a change in land use designation or under active agricultural use. 50 AF is not enough per year to irrigate approximately 200 acres of available land for agricultural uses, and it is not enough to support urban land uses resulting from a change in land use designation.
Table Notes 1 Existing Conditions Rating indicates how well the existing conditions support the resource area (e.g., aesthetics, agriculture, biology, etc.). The rating is defined in one of the following three ways: Positive (+) indicates an opportunity, or an issue that would not pose a constraint. Neutral (/) indicates an issue that is neutral and neither positive or negative. Negative (-) indicates a constraint that would be difficult to overcome. 2 The Urban column indicates the property would be converted to some type of urban use and the Ag column indicates the property would be converted to some type of active agricultural. The Future Property Use rating is the same as defined above (positive, neutral, or negative) and indicates how well an urban use or ag use would support the resource area given the identified opportunities or constraints.
July 21, 2011
B-11
B.4.2
Agriculture in the City of Goleta As discussed under Section B.1, Environmental Conditions, there are approximately 375 acres of agricultural land in the City containing a range of agricultural uses from truck farms and greenhouses to avocado and lemon orchards. The lemon and avocado orchards make up the majority of agricultural production along with a variety of fruits and vegetables. The property makes up approximately 60% of all agricultural land in the City. Although it has historically been farmed since approximately 1860, the property has remained vacant for an extended period of time. Nevertheless, the property represents a substantial portion of the land that is designated for agricultural use in the City. Soil and Topography Suitability of the Property The property is considered to be suitable for irrigated truck crops, ornamentals, nursery, and orchard corps. This is based on the County and City planning evaluation for the ranch and the Goleta valley area, soil, topography, regional crop production, and the favorable climate for crop production. The soil and topography are not considerable constraints for the property because productive crops are grown on similar soils and topography. Management of severe root rot, clay-rich soils and drainage has been successful in other areas by using root rot resistance root stock, fumigation, mulching, cover crops, soil ripping, and soil mounding, and by managing irrigation water. Avocados and lemon crops are currently grown in Santa Barbara County on Diablo and Milpitas-Positas soils with special management techniques such as ripping, mounding, and irrigation management. Grazing Suitability of the Property For grazing operations the production is based on normal rainfall years only. The Santa Barbara County Cattlemens Association identifies that land capable of sustaining between 25 and 230 animal units per year is appropriate. The 240-acre property is a suitable size for cattle grazing; however, the total carrying capacity based on an average forage production year equates to 19 animals per year. Therefore, the property is not considered viable for cattle grazing. Moreover, the Ag-1-40 zoning district does not permit commercial livestock feed or sales yard. Irrigation Water and Crop Suitability of the Property Water availability is an important factor for irrigated crop production on the property. Regionally, the same soil series found on the property has been used for lemons and avocados. Nursery and row crops could also be grown on the property with irrigation water. Irrigated truck crops or orchards would require approximately 2 AFY per acre. Therefore, approximately 400 AFY of water would be needed to irrigate approximately 200 acres on the property. The property currently has 50 AFY associated with it. If only the 50 AFY of water were used to irrigate some land on the property, approximately 25 acres could be irrigated. The GWD can provide water service to the property for any type of land use. However, there is typically a onetime fee that would be applied equaling approximately $32,614 per acre to obtain additional
July 21, 2011
B-12
water from the GWD.2 For irrigation purposes there would be an additional $435 per acre foot for water (2006/2008 cost; water rates are currently being revised by GWD). As discussed in Appendix L, Water Supply, Wastewater and Utilities, GWDs service area, which includes the City and surrounding area, suffers from competing demands for limited water supply. If irrigation water is available for the property, the property is considered suitable for agricultural production based on the Santa Barbara agricultural suitability methodology (Attachment 1). If irrigation water is not available for the property, the property is not considered suitable for agricultural production (Attachment 1). Without irrigation water the property has a lower suitability for dry farming because cooler summer coastal areas typically produce lower quality dryland hay and grain crops. B.4.3 Additional Analysis Required and Questions
Site-specific soil testing for the various soil series would be required as part of any active agricultural development on the property. This would include multiple soil tests, 4 feet in depth, with soil chemistry and structure analysis. These tests would be sufficient to determine the sitespecific crop suitability and necessary management techniques as applicable for each soil type.
2 The GWD Board increased this fee from approximately $26,000 to approximately $31,000 in 2011. GWD may not apply the new water supply charge if a land owner has an existing entitlement to water that meets certain specifications. These conditions are discussed in Appendix L.
July 21, 2011
B-13
Appendix C Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
Appendix C: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases
C.
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GASES
This section discusses air quality and greenhouse gases on the Bishop Ranch property (property) and adjacent areas. The section generally identifies air quality considerations for further analysis and specifically discusses the Air Quality Management Plan and Assembly Bill (AB) 32 / Senate Bill (SB) 375 standards, guides, and programs. This section describes the following:

existing air quality of the Santa Barbara area, regulatory setting for air quality, and constraints and opportunities associated with air quality.
This section uses the Conservation Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/CLUP), the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control Districts (SBCAPCDs) Clean Air Plan, the SBCAPCD Scope and Content of Air Quality Sections in Environmental Documents guidance document, and the SBCAPCD CEQA Significant Thresholds for GHGs Questions and Answers to discuss air quality.
C.1
Environmental Conditions1
This section provides an overview of air quality regulations, existing air quality, and meteorology for the Goleta area. The City of Goleta (City) planning area lies within the South Central Coast Air Basin (Air Basin), which encompasses all of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. The existing conditions discusses the environmental setting within the County of Santa Barbara (County), which also includes the City. The majority of the information in this section was obtained from the County of Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD 2006). C.1.1 Climate and Meteorology
The climate in and around the City, as well as most of Southern California, is controlled largely by the strength and position of the subtropical high-pressure cell over the Pacific Ocean. This high-pressure cell typically produces a Mediterranean climate with warm summers, mild winters, and moderate rainfall. This pattern is periodically interrupted by periods of extremely hot weather brought in by Santa Ana winds. Almost all precipitation occurs between November and April, although during these months, the weather is sunny or partly sunny a majority of the time. Cyclic land and sea breezes are the primary factors affecting the regions mild climate. The daytime winds are normally sea breezes, predominantly from the west, that flow at relatively low velocities. Santa Barbara Countys air quality is influenced by both local topography and meteorological conditions. Surface and upper-level wind flow varies both seasonally and geographically in the County, and inversion conditions common to the area can affect the vertical mixing and
1
Air quality in this section is discussed as follows: (1) existing climate and meteorological conditions, because these affect air quality within a region; and (2) existing air quality standards, attainment of those standards, and measurements showing current concentrations in relation to the standards.
July 21, 2011
C-1
dispersion of pollutants. The prevailing wind-flow patterns in the County are not necessarily those that cause high ozone values. In fact, high ozone values are often associated with atypical wind flow patterns. Meteorological and topographical influences that are important to air quality in the County are described below. Semi-permanent high pressure that lies off the Pacific Coast leads to limited rainfall (around 18 inches per year), with warm, dry summers and relatively damp winters. Temperatures typically range between 40 Fahrenheit (F) and the 70s along the coast where Goleta is located. Santa Ana winds are northeasterly winds that occur primarily during fall and winter, but occasionally in spring. These are warm, dry winds blown from the high inland desert that descend down the slopes of a mountain range. During Santa Ana conditions, pollutants emitted in Santa Barbara, Ventura County, and the South Coast Air Basin (the Los Angeles region) are moved out to sea. These pollutants can then be moved back onshore into Santa Barbara County in what is called a post-Santa Ana condition. The effects of the post-Santa Ana condition can be experienced throughout the County. Not all post-Santa Ana conditions, however, lead to high pollutant concentrations in the County. Upper-level winds are generally from the north or northwest throughout the year. Upper-level winds from the south and east are infrequent during the summer. When they do occur, they are usually associated with periods of high ozone levels. Surface and upper-level winds can move pollutants that originate in other areas into the County. Surface temperature inversions (0 to 500 feet) are most frequent during the winter, and subsidence inversions (1,000 to 2,000 feet) are most frequent during the summer. Inversions are an increase in temperature with height and are directly related to the stability of the atmosphere. Inversions act as a cap to the pollutants that are emitted below or within them, and ozone concentrations are often higher directly below the base of elevated inversions than they are at the earths surface. For this reason, elevated monitoring sites will occasionally record higher ozone concentrations than sites at lower elevations. Generally, the lower the inversion base height and the greater the rate of temperature increase from the base to the top, the more pronounced effect the inversion will have on inhibiting vertical dispersion. The subsidence inversion is very common during the summer along the California coast, and is one of the principal causes of air stagnation. Poor air quality is usually associated with air stagnation (high stability/restricted air movement). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect a higher frequency of pollution events in the southern portion of the County, where light winds are frequently observed, as opposed to the northern part of the County, where the prevailing winds are usually strong and persistent. C.1.2 Ambient Air Quality Standards
The State of California and the Federal Government have established air quality standards and emergency episode criteria for the following criteria air pollutants: ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), suspended particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and lead. In addition, State standards are in place for visibilityreducing particles, sulfates (SO4), hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride. Generally, State
July 21, 2011
C-2
regulations have stricter standards than those at the Federal level. Air quality standards are set at concentrations that provide a sufficient margin of safety to protect public health and welfare. Air quality at a given location can be described by the concentration of various pollutants in the atmosphere. Units of concentration are generally expressed in parts per million (ppm) or micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3). The significance of a pollutant concentration is determined by comparing the concentration to an appropriate Federal and/or State ambient air quality standard. Federal standards, established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), are termed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The NAAQS are defined as the maximum acceptable concentrations that, depending on the pollutant, may not be equaled or exceeded more than once per year, except the annual standards, which may never be exceeded. The State standards, established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), are termed the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). The CAAQS are defined as the maximum acceptable pollutant concentrations that, depending on the pollutant, are not to be equaled or exceeded. The national and state ambient air quality standards are presented in Table C-1. TABLE C-1: AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
National Standards Air Pollutant Ozone (O3) State Standard 0.09 ppm, 1-hr avg1 0.070 ppm, 8-hr avg Primary 0.075 ppm, 8-hr avg Secondary Same as Primary Health Effect Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular diseases; impairment of cardiopulmonary function Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, emphysema) Aggravation of respiratory illness Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma, emphysema) Increased cough and chest discomfort; reduced lung function; aggravation of respiratory and cardiorespiratory diseases Increased cough and chest discomfort; reduced lung function; aggravation of respiratory and cardiorespiratory diseases Increased morbidity and mortality in conjunction with other pollutants Impairment of blood and nerve function; behavioral and hearing problems in children Toxic at very high concentrations
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Suspended Particulate Matter (PM10)
9 ppm, 8-hr avg 20 ppm, 1-hravg 0.18 ppm, 1-hr avg 0.25 ppm, 1-hr avg 0.04 ppm, 24-hr avg. 50 g/m3, 24-hr avg 3 20 g/m AAM
9 ppm, 8-hr avg 35 ppm, 1-hr avg 100 ppb, 1-hr avg 75 ppb, 1-hr avg
None
None None
150 g/m3, 24-hr avg
Same as Primary
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
12 g/m3 AAM
35 g/m3, 24-hr avg 3 15 g/m AAM
Same as Primary
Sulfates (SO4) Lead (Pb)
3 25 g/m , 24-hr avg
1.5 g/m3, monthly avg
1.5 g/m3, calendar quarter
Same as Primary
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
0.03 ppm, 1-hr avg
July 21, 2011
C-3
National Standards Air Pollutant Vinyl Chloride VisibilityReducing Particles State Standard 0.01 ppm, 24-hr avg In sufficient amount to reduce prevailing visibility to less than 10 miles at relative humidity less than 70 percent, 1 observation Primary Secondary Health Effect Carcinogenic
Notes: 3 ppm = parts per million by volume g/m = micrograms per cubic meter AAM = annual arithmetic mean AGM = annual geometric mean 1 For the readers convenience in picking out standards quickly, concentrations appear first; e.g., 0.12 ppm, 1 hr avg means 1hour average >0.12 ppm.
C.1.3
Attainment Status
The region generally has good air quality it attains or is considered in maintenance status for most ambient air quality standards. SBCAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to assure that Federal and State air quality standards are being met. Air quality measurements indicate that the County is an attainment area for all Federal and State air quality standards, with the exception of State ozone and PM10 standards. Ozone Ozone has been monitored in the County for more than 25 years. Data collected at monitoring stations, in conjunction with the various air quality studies performed in the region, provide valuable insight into the Countys ozone problem. Ozone is formed in the atmosphere through a series of chemical reactions involving nitrogen oxides (NOX) and reactive organic gasses (ROGs), and sunlight occurring over a period of several hours. The major source of NOX in the County is combustion of fossil fuels for transportation, energy, and heat. ROG sources include natural seeps of oil and gas, solvents in paints, consumer and industrial products, mobile sources, natural vegetation, and processes in the petroleum industry. Because ozone is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is formed as a result of chemical reactions in the atmosphere, it is classified as a secondary pollutant and is considered regional because it occurs over a wider area than that in which the pollutants are emitted. Because ozone-forming photochemical reactions take time, peak ozone levels are often found several miles or more downwind of major source areas. This is particularly true when winds are persistent from one direction. Elevated ozone concentrations aggravate asthma, bronchitis, and other respiratory disorders. Eye irritation, nausea, headache, coughing, and dizziness are other symptoms of ozone exposure. Ozone also interferes with photosynthesis, thereby damaging natural and ornamental vegetation and agricultural crops. Ozone concentrations are highest during the warmer months and coincide with the seasons of maximum solar radiation.
July 21, 2011
C-4
Ozone studies prepared by the SBCAPCD have shown that ozone exceedances can occur under a wide variety of meteorological conditions. Additionally, based on analyses of ozone episodes occurring during the past 10 years, there is an indication that State exceedances may be related to meteorological conditions that are conducive to high ozone formed locally combined with the transport of pollutants from outside the County. PM10 PM10 is generated by a wide variety of natural and human-made sources. Particulate matter is a respiratory irritant. Large particles are effectively filtered in the upper respiratory tract, but particles smaller than 10 microns can cause serious health effects. The chemical makeup of the particles is an important factor in determining the health effect. PM10 is produced either by direct emissions of particulates from a source (primary PM10), or by the formation of aerosols as a result of chemical reactions in the atmosphere involving precursor pollutants (secondary PM10). Based on emission data, the largest single source of PM10 emissions in the County is entrained paved road dust. Other major sources include dust from construction, demolition, agricultural tilling, entrained road dust from unpaved roads, natural dust and sea salt, and particulate matter released during fuel combustion. The County violates both the State PM10 24-hour and annual standards. As a result, the County is currently designated nonattainment for the State PM10 standard. The County does not exceed the Federal PM10 standards. To investigate the Countys PM10 problem, SBCAPCD started a specialized sampling and analysis study in 1989 called the Santa Barbara County Particulate Matter Emission Reduction Study. The study collected and analyzed ambient samples of PM10 at sites located throughout the County to identify chemical constituents, and it identified potential source characteristics and assessed control strategies for reducing PM10 concentrations. The major findings of the study include: (1) background sources (primarily sea salt) are major contributors to PM10 concentrations; (2) on average, 70 percent of the locally generated primary PM10 and locally generated geological dust and motor vehicle exhaust are the most significant sources of primary PM10 in the County; and (3) potential control measures should concentrate on these primary sources of PM10. Other Pollutants Inert pollutant concentrations (generally, pollutants other than ozone and its precursors) tend to be the greatest during the winter and are a product of light wind conditions and surface-based temperature inversions. Maximum inert pollutant concentrations are usually found near an emission source. For example, the main source of CO emissions is motor vehicles, and the highest ambient CO concentrations are found near congested transportation arteries and intersections. C.1.4 Ambient Air Quality
SBCAPCD has a network of 17 air quality monitoring stations. The nearest stations to the City are the Goleta-Fairview station and the El Capitan monitoring station. Table C-2 presents the maximum pollutant levels monitored at these two stations between 2007 and 2009. The 2001 smog season was the first in which the County did not exceed the Federal one-hour ozone
July 21, 2011
C-5
standard (0.12 ppm) since monitoring began in 1971. However, the State 1-hour ozone standard was exceeded one time in 2009 at the Goleta-Fairview station. The Federal 8-hour ozone standard was not exceeded in the sample period. PM10 measurements exceeded the State standard 25 times in 2007, 44 times in 2008, and 8 times in 2009. The Federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard was only exceeded once in 2008. TABLE C-2: SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY DATA AT GOLETA MONITORING STATION
Pollutant Standards Ozone (O3) State standard (1-hr avg 0.09 ppm) Maximum 1-hr concentration (in ppm) Days state 1-hr standard exceeded National standard (8-hr avg 0.075 ppm) Maximum 8-hr concentration (in ppm) Days national 8-hr standard exceeded Suspended Particulates (PM10) State standard (24-hr avg 50 g/m3) National standard (24-hr avg 150 g/m3) Maximum 24-hr concentration Days state 24-hr standard exceeded Days national 24-hr standard exceeded Suspended Particulates (PM2.5) National standard (24-hr avg 35 g/m3) Maximum 24-hr concentration Days national 24-hr standard exceeded 2007 0.081 0 0.066 0 399.6 25 ND 23.5 0 2008 0.081 0 0.065 0 109.0 44 ND 44.2 1 2009 0.090 0 0.077 1 125.9 8 ND 25.3 0
Notes: ppm = parts per million 3 g/m = micrograms per cubic meter NM = Not Monitored ND = No Data Source: California Air Resources Board Historical Air Quality Data 2011.
The property currently does not contribute to the PM10 or ozone violations in the region because it is vacant and does not generate emissions. C.1.5 Sensitive Receptors
Ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. Some people are particularly sensitive to some pollutants. These sensitive individuals include persons with respiratory illnesses or impaired lung function because of other illnesses, the elderly, and children. Facilities and structures where these sensitive people live or spend considerable amounts of time are known as sensitive receptors. SBCAPCD defines land uses considered to be sensitive receptors as long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, and athletic facilities.
July 21, 2011
C-6
Sensitive receptors surrounding the property include Dos Pueblos High School to the west and residential land uses to the west and east. C.1.6 Odors
There are no identified historical odor sources on or adjacent to the property.
C.2
C.2.1

Federal
Clean Air Act (CAA) The EPA designates all areas of the United States as having air quality better than (attainment) or worse than (nonattainment) the NAAQS. The criteria for nonattainment designation vary by pollutant: (1) an area is in nonattainment for ozone if its NAAQS has been exceeded more than three discontinuous times in 3 years, and (2) an area is in nonattainment for any other pollutant if its NAAQS has been exceeded more than once per year. Presently, Santa Barbara County is in attainment of all NAAQS (SBCAPCD 2009). The CAA Amendments of 1990 revised the planning provisions for areas that do not meet the NAAQS. The 1990 CAA identified new nonattainment classifications and compliance dates, specific emission reduction goals, requirements to demonstrate reasonable further progress towards attainment, and more stringent sanctions for failure to attain or meet interim milestones. The requirements and compliance dates for reaching attainment are based upon the severity of nonattainment classifications. Because the County was classified by the EPA as a serious ozone nonattainment area, the APCD was required to design a plan that would bring the region into attainment of the 1-hour ozone standard by November 15, 1999. In response to the 1990 CAA requirements, the APCD and the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) prepared the Final 1998 Santa Barbara County Clean Air Plan (1998 CAP) to address attainment of the national ozone standard for the entire County (SBCAPCD 1998). EPA approved the 1998 Clean Air Plan (CAP) in August 2000. The 1998 CAP also satisfied State attainment planning requirements, as discussed below in the State regulations section. Since approval of the 1998 CAP, the County has attained the national ozone standard. The APCD submitted a plan to CARB in November 2001 that demonstrates how the national ozone standard will be maintained through the year 2015 (SBCAPCD 2001). The EPA approved the 2001 CAP in June 2003. As part of the approval, EPA redesignated the County in attainment for the national 1-hour ozone standard. The region is now considered a maintenance area for ozone, and the 2001 CAP is the maintenance plan for this attainment status. The CAA delegated to each state the authority to establish air quality rules and regulations. The adopted rules and regulations must be at least as restrictive as the Federal requirements. In response, CARB established the CAAQS, which are more restrictive than the NAAQS and include pollutants for which there are no federal standards (i.e., SO4, H2S, and visibility-reducing particles).
July 21, 2011
C-7
C.2.2
State
California Clean Air Act (CCA) The California Clean Air Act of 1988, as amended in 1992, Health & Safety Code 40918-40920, outlined a program to attain the CAAQS for ozone, NO2, SO2, and CO by the earliest practical date. However, areas in nonattainment for PM10, SO4, lead, H2S, or visibility were not expressly required to develop an attainment plan under the CAAQS. Because the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS, attainment of the State standards requires emission reductions beyond what are needed to attain the NAAQS. CARB designates areas of the State that are in attainment or nonattainment of the CAAQS. An area is in nonattainment for a pollutant if its CAAQS has been exceeded more than once in three years. Presently, the County is in nonattainment of the CAAQS for ozone and PM10, and in attainment for NO2, SO2, CO, SO4, H2S, and lead. The County is considered a moderate ozone nonattainment area by CARB (CARB 2009). Similar to the Federal system, the CCAA requirements and compliance dates for reaching attainment are based upon the severity of nonattainment classifications. The 2001 CAP details how the current attainment planning process satisfies the requirements for the State ozone standard, as mandated by the CCAA. Additionally the CCAA requires that every three years areas update their clean air plans to attain the State 1-hour ozone standard. The 2007 Plan provides a three-year update to the APCDs 2004 CAP. Previous plans developed to comply with the State ozone standard include the1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan, the 1994 CAP, the 1998 CAP, and the 2001 CAP. State Implementation Plan In 1979, the EPA required each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP), which describes how the state will achieve compliance with the NAAQS. An SIP is a compilation of goals, strategies, schedules, and enforcement actions that will lead the state (including the South Central Coast Air Basin) into compliance with all Federal air quality standards. Every change in a compliance schedule or plan must be incorporated into the SIP. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 established new deadlines for achievement of the NAAQS depending on the severity of nonattainment. The County is considered in attainment of the Federal 8-hour ozone standard. The EPA officially revoked the Federal 1-hour ozone standard on June 15, 2005. There is not yet enough data to determine the attainment status for the Federal standard for PM2.5. AB 32 The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of Statewide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. CARB is directed to set a GHG emissions limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill sets a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner. The heart of the bill is the requirement that Statewide GHG emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. California needs to reduce GHG emissions by approximately 29 percent business as usual (BAU) (based on compliance with requirements in effect under applicable Federal and State law) of year 2020 GHG emissions to achieve this goal. The bill
July 21, 2011
C-8
requires CARB to adopt rules and regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG reductions. SB 375 SB 375 (Steinberg) provides for a new planning process to coordinate land use planning and regional transportation plans and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. SB 375 requires regional transportation plans, developed by Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), to incorporate a sustainable communities strategy in their regional transportation plans that will achieve GHG emission reduction targets set by CARB. SB 375 also includes provisions for streamlined CEQA review for some infill projects such as transit-oriented development. SB 375 will be implemented over the next several decades. On June 30, 2010, CARB released draft emissions targets for MPOs around the State. These targets identify how much regions throughout California should reduce GHG emissions from passenger vehicles and light duty trucks. On September 23, 2010, CARB approved GHG targets for all of the 18 MPO areas. Once adopted, the MPOs around the State must prepare revised Regional Transportation Plans and a Sustainable Community Strategy (SCS) that account for their respective reduction goals. C.2.3 Local
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Regulations The SBCAPCD regulates stationary sources of air pollution and has general air quality regulatory authority in the County. The SBCAPCD Rules and Regulations establish emission limitations and control requirements for various sources, based upon their source type and magnitude of emissions. The following is a specific SBCAPCD rule that could apply to any projects.
SBCAPCD Rule 303Nuisance states that a person shall not discharge air contaminants from any source that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or their business or property. The SBCAPCD considers emissions of air pollution to be a significant nuisance if five or more complaints are received from different individuals/households within 24 hours or ten such complaints are received within 10 days.
Regional Clean Air Plan SBCAPCD adopted the 2010 CAP and certified the Environmental Impact Report at its January 20, 2011, meeting. The CAP provides an overview of the regions air quality and sources of air pollution, and identifies the pollution-control measures needed to meet clean-air standards. The schedule for plan development is outlined by state and federal requirements, and is influenced by the regions air quality. CAPs affect the development of rules and regulations and other programs, and also influence a range of activities outside the SBCAPCD including transportation planning, allocation of monies designated for air-quality projects, and more.
July 21, 2011
C-9
The 2010 CAP is a three-year update required by the state to show how the SBCAPCD plans to meet the state 8-hour ozone standard. The 2010 CAP includes a climate protection chapter, with an inventory of CO2 emissions in the County. CO2 is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, and the one for which the SBCAPCD has the most accurate data. City of Goleta General Plan The Conservation Element of the General Plan includes references to air quality. Conservation Element The air quality policies in the Conservation Element focus on land use compatibility, sensitive receptors, and reducing emissions of new development.
Policy CE 12: Protection of Air Quality. Objective: To maintain and promote a safe and healthy environment by protecting air quality and minimizing pollutant emissions from new development and from transportation sources. Policy CE 13: Energy Conservation. Objective: To promote energy efficiency in future land use and development within Goleta, encourage use of renewable energy sources, and reduce reliance upon fossil fuels.
C.3
C.3.1

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in terms of environmental, regulatory and permitting, and services in the sections below. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the City of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property either as urban land use or to resume active agricultural practices on the property. Service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. Air quality is evaluated within the context of the Basin, since quantitative air quality results cannot be determined at this time due to the unknown nature of the future activities (either urban or active agriculture). Therefore, characteristics of the Basin, such as it is in nonattainment for PM10 and ozone, are used to evaluate whether air quality would constrain future uses. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District The SBCAPCD is the agency responsible for regulating stationary sources (businesses and industry) of air pollution in the County. Gasoline stations, auto body shops, dry cleaners, oil and gas facilities, and water treatment plants are examples of businesses that emit air pollution. The SBCAPCD regulates these and other businesses by issuing permits and adopting rules, as required by State and Federal air pollution control laws.
July 21, 2011
C-10
C.3.2
Assumptions

The property in its current state is vacant land that has no activity on it; therefore, the property is currently not a source of any air pollutant emissions. Any new use of the property would result in increased air pollutant emissions. For any active agricultural use, all diesel- and gas-powered equipment will be maintained in proper working order and kept up to EPA and CARB standards. Active agriculture would not include the raising or grazing of livestock and would comply with the existing zoning. Because the property is currently designated and zoned for agriculture, no discretionary action would occur if the property were to be used for active agriculture; thus, no additional environmental analysis or documentation would be required under CEQA. However, depending on the activity, stationary permits may be required.
C.4
C.4.1
Evaluation
There are several opportunities and constraints associated with the property in regards to air quality and greenhouse gases. These are summarized in Table C-3.
July 21, 2011
C-11
TABLE C-3: SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Existing Conditions 1 Rating / Relevance to Future Property Use and Rating2 Urban Ag -
Existing Condition Environmental The SBCAPCD is currently designated a nonattainment area for state ozone and particulate matter (PM10)
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The SBCAPCD has adopted a series of CAPs and Air Quality Action Plans (AQAPs) in an effort to meet the State ambient air quality standards
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future change to urban or active agricultural use of the property would result in an increase to emissions including ozone precursors and particulate matter, likely resulting in inconsistencies with the CAP and/or AQAP. Future change to urban or active agricultural use of the property would result in increased emissions possibly affecting the existing sensitive receptors within close proximity. Future urban uses would likely increase the number of sensitive receptors on the property. Active agricultural uses would not increase the number of sensitive receptors on the property. Land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Future urban uses would likely be residential or commercial in nature and would not involve heavy industrial activities that may generate odors. However, these urban uses may produce some odors. Future active agricultural uses would likely produce some odors, but would not likely produce the type of odors
Sensitive receptors are currently located less than 200 meters away from the property.
Dos Pueblos High School is located to the west of the property. Residential land uses are currently located to the west and east of the property. There are no sensitive receptors currently located on the property.
The property currently produces no odors.
July 21, 2011
C-12
Existing Condition Regulatory and Permitting SBCAPCD is responsible for issuing permits for all new stationary sources.
Existing Conditions 1 Rating
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint related to livestock. Any new stationary source added to the property from new urban or agricultural development would result in increased emissions and would be required to obtain a permit. Future change to urban or active agriculture would result in an increase to emissions including NOX and ROG, possibly resulting in the delay of an attainment demonstration.
Relevance to Future Property Use and Rating2 Urban Ag
These permits help regulate major sources of pollutants
The SBCAPCD has adopted a series of CAPs and AQAPs in an effort to meet the State ozone standard.3
The release of ozone precursors (NOX and ROG) contribute to increased ozone concentrations. Emissions of these two pollutants must be reduced in order to demonstrate ozone attainment. The Basin occasionally exceeds State standards for ozone and PM10, and is therefore designated a nonattainment area for these standards. The City is currently working on a city wide CAP to inventory and find ways to reduce emissions of GHGs.
The State and Federal governments have set air quality standards at concentrations that provide a sufficient margin of safety to protect public health and welfare.
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires CARB to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of Statewide GHG emissions. SB 375 (Steinberg) provides for a new planning process to coordinate land use planning and regional transportation plans and funding priorities in order to help California meet the GHG reduction goals established in AB 32. Service There are no service constraints for air quality.
Future change to urban or active agriculture would result in an increase to emissions including all criteria pollutants for which standards exist, possibly resulting in exceedances of these standards. Future change to urban or active agriculture would result in an increase to GHG emissions, possibly conflicting with the Citys CAP. Future change to urban uses would likely result in increased traffic and the potential need for additional roads. Active agricultural uses would likely use existing roadways and not have a potential need for additional roads.
The property does not currently contain public roadways.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table Notes 1 Existing Conditions Rating indicates how well the existing conditions support the resource area (e.g., aesthetics, agriculture, biology, etc.). The rating is defined in one of the following three ways:
July 21, 2011
C-13
Existing Condition
Positive (+) indicates an opportunity, or an issue that would not pose a constraint. Neutral (/) indicates an issue that is neutral and neither positive or negative.. Negative (-) indicates a constraint that would be difficult to overcome 2 The Urban column indicates the property would be converted to some type of urban use and the Ag column indicates the property would be converted to some type of active agricultural. The Future Property Use rating is the same as defined above (positive, neutral, or negative) and indicates how well an urban use or ag use would support the resource area given the identified opportunities or constraints. 3 NOX and ROG are ozone precursors. NOX and ROG combine in the atmosphere to create ozone. Ozone isnt emitted directly by any source; it is a byproduct of NOX and ROG.
July 21, 2011
C-14
C.4.2
The property is currently vacant land. Any change to the use of the property, whether increased utilization of the land in an agricultural capacity or fully developed as urban, would result in increased air emissions. This increase in emissions could conflict with the plans in place to help the SBCAPCD attain ozone and particulate matter (PM10) ambient air quality standards. Whether the emissions exceeded specific quantitative thresholds set up the County would depend on the activity; however, because the Basin is already in nonattainment for PM10 and ozone, it is plausible that future activities would add to this situation of nonattainment. Below is a summary of various types of emissions associated with urban uses and active agricultural uses. Urban Land Use Sources of criteria air pollutant emissions related to urban environments include both construction- and operational-related sources. Construction activities produce combustion emissions from various activities and sources such as demolition, site grading, utility engines, onsite heavy-duty construction vehicles, equipment hauling materials to and from the site, asphalt paving, and motor vehicles transporting the construction crew. Exhaust emissions from construction activities on site vary daily as construction activity levels change. The use of construction equipment on site would also result in localized exhaust emissions. Long-term operational air emissions are those associated with stationary, mobile, and area sources. Stationary sources include gasoline stations, auto body shops, dry cleaners, oil and gas facilities, and water treatment plants. Mobile sources include on-road vehicles. Area sources include emissions from any stationary area, such as emissions from landscaping and painting. Sensitive receptors in the area, including existing residences surrounding the property, Dos Pueblos High School, and any future planned residences or schools, are at greater risk to both construction and operational period emissions. As discussed earlier, ambient air quality standards have been established to represent the levels of air quality considered sufficient, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health and welfare. If emissions are such that they exceed the ambient air quality standards, these sensitive receptors may be impacted. As discussed earlier, the Basin is in nonattainment for the State ozone and PM10 standards. Automobile exhaust is one of the biggest contributors to ozone precursors. Urbanized development of the property would result in increased vehicle miles traveled, thereby increasing ozone precursor emissions. Earthmoving activities during construction are the largest urban source of PM10. Agriculture Land Use Sources of criteria air pollutant emissions related to agricultural land use include growing operations, harvesting operations, and grain processing. Growing operations emissions come from the application of fertilizers and pesticides. Harvesting operations emissions come from machines that cut, thresh, screen, clean, bind, pack, and shell crops in the field. Harvesting also includes loading harvested crops into trucks and transporting crops. Grain processing emissions come from grain receiving, grain cleaning, grain drying, and other grain handling activities performed by large machinery.
July 21, 2011
C-15
Similar to the way an urban development has the potential to impact sensitive land uses, an agricultural development would have the same potential on the existing sensitive receptors surrounding the property. An agricultural land use on the property would have the greatest potential to result in PM10 and odor impacts on sensitive receptors. PM10 impacts would likely arise from earthmoving activities such as plowing. Additionally, agriculture inherently relies on the use of many chemicals that are known to result in odor complaints. In addition to the sources identified above that apply to both criteria air pollutants and GHGs, agricultural land uses have additional sources and sinks for GHGs. Major sources for GHGs related to agriculture include soil management (mostly from synthetic fertilizer), enteric fermentation (gases animals expel as they digest their food), and manure management (mostly methane from anaerobic manure decomposition). The major source of GHG sinks is related to carbon sequestration directly related to the photosynthesis of terrestrial plants. In other words, the crops grown on agricultural land acts as storage for carbon, thus reducing CO2 in the atmosphere. Although agricultural land can be a sink for CO2, it may result in additional sources of other GHGs; therefore, its ability to act as a net sink depends on the nature of the agriculture. C.4.3 Additional Analysis Required and Questions
If an urban project is defined, specific analysis of construction and operational period emissions would be required using an appropriate modeling software approved by the SBCAPCD, such as URBEMIS. Emissions must be compared to the SBCAPCD thresholds, and any new stationary sources must obtain a stationary source permit from the SBCAPCD. The City is currently working on a CAP. If an urban project is defined, it should be consistent with the CAP.
July 21, 2011
C-16
Appendix D Biological Resources
Appendix D: Biological Resources
D.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section discusses the biological resources of the Bishop Ranch property (property) and adjacent areas. This section describes the following: existing biological resources within the property and adjacent to it; environmental setting (existing conditions and regulatory and permitting setting) for biological resources; and, constraints and opportunities associated with biological resources.
A summary of the vegetation communities and wildlife resources on the Bishop Ranch property are characterized below and discussed in more detail in Appendix D.[1] Figure 3-2 presents a map of vegetation and is based on a previous survey conducted by LFR, Inc. (2008 and 2010), as verified by ICF biologists during a field survey in September 2010 (ICF International 2010). The methodology and level of effort conducted by LFR was typical of standard biological surveying practices. Property vegetation communities, rare plants, special-status wildlife species, and jurisdictional features are discussed below from three perspectives: existing conditions and whether or not the community may be considered as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as defined by the General Plan Conservation Element.
D.1
D.1.1
City of Goleta
The City of Goleta (City) is approximately 96 percent built out; therefore, much of the land available for development consists of either redevelopment parcels or parcels in areas already characterized by urban development. Approximately 22 percent of the land within the City is designated as some type of biological habitat. Table D-1 identifies the different habitat types and the acres within the City limits of those habitat types. TABLE D-1: SUMMARY OF HABITAT TYPES WITHIN THE CITY
Habitat Type Nonnative grassland Eucalyptus woodland Native grassland Scrub Riparian/Marsh/Vernal Native upland woodland/Savannah Total Acres 560 200 33 104 0.5 230 1,128
[1]
Vegetation classification conforms to Holland (1986).
July 21, 2011
D-1
D.1.2
Property
Property Plants A summary of the vegetation communities that were identified and mapped within the property is provided below. Vegetation classification generally follows The Preliminary Descriptions of Terrestrial Natural Vegetation Communities (Holland 1986). For a detailed description of these vegetation communities, see the Biological Resources Report (LFR 2008). Table D-2 summarizes the vegetation communities, common characteristics, and number of acres on the property at the time of survey. Figure 4-1 of the Citys General Plan identifies ESHAs on the property. General Plan Conservation Element policies identify protective buffers to specific ESHA types. The map of vegetation communities (Figure D-1) generally reflects the mapped ESHA in the General Plan and presents the designated buffers for each ESHA type. The more detailed mapping presented in Figure D-1 shows additional areas may be determined to be ESHAs. Areas not specifically detailed on Figure 4-1 of the General Plan will be referred to as potentially sensitive biological areas for the purposes of this appendix pending site-specific surveys. In the event that a development project application was submitted to the City, focused botanical and wildlife surveys would be required to map ESHAs and refine General Plan mapping of ESHAs, consistent with General Plan policy.
July 21, 2011
D-2
s Lo Ca rne ros
Rd
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Lo s
Ca r ne
ros
Cr
ek
CA L L E R ea
en Gl An
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\bio\figd_1_vegetation.mxd SM (07-19-11)
R nie d
D el
en Gl
No
n An
rte
ie
ee Cr
k
Dr
n Pa Unio cific RR
Note: Vegetation mapping is based on data provided by LFR (Arcadis) and inspected for accuracy by ICF, and reflects site conditions at the time of survey. Focused biological surveys and jurisdictional delineations were not conducted for the preparation of this map.
200 Feet Property
400
Potentially Sensitive Biological Areas 10' Buffer Native Grasslands 25' Buffer Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub
Drainage Feature
Vegetation Communities - Upland Types 50' Buffer Cultivated Trees and Native Oak Trees (14.28 acres) Raptor/Monarch Habitat (Eucalyptus Woodland) Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub (0.66 acres) Vegetation Communities - Wetland Types Raptor/Monarch Habitat (Coast Live Oak Woodland) Raptor/Monarch Habitat (Cultivated Trees and Native Oak Trees) Coast Live Oak Woodland (4.60 acres) Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (0.84 acres) 100' Buffer Wetland Type Communities Eucalyptus Woodland (11.61 acres) Native Grassland (0.68 acres) Non-Native Grassland (202.73 acres) Southern Mixed Riparian Forest (2.17 acres) Southern Willow Scrub (2.79 acres)
Figure D-1 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND POTENTIALLY SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL AREAS BISHOP RANCH PROPERTY STUDY
SOURCE: ICF review of LRF (Arcadis) Biological Survey (2008) and ICF Site Visit (2010)
TABLE D-2: SUMMARY OF VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

Vegetation Communities Nonnative grasslands Conditions on Property Dominant habitat type
1
Habitat Type
Characteristics Dense to sparse cover of annual grasses reaching up to 3 feet tall may include numerous native wildflowers, particularly in years of high rainfall. Invasive annual Mediterranean grasses are widely distributed in this vegetation community. Wide variety of trees, shrubs, and herbaceous perennials.
Acres 203
Percent of Property 84
GP Buffer (feet) None
Native Oaks and Other Trees Eucalyptus Woodland
Coast Live Oak Woodland Remnant Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub
Potential Monarch Aggregation and Raptor Roosting Potential Monarch Aggregation and Raptor Roosting Potential Monarch Aggregation and Raptor Roosting
Not degraded Not degraded Not degraded Highly degraded
14
50
Eucalyptus trees planted in windrows.
12
50
Coast live oak woodland dominated by coast live oak trees.
50
Native Grassland
Southern Willow Scrub Potential Monarch (wetland type community) Aggregation and Raptor Roosting Southern Mixed Riparian Potential Monarch Aggregation and Forest (wetland type Raptor Roosting community) Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh (wetland type community)
As a plant community, Venturan coastal sage scrub is dominated by drought-tolerant, soft-leaved to evergreen shrubs from 3 to 6 feet tall that are summer dormant and winter active, exhibiting significant growth in the winter and spring months. Several dominant species are partially or completely summer deciduous. Bare ground is common beneath and between shrubs, although a mixture of suffrutescent and herbaceous species may occupy these openings, especially in wet rainfall years. Native grasslands are dominated by clumps of tufted or spreading perennial grasses ranging from 1 to 4 feet in height; these grasslands may cover clay soils in valleys and on slopes, or may occur adjacent to wetlands such as vernal swales and marsh habitats. Southern willow scrub is dominated by arroyo willow and native herbs and grasses commonly present along the drainages on banks or in the stream channels. Southern Mixed Riparian Forest tends to occur along perennial streams and rivers and is dominated by western sycamore. Marshes are permanently or seasonally inundated wetland communities dominated mostly by emergent sedges, rushes, cattails, and other semi-aquatic herbaceous perennials. Marshes generally occur in nutrient-rich, poorly drained soils that are saturated through most or all of the year.
<1
25
Not degraded
<1
10
Not degraded Not degraded Not degraded
100
100
<1
100
July 21, 2011
D-3
Vegetation Communities Nonnative Grassland Nonnative grassland is characterized by a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses reaching up to 3 feet tall, and may include numerous native wildflowers, particularly in years of high rainfall. Invasive annual Mediterranean grasses were widely distributed in this vegetation community, and included such species as Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica), slender wild oats (Avena barbata), rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), and annual fescues (Vulpia species). Nonnative grassland is the dominant habitat type on the property, accounting for approximately 203 acres covering approximately 84 percent of the property. Native Oak Trees and Other Trees This community contains native oak trees as well as plantings of other trees, shrubs, and herbaceous perennials around the structures on the west side of the property, as well as in windrows. Both the cultivated trees and native oak trees occur in dense clusters in some locations and were observed to support raptor nests. Monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) also were observed in these wooded communities and likely overwinter at these locations. Both raptor nests and butterfly aggregation/overwintering sites, including adjacent buffers, are protected as ESHA in the General Plan. The General Plan designates a portion of the woodland as ESHAs based on the ability to support raptor roosting and/or a monarch butterfly aggregation property. Additional woodlands are potentially sensitive biological areas because of their ability to support monarch aggregation and raptor roosting. Conservation Element 4 of the General Plan requires a 50-foot protective buffer around Monarch Butterfly Habitat Area, which includes designated ESHA and potentially sensitive biological areas. The area around the ranch house that supports a mix of native oaks and planted trees covers approximately 14 acres (6 percent) of the property. Eucalyptus Woodland Eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus camaldulensis and E. globulus) occur in dense windrows that were likely planted to the east of the structure (ranch house); one woodland is oriented in an eastwest direction and one is oriented in a northsouth direction perpendicular and eastwards of the first windrow. Smaller patches of eucalyptus woodland occur north of the ranch house and near Los Carneros Creek. The eucalyptus woodlands on the property were observed to support raptor nests. Monarch butterflies were also observed and likely overwinter at these locations. Both raptor nests and butterfly aggregation/overwintering sites, including adjacent buffers, are protected as ESHA in the General Plan. The General Plan designates most of the eucalyptus windrows on the property as ESHA based on their ability to support monarch butterfly aggregation and/or raptor roosting. Conservation Element 4.5 states that buffers adjacent to monarch butterfly ESHAs may be reduced to 50 feet in areas not considered likely to support aggregation, such as along narrow windrows such as those present on the property. Additional stands of eucalyptus woodland are potentially sensitive biological areas.
July 21, 2011
D-4
The planted eucalyptus windrows cover approximately 11.6 acres (5 percent) of the property. Coast Live Oak Woodland Coast live oak woodland dominated by coast live oak trees (Quercus agrifolia) occurs adjacent to the riparian vegetation along Los Carneros Creek on the eastern border of the property. Coast live oak is an evergreen tree ranging from 20 to 75 feet in height, with a spreading crown, many massive branches, and a dense canopy of thick waxy leaves. California bay (Umbellularia californica) also occurs as a canopy tree within this community. The environment under the oak canopy is very shady; therefore, shade-tolerant shrubs such as poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), blue elderberry, and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia predominate in the understory, along with vines such as California blackberry (Rubus ursinus) and herbaceous perennials such as California figwort (Scrophularia californica), coastal wood fern (Dryopteris arguta), hummingbird sage (Salvia spathacea), wood mint (Stachys bullata), and others. Santa Barbara sedge (Carex barbarae) is present under oaks in one location as well. Nonnative species such as Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), smilo (Piptatherum miliaceum), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and fennel (Foeniculum vulgare) are scattered along the disturbed margins of the oak woodland near the agricultural fields. Although not listed as a rare community by the California Department of Fish and Game, oak trees and oak woodlands are specifically addressed as sensitive habitat by Santa Barbara County through habitat-specific impact assessment guidelines (County of Santa Barbara 2002). . The coast live oak woodlands on the property likely support raptor nests given the observation of active nests in the eucalyptus woodland and other nonnative trees. Oak woodlands and raptor nests, including adjacent buffers, are protected as ESHA in the General Plan. Coast live oak woodlands cover approximately 5 acres (2 percent) of the property. Remnant Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub (Baccharis Scrub) Venturan coastal sage scrub vegetation predominates in coastal foothills along the South Coast that have intact native vegetation. Within the City of Goleta, small isolated patches of Venturan coastal sage scrub frequently intergrades with nonnative annual grassland. On the property, vegetation has been cleared in most upland areas for decades and, as a result, only scattered and remnant representatives of Venturan coastal scrub occur in small isolated places. The current community is highly degraded. As a plant community, Venturan coastal sage scrub is dominated by drought-tolerant, softleaved to evergreen shrubs from 3 to 6 feet in height that are summer dormant and winter active, exhibiting significant growth in the winter and spring months. Several dominant species are partially or completely summer deciduous. Bare ground is common beneath and between shrubs, although a mixture of suffrutescent and herbaceous species may occupy these openings, especially in wet rainfall years. At the property, Venturan coastal sage scrub is represented by a few isolated patches of coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis subsp. consanguinea) on the edges of ravines and in drainages, as well as scattered coyote bush individuals in the agricultural fields that are sprouting back from mowing activities. The habitat is highly degraded. Other coastal scrub species observed as isolated individuals or clumps on the property include California sagebrush (Artemisia
July 21, 2011
D-5
californica), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), black sage (Salvia mellifera), poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii ssp. menziesii), Douglas nightshade (Solanum douglasii), California fuchsia (Epilobium canum), chaparral morning-glory (Calystegia macrostegia ssp. cyclostegia), and giant-rye (Leymus condensatus). Resprouting coastal scrub species are especially vigorous in the northeast corner of the property. Coastal sage scrub is identified as an ESHA in Conservation Element 5.3 of the GP/CLUP (Goleta 2006) and would be provided with a 25-foot buffer around the perimeter. The Venturan coastal sage scrub on the property is a potentially sensitive biological area that may be designated an ESHA and afforded a 25-foot buffer. Remnant Venturan coastal scrub covers approximately 0.7 acre (<1 percent) of the property. Native Grassland A native grassland dominated by alkali-rye (Leymus triticoides) occurs on the south side of the property along the drainage to the southeast of the ranch house. Immediately south of the property the grassland transitions into a feature dominated by wetland plants. Native grassland covering 0.25 or more acres is considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat in Conservation Element 5.2 of the GP/CLUP (Goleta 2006) and should be provided with a 10-foot buffer around the perimeter planted with native species. The native grassland on site is a potentially sensitive biological area that may be designated as an ESHA. Native grassland covers approximately 0.7 acres (<1 percent) of the property. Southern Willow Scrub Southern willow scrub, dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), lines the corridor of the central drainage at the property. A few coast live oaks are found in this area as well. Arroyo willow is also found as an occasional understory species under the eucalyptus woodland in adjoining drainages, indicating possible wet conditions in the woodland understory. Small clumps of willows are also found along the drainage immediately east of the ranch house, as well as along the western perimeter of the property. In addition to arroyo willow, other woody species are common associates of willow scrub vegetation on the property, including coyote bush and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia). Native herbs and grasses commonly present along the drainages on banks or in the stream channels include the native narrowleaved milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis), giant-rye, alkali-rye, western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya), and California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus).Riparian woodland, including willow scrub, is considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat in the GP/CLUP (Goleta 2006) and should be provided with a 100-foot buffer around the perimeter, measured from the top of bank or the outer limit of riparian or wetland vegetation, whichever is larger. A portion of the willow scrub on site is mapped as ESHA in Figure 4-1 of the GP/CLUP, and the remainder is potentially sensitive biological area that may be designated as an ESHA. Southern willow scrub covers approximately 2.8 acres (1 percent) of the property. Southern Mixed Riparian Forest Southern Mixed Riparian Forest tends to occur along perennial streams and rivers and is dominated on property by western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), California bay (Umbellularia californica), red willow, arroyo willow, shining willow (S. lucida ssp. lasiandra), coast live oak,
July 21, 2011
D-6
and other species. Winter-deciduous trees predominate, along with a diverse assemblage of associated perennial and shrubby species that thrive in soils that are seasonally to permanently wet, forming a multi-layered canopy habitat in the shade of the trees. Coast live oak woodland often forms the upland border with riparian forest, with scattered coast live oak individuals among the riparian canopy trees. On this property, southern mixed riparian forest forms a dense tangle of woody vegetation along Los Carneros Creek that crowds and shades out other growth in places, although openings and banks support mule fat, creek clematis (Clematis ligusticifolia), California blackberry (Rubus ursinus), poison-oak, Santa Barbara sedge (Carex barbarae), and other wetland species that are obligate or facultative wetland indicator species. In addition, invasive species are present in these wetland forests, especially cape-ivy (Delairea odorata), castor-bean (Ricinis communis), and pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata).Riparian woodland, including southern mixed riparian forest, is considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat in the General Plan (2006) and should be provided with a 100-foot buffer around the perimeter, measured from the top of bank or the outer limit of riparian or wetland vegetation, whichever is larger. A portion of the southern mixed riparian forest on the property is mapped as ESHA in Figure 4-1 of the GP/CLUP, and the remainder is potentially sensitive biological area that may be designated as an ESHA. Southern mixed riparian forest covers approximately 2.2 acres (1 percent) of the property. Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Marshes are permanently or seasonally inundated wetland communities dominated mostly by emergent sedges, rushes, cattails, and other semi-aquatic herbaceous perennials. Marshes generally occur in nutrient-rich, poorly drained soils that are saturated through most or all of the year. These communities are best developed in locations with slow-moving or stagnant shallow water. Such sites commonly occur along the margins of ponds and lakes, and in the flood plains of slow-moving streams and rivers. Although freshwater marshes often consist of bodies of water that are ponded and permanently saturated, vegetation is also classified as marsh vegetation if it is dominated by perennial monocots and other hydrophytic herbaceous perennials, even if these species occur along the margins of streams and rivers instead of around basins. Plants typically associated with freshwater marsh habitat occur within the riparian corridor of Los Carneros Creek and also in two of the drainages in the center of the property. As noted above, marsh habitat is often a component of the riparian corridor and is not an isolated habitat feature. Along Los Carneros Creek, extensive swaths of common horsetail (Equisetum arvensis) line the creek bottom, along with patches of small fruited bulrush (Scirpus microcarpus), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), giant creek nettle (Urtica dioica subsp. holosericea), and other wetland plants. Weedy occupants of marshy areas include rabbitsfoot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), Bermuda- grass (Cynodon dactylon), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and others. As previously mentioned, California bulrush, a typical freshwater marsh species, is found associated with the southern willow scrub on the property. A marsh occurs to the immediate northeast of the ranch house near some large western sycamores and is dominated by three-square bulrush (Schoenoplectus pungens var.pungens) and occasional spear-leaved saltbush (Atriplex triangularis). Alkali-rye forms large patches at the margins of the marsh. Further to the south in the same drainage, three-square bulrush forms a southward-trending line before surface saturated soils disappear. A wide swath of a wetland monocot (mowed, no diagnostic features
July 21, 2011
D-7
available for identification) continues southwards towards a large planted pecan tree in the drainage bottom. South of the pecan, a large patch of native grassland dominated by alkali-rye is present. Near the terminus of this drainage before it leaves the property, some prairie bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus) is mixed with the alkali-rye, along with tall flatsedge and nonnatives such as curly dock, bristly ox-tongue, celery (Apium graveolens), rabbitsfoot grass, and birds foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), among others. Wetlands are considered an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat in the General Plan (2006) and should be provided with a 100-foot buffer around the perimeter. The freshwater marsh on the property is a potentially sensitive biological area that may be designated as an ESHA. Coastal and valley freshwater marsh cover approximately 0.9 acre (<1 percent) of the property. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas For this study, special-status habitats are those that meet the definition of or are designated as ESHAs in the Conservation Element of the GP/CLUP (see Conservation Element, Policy CE 1). Habitats identified within the property that may be ESHAs include: Venturan coastal sage scrub; Coast live oak woodland; Native grassland; Riparian woodland/drainage; Wetlands; Monarch butterfly aggregation sites, including autumnal and winter roost sites, and related habitat areas; and Nesting and roosting sites and related habitat areas for various species of raptors.
Final determination of ESHA boundaries would be delineated through focused surveys. Figure D-1 identifies the potentially sensitive biological areas and the buffer areas recommended by the General Plan. Rare Plant Species No rare plant species were observed on the property by LRF, Inc. biologists (LFR 2008; LFR 2010). . The Sensitive Species Habitat Survey (2008) provides the complete list of species that could potentially occur and a determination of the likelihood that the species could occur on the property. Although not listed as a rare by the California Department of Fish and Game, oak woodlands are afforded set-back protection in the General Plan (Conservation Element 9.3). Property Wildlife Based on ICFs biologists consideration of the property, and reviews of the CNDDB (CDFG 2010) and the LFR, Inc. study (LFR 2008; LRF 2010), the property is considered to have a low potential for hosting State or Federally listed threatened or endangered wildlife species, such as the least Bells vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and red-legged frog. Regular mowing on the property, historic vegetation clearing activities, high density of nonnative species, fragmentation of habitats, and lack of ponded water are examples of the rationale behind ICFs preliminary conclusions.
July 21, 2011
D-8
No State or Federally listed threatened or endangered species were observed during the 2008 survey or during ICFs 2010 site visit. However, the property provides potentially suitable habitat for a variety of more common wildlife species. A few of these are Federal or State Species of Special Concern (FSC/CSC; Table D-3). Species of Special Concern that are known to occur or may occur on the property include but are not limited to monarch butterfly, white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), American badger (Taxidea taxus), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), and Coopers hawk (Accipiter cooperii). The property is not thought to contain habitat that is currently utilized by the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora ssp.draytonii; federally listed threatened). All of the above-mentioned wildlife species are discussed in more detail below. The species accounts included in this section are a summary of listed or sensitive wildlife species known from the Goleta Quadrangle or neighboring quadrangles as previously reported in the California Native Diversity Database (CNDDB) or other sources or as identified by LFR, as occurring or potentially occurring on the property. The listing order is by sensitivity status. Table D-3 summarizes each species, their sensitivity status, and their presence on the property.
July 21, 2011
D-9
TABLE D-3: SUMMARY OF WILDLIFE SPECIES

Species: Common Name Species: Scientific Name Vireo bellii ssp. pusillus Empidonax traillii ssp. extimus Rana aurora ssp. draytonii Clemmys marmorata ssp. pallida Elanus leucurus Sensitivity 1 Status FE/CE Presence on the Property The property does not contain habitat considered to be typical breeding habitat for the least Bells vireo. Typically, the species nests in expansive and dense riparian corridors, which are not found on the property. This property does not contain habitat considered to be typical breeding habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher. Typically, the species nests in dense willow forests with complex understory. Wetland habitat occurring on the property is marginally suitable for California red-legged frog but does not appear to support sufficient perennial water bodies for this species. Los Carneros Creek and Glen Annie Creek are both considered potentially suitable habitats for this species and to a lesser degree the freshwater marsh on the property may also provide suitable habitat. A pair of adult white-tailed kites was observed on the property on multiple occasions during LFR surveys. The property has suitable foraging and potential nesting habitat for the species.
Least Bells Vireo

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher California redlegged Frog Southwestern Pond Turtle White-tailed Kite
FE/CE FT/ CSC --/ CSC
Loggerhead Shrike Coopers Hawk Ferruginous Hawk Western Burrowing Owl American Badger
Lanius ludovicianus Accipiter cooperii Buteo regalis Athene cunicularia ssp. hypugaea Taxidea taxus
--/CSC CDFG fully protected species FSC/CSC (-/CSC FSC/CSC (-/CSC
The property has suitable foraging and potential nesting habitat for this species. Coopers hawk were observed on the property during surveys by LFR. The property offers suitable foraging habitat and marginally suitable nesting habitat for the Coopers hawk. The property contains suitable foraging habitat for the ferruginous hawk. The property has suitable habitat for the western burrowing owl including foraging habitat and ground squirrel burrows, which are favored by the owl for nesting.
The property has marginally suitable habitat for the American badger. Surrounding roads, highways, and encroaching development may preclude this species from occurring on the property. Monarch Butterfly Danaus --/-Monarch butterflies do occur on the property and LFR observed one female monarch butterfly depositing eggs on narrow-leaved milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis) during initial surveys in July of 2007. In January plexippus of 2008, LFR observed from 30 to 50 monarch butterflies on the property. The General Plan reports a winter roost location within eucalyptus trees near the southern end of the Los Carneros Creek corridor. 1 The sensitivity status of each species is provided through the use of codes, defined as the following: United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) FE Federally Endangered FT Federally Threatened FSC Federal Special Concern Species California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) CE California Endangered CT California Threatened CSC California Species of Concern
-/CSC
July 21, 2011
D-10
Least Bells Vireo (Vireo bellii ssp. pusillus) The least Bells vireo (FE/CE) is a migratory passerine that typically arrives on the Central California coast from Mexico in early April and departs by late August. This species prefers to nest in extensive, multi-canopy, riparian corridors, especially those dominated by willow and/or cottonwood trees. A normal clutch consists of four eggs incubated for two weeks, with young fledging in 10 to 12 days. Parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird and loss of riparian habitat are thought to be the major reasons for the decline of this species. The property does not contain habitat considered to be typical breeding habitat for the least Bells vireo. Typically, the species nests in expansive and dense riparian corridors which are not found on the property. Presence on the property: Least Bells vireo was not observed or heard during LFR surveys (this is a migratory species typically detected on the central coast in the spring and summer). The property supports limited potential breeding habitat of marginal quality for the Least Bells vireo. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii ssp. extimus) The southwestern willow flycatcher (FE/CE) is small sparrow sized bird with large eyes, prominent wing bars, and comparatively large head common to flycatchers. The willow flycatcher lacks the prominent eye ring possessed by similar flycatchers. The species is generally dull gray to greenish on the back, with a light throat and light yellow flanks and undertail coverts. Their song is described as a sneezy fitz-bew and is diagnostic of the species in the field. The southwestern willow flycatcher is often found in or near aquatic habitats such as swamps and willow riparian corridors. During the breeding season they form a cup-shaped nest in which they lay from two to four eggs. Incubation lasts 12 to 13 days and young fledge in 12 to 14 days. Insects make up the bulk of their diet. Habitat on the property is considered to be only marginally suitable breeding habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher. The species typically nests in expansive and dense riparian corridors, which are not found on the property Presence on the property: Southwestern willow flycatcher was not observed or heard during LFR surveys (this is a migratory species typically detected on the central coast in the spring and late summer). Potentially suitable but limited nesting habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher exists on the property. California red-legged Frog (Rana aurora ssp. draytonii) The California red-legged frog (FT/CSC) is a comparatively large frog, though not as big as the bullfrog, measuring up to 13.1 cm in length. The lower abdomen and underside of the hind legs are red, and this frog usually has a dark mask bordered by a white jaw stripe. The legs have dark bands and the back has many small dark flecks and larger, irregular dark blotches (some individuals lack blotches and are more uniform in color). Dorsal lateral folds on this frog are prominent. The eyes are turned outward and are well covered by the lids when viewed from above. Juveniles sometimes show yellow on the underside of their hind legs.
July 21, 2011
D-11
Red-legged frogs reside in and around deep, cold, still or slow moving water of ponds, reservoirs, marshes, streams, and other typically permanent bodies of water, especially where cattails or other plants provide good cover. The absence of bullfrogs and nonnative predatory fish is essential in order for these microhabitats to sustain viable populations of red-legged frogs. Presence on the property: California red-legged frog was not observed by LFR during wildlife surveys. Wetland habitat occurring on the property is marginally suitable for California redlegged frog but does not appear to support sufficient perennial water bodies for this species. Southwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata ssp. pallida) The southwestern pond turtle (CSC) inhabits permanent or nearly permanent bodies of water in a variety of habitat types. Lakes, rivers, streams, and ponds are typical habitats where the southwestern pond turtle can be found. It requires basking sites such as rock islands, partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, or open mud banks. The southwestern pond turtle feeds primarily on insects, worms, fish, and carrion. A clutch of 3 to 11 eggs is laid April through August in soft, sandy soils near waterways. Property location information contained in the CNDDB for the southwestern pond turtle has been classified as sensitive and therefore suppressed from the records. However, LFR has learned that at least one southwestern pond turtle has been reported from Glen Annie Creek near US-101. The drainages through the interior of the property are intermittent and remain dry for most of the year. As such they do not provide the aquatic environment generally associated with the southwestern pond turtle. However, the freshwater marsh in the middle of the property and both Los Carneros and Glen Annie Creeks support potentially suitable habitat for the southwestern pond turtle. Presence on the property: Southwestern pond turtle was not observed during LFR surveys. Los Carneros Creek and Glen Annie Creek are both considered potentially suitable habitats for this species and to a lesser degree the freshwater marsh on the property may also provide suitable habitat. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) The CDFG fully protected and CSC white-tailed kite requires large open fields and relatively undisturbed oak woodland, grassland, and/or coastal sage scrub for successful breeding. Small mammals are their normal prey item. Eggs are laid as early as mid-March and as late as the end of May. White-tailed kite habitat usually requires a stretch of riparian corridor in which to nest (particularly cottonwoods, but including eucalyptus, willows, and live oaks) and adjacent fields in which to hunt. White-tailed kites are known to occur on the property and in neighboring open areas. Kites favor the open terrain of grassland, oak woodland, and coastal scrub. Habitat on the property is considered excellent foraging habitat for the white-tailed kite. Trees on the property provide suitable roosting and nesting habitat for the white-tailed kite as well.
July 21, 2011
D-12
Presence on the property: A pair of adult white-tailed kites was observed on the property on multiple occasions during LFR surveys. The property has suitable foraging and potential nesting habitat for the white-tailed kite. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) The loggerhead shrike (FSC/CSC) is found in dry open habitat types including the grassland/chaparral interface. The loggerhead shrike is known for its habit of impaling prey items such as lizards, small mice, and large insects on the spines of thorn bushes or on barbed wire fencing. It generally hunts from low perches such as fence posts, wires, and the tops of low bushes. Shrikes lay five to six eggs in an open cup-shaped nest well hidden in the crotch of a tree branch. Egg laying commonly begins in April and young fledge in about 34 days. Presence on the property: Loggerhead shrike was not observed on the property during LFR surveys. The property has suitable foraging and potential nesting habitat for this species. Coopers Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) The Coopers hawk (-/CSC) is a crow-sized raptor with relatively short-rounded wings and a long tail. It feeds predominantly on small to medium sized birds, but will also take mammals such as wood rats, small rabbits, and reptiles. The breeding season for the Coopers hawk begins in mid March to early April. Nests are typically built in the upper canopy of a dense stand of trees such as live oak or cottonwood. The Coopers hawk is generally considered a secretive species, but commonly breeds within urban settings. The Coopers hawk was observed on the property during surveys by LFR. The Coopers hawk is expected to utilize the property for foraging purposes on a year-round basis and could potentially nest on the property. Presence on the property: Coopers hawk was observed on the property during surveys by LFR. The property offers suitable foraging habitat and marginally suitable nesting habitat for the Coopers hawk. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis) The ferruginous hawk (FSC/CSC) is a large raptor that is often observed perched on the ground in open fields, on power poles, or in trees while it searches for prey species (usually small to medium sized mammals). It has longer, more pointed wings than the red-tailed hawk, and has white flight feathers with no dark barring. It is not uncommon for this species to hunt from a high soar or to hover for brief periods when hunting. It is generally found in dry, open fields and grasslands. Adults have rufous-colored feathers extending down the tarsi to the ankle, crescentshaped white wing patches on the dorsal surface of the wings, and a large gape to the mouth which extends under the eye. The tail is generally off-white or gray with a faint terminal band. Habitat on the property represents suitable foraging habitat for the ferruginous hawk, a potential winter visitor in the Goleta area Presence on the property: The ferruginous hawk was not observed during surveys by LFR. The property contains suitable foraging habitat for the ferruginous hawk.
July 21, 2011
D-13
Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia ssp. hypugaea) Burrowing owl (-/CSC) inhabits open country of grasslands, prairies, and fields. It typically uses burrows of ground squirrels, prairie dogs, and other small mammals for hiding and nesting. The burrowing owl is a dove-sized nocturnal raptor but can often be observed roosting outside of burrow entrances during the day. The burrowing owl feeds mainly on insects, small mammals, and reptiles. Adult burrowing owls are heavily barred and spotted while the juveniles show more of a contiguous buffy pattern below. The burrowing owls long legs separate it from all other owls of its size. The presence of multiple burrow locations is a critical component of typical burrowing owl habitat. California ground squirrel burrows that could be utilized by burrowing owls exist on the property. Presence on the property: Burrowing owl was not observed during LFR surveys. The property has suitable habitat for the western burrowing owl including potentially suitable ground squirrel burrows, which are favored by the owl. Signs indicating the presence of burrowing owls including feathers, prey remains, castings, and whitewash were not observed at any of the ground squirrel burrow entrances inspected by LFR. American Badger (Taxidea taxus) The American badger (-/CSC) is found in open grassland, coastal scrub, chaparral, and oak woodland. Ground squirrels and other small rodents, such as the kangaroo rat, are common prey items of the badger. The American badger is generally nocturnal but is sometimes observed active in the daytime. Burrow openings of this species are elliptical and approximately 8 to 12 inches wide. Young are born in March and April. The presence of California ground squirrels at the property presents a favored prey base for the American badger. Presence on the property: The American badger was not observed during LFR surveys. The property has marginally suitable habitat for the American badger. Surrounding roads, highways and encroaching development may preclude this species from occurring on the property. Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexippus) The monarch butterfly does not have federal or state listing status, but is included as a sensitive species in the CNDDB. Winter roost sites have been found from Northern Mendocino County to Baja California, Mexico, with several known sites on the central coast. The listing by CDFG is based on the limited wintering roost sites within the central coast portion of the butterflys West Coast wintering range. The monarch butterfly can be found in a variety of habitats, especially those supporting milkweed plants (Asclepias sp.), the primary food source of the caterpillars. These butterflies frequent grasslands, prairies, meadows, and wetlands, but avoid dense forests. In the winter, monarchs cluster together in large numbers in eucalyptus, cypress, and Monterey pine trees, often on the edge of open areas. Monarch butterfly autumnal and winter roost locations are known to occur near the property. In January of 2008 a focused monarch butterfly winter roost survey was conducted on the property by LFR. During the survey, approximately 30 to 50 monarch butterflies were observed on the
July 21, 2011
D-14
property. The butterflies were typically observed flying randomly along the edges of the eucalyptus tree windrows on the property, and the majority were observed along the eucalyptus grove that bisects the property from north to south east of the willow dominated drainage on the property. However, no clustering of butterflies was observed and a centralized location of butterfly activity within the eucalyptus grove was not observed. Rather, butterflies were observed flying randomly as singles or occasionally interacting with one another briefly before drifting apart. Butterflies were observed landing occasionally on eucalyptus branches and leaves and on the ground in various locations throughout the property, but no observations of more than one butterfly together at a resting or basking location were made. While some locations within the centrally located eucalyptus grove that bisects the property from north to south may provide adequate protection from wind and adverse weather conditions, the majority of the windrow appears to be exposed to prevailing onshore wind. Still, the microhabitat present is considered potentially capable of supporting a wintering monarch butterfly roost, although no such roost was found during the LFR survey in January of 2008. Presence on the property: Monarch butterflies do occur on the property and LFR observed one female monarch butterfly depositing eggs on narrow-leaved milkweed (Asclepias fascicularis) during initial surveys in July of 2007. In January of 2008, LFR observed from 30 to 50 monarch butterflies on the property. However, no evidence of clustering butterflies suggesting a winter roost location on the property was observed. The General Plan reports a winter roost location for monarchs within the eucalyptus trees near the southern end of the Los Carneros Creek corridor. This area is afforded a 200-foot buffer when active and a 100-foot buffer year round. Property Jurisdictional Features A jurisdictional wetland delineation, as defined by and afforded protections by the State and Federal governments, has not been conducted on the property. However, based on the characteristics of the property, including identified vegetation communities, the presence of Los Carneros Creek on the eastern border of the property, and the onsite drainages that discharge to Glen Annie Creek (also called Tecolotito Creek), it is likely there are some jurisdictional features located on or immediately adjacent to the property.
D.2
D.2.1

Federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973 The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and implementing regulations, Title 16 United States Code (USC) Section 1531 et seq. (16 USC 1531 et seq.), Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 17.1 et seq. (50 CFR Section 17.1 et seq.), includes provisions for the protection and management of Federally listed threatened or endangered plants and animals and their designated critical habitats. Section 7 of FESA requires a permit to take threatened or endangered species during lawful project activities. Take is defined as to harass, harm, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any of these activities without a permit.
July 21, 2011
D-15
The administering agency for the above authority is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for terrestrial, avian, and most aquatic species. Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC Sections 703 through 711) includes provisions for protection of migratory birds, including the non-permitted take of migratory birds, under the authority of the USFWS and CDFG. Clean Water Act of 1977, Section 404 This section of the Clean Water Act (CWA; 33 USC 1251 et seq., 33 CFR Sections 320 and 323) gives the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) authority to regulate discharges of dredge or fill material into Waters of the United States, including wetlands. Clean Water Act of 1977, Section 401 This section of the CWA requires a state-issued Water Quality Certification for all projects regulated under Section 404. In California, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) issues Water Quality Certifications with jurisdiction over the property area. The RWQCB Central Coast Region issues Section 401 Water Quality Certifications for applicable project activities in Santa Barbara County. D.2.2 State
California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and implementing regulations in the Fish and Game Code Sections 2050 through 2098 includes provisions for the protection and management of plant and animals species listed as endangered or threatened, or designated as candidates for such listing. The act includes a consultation requirement to ensure that any action authorized by a state lead agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened speciesor result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of the species (Section 2090). Plants of California declared to be endangered, threatened, or rare are listed at 14 CCR Section 670.2. Animals of California declared to be endangered or threatened are listed at 14 CCR Section 670.5.14. CCR Section 15000 et seq. describes the types and extent of information required to evaluate the effects of a proposed project on biological resources of a project site. Other Relevant Sections of the Fish and Game Code The Fish and Game Code provides specific protection and listing for several types of biological resources. These include: fully protected species; streams, rivers, sloughs, and channels; significant natural areas; and designated ecological reserves.
Fully protected species are listed in Section 3511 (Fully Protected Birds), Section 4700 (Fully Protected Mammals), Section 5050 (Fully Protected Reptiles and Amphibians), and Section
July 21, 2011
D-16
5515 (Fully Protected Fish). The Fish and Game Code of California prohibits the taking of species designated as fully protected. Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code requires a streambed alteration agreement for any activity that may alter the bed and/or bank of a stream, river, or channel. Typical activities that require a streambed alteration agreement include excavation or fill placed within a channel, vegetation clearing, structures for diversion of water, installation of culverts and bridge supports, cofferdams for construction dewatering, and bank reinforcement. Section 2081(b) and (c) of CESA allows CDFG to issue an incidental take permit for a statelisted threatened and endangered species only if specific criteria are met. These criteria can be found in 14 CCR, Sections 783.4(a) and (b). Section 2081(b) may authorize the take of fully protected species and specified birds. If a project is planned in an area where a species or specified bird occurs, an applicant must design the project to avoid all take; CDFG cannot provide take authorization under this act. Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 The Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 and implementing regulations in Section 1900 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code designates rare and endangered plants and provides specific protection measures for identified populations. It is administered by CDFG. D.2.3 Local
General Plan Law Requirements The General Plan (2006) contains a Conservation Element (CE) designed to preserve and protect Goletas environmental resources. The Conservation Element is required to address conservation, development, and use of natural resources, including water, creeks, soils, wildlife, and other natural resources. The following policies of the Conservation Element are relevant to existing and future biological resources uses in the City: Policy CE 1: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Designations and Policy: To identify, preserve, and protect the citys natural heritage by preventing disturbance of ESHAs. Policy CE 2: Protection of Creeks and Riparian Areas: To enhance, maintain, and restore the biological integrity of creek courses and their associated wetlands and riparian habitats as important features of Goletas landscape. Policy CE 3: Protection of Wetlands: To preserve, protect, and enhance the functions and values of Goletas wetlands. Policy CE 4: Protection of Monarch Butterfly Habitat Areas: To preserve, protect, and enhance habitats for monarch butterflies in Goleta including existing and historical autumnal and winter roost or aggregation site, and promote the long-term stability of over-wintering butterfly populations.
July 21, 2011
D-17
Policy CE 5: Protection of Other Terrestrial Habitat Areas: To preserve, protect, and enhance unique, rare, or fragile native flora and plant communities Policy CE 8: Protection of Special-Status Species: To preserve and protect habitats for threatened, endangered, or other special status species of plants and animals in order to maintain biodiversity. Policy CE 9: Protection of Native Woodlands: To maintain and protect existing trees and woodlands as a valuable resource needed to support wildlife and provide visual amenities.
D.3
D.3.1

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in terms of environmental, regulatory and permitting, and services in the sections below. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the City of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property as an urban land use or to resume active agricultural practices on the property. Service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. The analysis incorporates information from the existing setting that was developed by LFR and verified by ICF through review of reports and documents and a site visit. The analysis uses existing potentially sensitive areas and ESHAs and information regarding these types of biological resources from the General Plan to determine if biological constraints and opportunities exist currently on the property and would exist under urban or active agricultural uses. D.3.2 Assumptions
Assumptions incorporated into the analysis include the following: Property conditions are assumed to be similar to the observations at the time of previous biological surveys and site visit. A jurisdictional delineation would find wetlands and Waters of the United States only in the topographical depressions on the property. Active agriculture would generally maintain the existing topography and natural resource on site, as it is assumed to follow the historic areas of past agricultural use (e.g., flat areas). Any active agricultural use consistent with the land use designation and zoning that would not require a discretionary action would not be subject to CEQA; however, that does not preclude the potential for permits associated with biological resources to be
July 21, 2011
D-18
required. Permits are discussed above in Section D.1.2 and a summary is provided in Table D-4 if alterations to the property that trigger permitting requirements were to occur.
D.4
D.4.1
Evaluation
There are several opportunities and constraints associated with the property in terms of biological resources. These are summarized in Table D-4.
July 21, 2011
D-19
TABLE D-4: SUMMARY OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Existing Condition Environmental There are high numbers of trees on the property.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint Native and ornamental trees provide nesting opportunities for raptors and other birds, and roosting space for monarch butterflies. The majority of trees are within sensitive biological areas. The current vacant nature of the property preserves these features.
Existing Conditions 1 Rating +
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future change to urban use would likely encroach on potentially sensitive biological areas. Active agriculture would likely maintain larger parts of potentially sensitive biological areas. Future change to urban use would likely encroach on wetlands or drainage features. Active agriculture would generally maintain wetlands or drainage features. Urban uses or active agricultural uses could be constrained by sensitive species observations within nonnative grassland or removal of nonnative grasslands.
Relevance to Future Property Use and Rating2 Urban Ag /
There are wetlands and riparian habitat on the property. They comprise approximately 6 acres and are shown on Figure D-1. Large expanses of approximately 203 acres of nonnative grasslands are present on the property.
Grasslands provide foraging habitat for raptor species including burrowing owls. Nonnative habitat also serves as transitional habitat for species and can be used as a wildlife corridor. Protected stream courses exist within the property and immediately adjacent to the property (Los Carneros and Glen Annie).
Regulatory and Permitting Property is subject to CWA Section 401.
The trigger associated with this permit is: impacts on Waters of the United States, including water quality impacts. Future change to urban or active agricultural use would likely result in impacts on waterways or wetlands via nonpoint source pollution discharge or other means and may require a Regional Water Quality Control Board certification. The trigger associated with this permit is: Impacts on Waters of the United States (fill, dredge, or otherwise indirectly impact). Future change to urban use would likely
Protected stream courses exist within and immediately adjacent to the property.
July 21, 2011
D-20
Existing Condition
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint result in impacts on waterways or wetlands and usage would require an USACE 404 permit. Future change to active agriculture use would generally maintain existing topography and may not meet the trigger of the 404 permit. The trigger associated with this permit is: impacts on Waters of the State, which include modifications to the bed and banks of existing streams. Future change to urban use would likely result in impacts (fill) on waterways or channels and requirement of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Future change to active agricultural use would generally maintain existing topography and drainage features and therefore may not trigger the 1600 permit. The triggers associated with these regulations include: impacts on federally or state listed species and/or critical habitat where an agency has discretionary action; impacts on federally or state listed species and/or critical habitat. Future change to urban or active agricultural use would be unlikely to result in California or federal ESA involvement because there is a low potential for threatened or endangered species to occur on site. Future urban use would likely encroach on potentially sensitive biological areas and possibly remove them.
Property is subject to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game code.
Protected stream courses exist within the property.
Property is subject to FESA, CESA, and Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 protections.
There is low potential for threatened or endangered species to occur on the property.
General Plan Policy CE 1.6 protects ESHAs and buffers.
Potentially sensitive biological areas exist on the property.
July 21, 2011
D-21
Existing Condition
General Plan Policy CE 1.9 provides standards for development projects.
This policy seeks to reduce or avoid direct and indirect impacts upon ESHAs.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Active agriculture would generally maintain potentially sensitive biological areas. This policy constrains future urban land use designs, and affects timing of potential construction activities. There would be limited or no development of non habitable structures under active agricultural use. Initiation of construction associated with future urban land or limited development of non habitable structures for agricultural purposes should be avoided during bird breeding season (Feb 15 Aug 15). This policy restricts the available land on the property for urban or agricultural uses.
Development timing restrictions adjacent to ESHA (General Plan Policy CE 1.9 and CE 8.4, and the MBTA). General Plan Policy CE 3 protects wetlands.
These provisions reduce disturbance during breeding season and help ensure that wildlife is able to successfully reproduce. The CE provides protection for a broader definition of wetlands than otherwise afforded by state and federal laws. Monarch roosting areas have been observed near the eastern boundary but not on site. Native grassland on site is protected by this policy. The 0.7 acre of coastal sage scrub on the northern boundary is protected by this policy. This policy would protect habitat of any rare plants, as well as monarchs and roosting raptors.
General Plan Policy CE 4 protects Monarch Butterfly Habitat Areas. General Plan Policy CE 5.2 protects native grassland. General Plan Policy CE 5.3 protects coastal sage scrub.
General Plan Policy CE 8 protects special-status species.
If any monarch roosting areas were to be discovered on site, they would very likely be in areas already designated as ESHAs. Future change to urban or active agricultural use may not avoid the 0.7 acre native grassland. The coastal sage scrub on site is noted to be low-quality; however, urban or active agricultural uses may not avoid the 0.7 acre of coastal sage scrub. No rare plants have been observed on the property. Raptors are expected to use trees on site for roosting. Native woodlands reduce availability of land for changes in property usage and urban uses would likely encroach on native woodlands.
General Plan Policy CE 9. To maintain and protect existing trees and woodlands as a valuable resource needed to support wildlife and provide visual amenities.
Native woodlands are designated as ESHAs and are protected by this policy
July 21, 2011
D-22
Existing Condition Nonnative grasslands are not protected by the General Plan. Service There are no service constraints for biological resources.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The majority of the property is nonnative grasslands.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint No regulatory constraints are associated with nonnative grasslands as a vegetation type. N/A
Relevance to Future Property Use and Rating2 Urban Ag + +
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table Notes 1 Existing Conditions Rating indicates how well the existing conditions support the resource area (e.g., aesthetics, agriculture, biology, etc.). The rating is defined in one of the following three ways: Positive (+) indicates an opportunity, or an issue that would not pose a constraint. Neutral (/) indicates an issue that is neutral and neither positive or negative. Negative (-) indicates a constraint that would be difficult to overcome 2 The Urban column indicates the property would be converted to some type of urban use and the Ag column indicates the property would be converted to some type of active agricultural. The Future Property Use rating is the same as defined above (positive, neutral, or negative) and indicates how well an urban use or ag use would support the resource area given the identified opportunities or constraints.
July 21, 2011
D-23
D.4.2
Analysis
The severity of biological considerations and constraints for this property would generally be less than those associated with urban uses. Potentially Sensitive Biological Areas on the Property The property contains seven sensitive habitat communities. Provisions in policies CE 1, 3, 5, and 9 of the General Plan protect these types of habitat communities. Development within these habitats is generally prohibited. The presence of these constrains available land for any changed property usage. Any change in land use should seek to avoid impacts on or development within these areas. Nonnative grasslands on site are only afforded protection from City, State, or Federal laws if they support sensitive species (or are within buffers of ESHAs). While nonnative grasslands provide foraging habitat for various sensitive raptor species, and removal of them would reduce foraging habitat, they are the least biologically sensitive and regulated area on the property and are the best candidate for placement of any change in land use. Sensitive Species Usage of the Property Federal, State, and local environmental laws afford strong protections to rare and endangered species, and the presence of sensitive species could seriously constrain development. No rare plants were observed on the property, and there is a low-potential for their presence. No threatened or endangered animal species have been observed or are expected on the property. Sensitive plants are unlikely to be a constraint to any alteration of property usage. Raptor Usage of the Property The dozens of acres of woodlands on site provide ample opportunity for nesting and roosting of raptors. Presence of raptors on site is unlikely to add any additional site restrictions, because the majority of woodlands on site are already ESHAs. Nesting raptors are afforded avoidance perimeter protections during breeding season by the MBTA and the CDFG. These perimeters could delay future development in small sections of the site. The nonnative grasslands on site have large colonies of ground squirrels, which provide appropriate habitat for burrowing owl. The presence of burrowing owl on site could add regulatory sensitivity to sections of nonnative grassland and constrain changes in property usage. Monarch Usage of the Property A monarch butterfly aggregation site has been observed along the eastern boundary of the property. The presence of a monarch aggregation within the site would require an avoidance buffer and could constrain site development. Any roosting site habitat is likely already designated as ESHA (with associated buffer) so any observed monarch roosting would be unlikely to further constrain any change to property usage. Drainage Features on the Property There are two drainage features located on the property, and Glen Annie and Los Carneros Creeks are located on the western-central and central-eastern parts of the property. Although
July 21, 2011
2.1-24
they have not been formally delineated, it is likely that the drainage features would be mapped as Waters of the United States, and any alteration would be subject to CWA Sections 401 and 404, Fish and Game code 1600, and their associated permits. While it is likely that crossings or other minimized features would ultimately be allowed, these permits are a negative constraint on any alteration of site usage, given the time and expense required to process the permits and carry out the mitigation. General Plan Policy CE 3.5 provides protection to a broad definition of wetlands. Mitigated alteration could be allowed if it were shown that there were no less damaging practicable alternatives. Timing of Future Activities and Permits If the land use designation and zoning was changed such that urban development could occur, various restrictions would exist regarding the timing of construction. Timing restrictions exist in the MBTA and General Plan Policy CE 1.9. These detail that any site grading should be initiated before breeding season begins on February 15 of a given year. The General Plan also details that grading adjacent to an ESHA would be prohibited unless appropriate erosion and sediment controls were in place. These constraints are generally minor, given appropriate planning, and do not pose a significant restriction upon changes to site usage. The nature of the activity proposed on the property would dictate the type of permits that may be required. Based on property characteristics, Table D-5 identifies the possible permits that may be required, even if the property was to be converted to active agriculture.
TABLE D-5: SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE PERMITS

Agency USACE Regulation Section 404 of the CWA Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code Section 2080.1 of the CESA Section 401 of the CWA Section 402 of the CWA Porter-Cologne Act Trigger Impacts on Waters of the United States (fill, dredge, or otherwise indirectly impact) Impacts on traditionally navigable waters Section 404 Permit Permit 404 Authorization (Nationwide or Individual Permit) Section 10 Permit
USACE SHPO1
106 Compliance Streambed Alteration Agreement (1602 Permit) Consistency Determination 401 Water Quality Certification National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Waste Discharge Requirement
CDFG CDFG RWQCB RWQCB RWQCB

1
Impacts on Waters of the State Impacts on State-listed species that are included in a FESA permit Impacts on Waters of the United States Construction; dewatering Impacts on Waters of the State
State Historic Preservation Office
July 21, 2011
D-25
D.4.3
Additional Analysis Required and Questions
To generate the most comprehensive sensitive species inventory, additional rare plant surveys conducted earlier in spring and prior to maintenance mowing would be beneficial. Focused breeding season surveys were not conducted to determine presence/absence of southern willow flycatcher, least Bells vireo, California red-legged frog, or burrowing owl. The presence of any of these species would add additional levels of permits and restrictions onto any change of site usage. Having these surveys conducted would present a clearer understanding of biological constraints on site. A jurisdictional delineation should be conducted to determine the limits of wetlands and stream courses on the property. This would likely be required by USACE and by General Plan Policy CE 3.3. This will allow a better assessment of any potential effects on wetlands or Waters of the United States, for any proposed change to site usage. Los Carneros Creek, which borders the site to the east, would likely be mapped as Waters of the United States. Depending on the type of activity on the property, preconstruction or predisturbance of the ground surveys may be required for certain species such as burrowing owls.
July 21, 2011
D-26
Appendix E Cultural Resources
Appendix E: Cultural Resources
E.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section discusses the cultural resources of the property and adjacent areas. This section describes the following: existing cultural resources including archeological resources, paleontological resources, and historical architectural resources documented as existing on the property; regulatory setting for cultural resources; and constraints and opportunities associated with cultural resources.
This section relies on a review of existing literature (Visual and Historic Resources Element of the General Plan, The Early History of Bishop Ranch, California Historical Resources Information System records performed at the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), University of California Santa Barbara) and a site visit by an ICF archeologist (ICF 2010).
E.1
E.1.1
Prehistoric Sites
City of Goleta A total of 52 prehistoric and historic archaeological sites have been previously recorded within, or partially within, the current City limits. Of these, 39 of the archaeological sites are strictly prehistoric in origin. The General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (2006) identifies the following relevant information regarding prehistoric history and the City:
At the time of first European contact in 1542, the Goleta area was occupied by a Native American group speaking a distinct dialect of the Chumash language. Historically, this group became known as the Barbareno Chumash; the name deriving from the Mission Santa Barbara under whose jurisdiction many local Chumash came after its founding in 1776. The Chumash were hunters and gatherers who lived in an area with many potentially useful natural resources. They had developed a number of technologies and subsistence strategies that allowed them to maximize the exploitation of these natural resources. Consequently, prior to a drastic change caused by disease and other forms of cultural disruptions introduced by the Spaniards, Chumash settlements were numerous, with some containing large residential areas, semisubterranean houses, and large cemeteries. At the time of Spanish contact, the Goleta area and immediate vicinity was highly populated with at least 10 Chumash villages. A number of these settlements were situated around what was in prehistoric times a much larger Goleta Slough. The slough, which may have resembled a bay in prehistoric times, contained an abundance of marine resources including shellfish, fish, birds, and marine mammals. Early Spanish explorers, missionaries, and administrators characterized the Chumash as having a strong propensity for trade, commerce, and craft specialization, as well as for intervillage warfare.
Property The property is known to encompass five recorded prehistoric archaeological sites. As described in the General Plan FEIR, prehistoric archaeological sites consist of surface and
July 21, 2011
E-1
subsurface deposits containing human-related artifacts, burial interments, food refuse and/or food preparation features such as hearths, and bedrock-associated features containing milling elements, rock art, or living shelters. The property was surveyed for cultural resources in 1978 and resurveyed in 1979 as part of earlier effort to develop the property. The descriptions of these sites over time are somewhat contradictory. CA-SBA-137 and CASBA-1656 are described by various researchers as either midden deposits, which imply a site with dense deposits, or as low density shell and lithic scatters, which implies the opposite of midden deposits. It is also possible that the sites described as very sparse scatters of shell with very few artifacts, such as CA-SBA-1653 and CA-SBA-1655, may in fact be fossil shell deposits exposed by plowing and past agricultural development, rather than archaeological deposits. Because of this contradictory information over time, it is difficult to determine the importance of these prehistoric sites and whether they have been interpreted correctly. Additionally, it is difficult to determine if they are losing archaeological materials over time to casual collectors or past agricultural uses. These sites are described briefly below in Table E-1. TABLE E-1: PREHISTORIC SITES DOCUMENTED ON THE PROPERTY
Site No. CASBA137 Location on Property Northeastern corner First Year of Documentation and Description Originally documented in 1956. The site was described as a surface site consisting of flakes and ground stone objects, including scrapers, flakes, and manos. Originally documented in 1979. At that time, the site was described as a small shell deposit and encompassed two chert flakes and shellfish remains. Historic trash was also observed. Originally documented in 1979. At that time, the site was described as a very low density shell and lithic scatter, including chert and quartzite flakes, and shellfish remains. Historic trash including porcelain and glass was also observed. Originally documented in 1979. At that time, the site was described as a large shell midden including Franciscan chert and quartzite flakes, metate fragments, and shellfish remains. Second Year of Documentation and Description The site was re-visited in 1967 and was described as a large midden deposit with a depth of between 2 and 3 feet. Artifacts observed in 1967 included over 100 chert flakes. The 1979 site record form indicates that CA-SBA-1653 was highly disturbed by activities associated with operation of an orchard, grazing, grading of terraces, and rodents. Third Year of Documentation and Description The most recent site record was completed in 1979, and describes the site as a low density shell and lithic scatter, including quartzite and Franciscan chert flakes. None.
Southcentral
CASBA1653 CASBA1655
Southeastern corner
The 1979 site record form indicates that a reservoir had been constructed on a portion of CA-SBA-1655.
None.
CASBA1656
Center
The 1979 site form indicates that CA-SBA-1656 was disturbed by construction of the ranch house and associated out-buildings, cultivation, grazing, and rodents. A dense midden concentration was observed 50 feet south of the main ranch house.
The site was re-visited in March 1979, after approximately 25 percent of the site surface had been systematically disced,
July 21, 2011
E-2
Site No.
Location on Property
First Year of Documentation and Description
Second Year of Documentation and Description
Third Year of Documentation and Description
and was described as a low density lithic scatter. Observed artifacts included metate fragments, one mano, numerous chert, quartzite, chalcedony flakes, and one shell fragment.
None Originally documented in The 1979 site record form 1979. At that time, the site indicates that CA-SBA-1657 was was described as a low disturbed by construction of density shell and lithic berms, grazing, and rodents. scatter including flakes of Franciscan chert, chalcedony, quartzite CASBAmetate fragments, and 1657 shellfish remains Source: Site forms on file at the Central Coastal Information Center, UC Santa Barbara. CA-SBA-137: Harrison, William M 1956; J. Chartkoff, K. Chartkoff, and L. Kona 1967; Mike Macko, 1979. CA-SBA-1653: Mike Macko, 1979. CA-SBA-1655: Mike Macko, 1979. CA-SBA-1656: Mike Macko, 1979. CA-SBA-1657: Mike Macko, 1979. Southwestern corner
E.1.2
Historic Period Resources
City of Goleta The City has several documented historic properties. There were 46 historic buildings and structures listed in the 1993 Goleta Community Plan (Santa Barbara County, 91-EIR-013) as locally significant historic resources. Some of these have been designated as locally significant historic resources by the County and by the City upon its incorporation, including three National Register sites (the Stowe House, the Sexton House, and the Goleta Depot), the Barnsdale-Rio Grande Gasoline Station, and the Shrode Produce Company Tomato Packing House. Also included in the 46 historic resources identified in the Goleta Community Plan as locally significant historic resources are several designated as a Place of Merit, including the Daniel Hill Adobe, a portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad (Engineered Cut Representing the Former Site of a Portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad), and the Bishop Ranch (Goleta 2006). Property The Bishop Ranch house and surrounding outbuildings and landscaping is present on the property, which served as the headquarters for the Bishop Ranch at one time, and would be considered an example of an agricultural headquarters operation in the City of Goleta. The present ranch house was built in 1912, and preserves its integrity of setting within the present ranch environment.
July 21, 2011
E-3
Horne and Craig (1978) identified the historical significance of the existing structures on the property. Specifically, the [ranch] buildings would be regarded as significant based on their association with early Goleta ranching, their association with a family which has local significance, and their architecture. The house and the surrounding landscaped area were documented as a Place of Historic Merit in the August 1993 Goleta Community Plan (Section G, History and Archaeology). The Glen Annie Ranch (same as the property) was identified as a Goleta Historic Structure in the Goleta Valley Historical Society, which presents a Self Guided Tour of Historic Sites and Structures in the Goleta Valley brochure (no date). Currently, the ranch is listed on the County of Santa Barbara Planning and Development website as a Place of Historic Merit (County of Santa Barbara 2011a). Minutes of the 1994 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Historic Land Mark Advisory Commission imply that a landmark designation was not acted upon by the Commissioners and instead, retained the Place of Historic Merit status as a result of the property owners opposition to a Landmark status (Santa Barbara County 1994). The minutes are summarized below regarding the ranch: Since the owner is opposed to landmarking, the commission should not proceed any further. Work on the zoning ordinance amendments to provide protection for structures of merit. Motioned passed to send copies of a resolution for place of historic merit to the California Coastal Commission, Citizens Planning Association, and the Gledhill Library and to take no further action until development plans come in. The motion was carried.
The County of Santa Barbara website indicates that there is no resolution number associated with the designation (County of Santa Barbara 2011a) The County of Santa Barbara has certain criteria for a place of historic merit1 which include: A Place of Historic Merit officially recognizes the building or site as having historic, aesthetic or cultural value. A Place of Historic Merit is not protected by restrictions as to demolition, removal, alteration or use. (County of Santa Barbara 2011b.)
Table 6-1 and Figure 6-2 of the Goleta General Plan identifies historic resources within the City and includes the Bishop Ranch (ranch house, stone pergola, and adjacent grounds). The General Plan also identifies locally significant historic resources as being structures or sites including landscaping as having special historic, aesthetic, or cultural value to Goleta. A locally significant historic resource under the General Plan may include those resources listed, or
1
A Place of Historic Merit is different than a landmark designation, which recognizes a site at a higher level of historic, aesthetic, or cultural significance; preserves and protects a site by conditions restricting its demolition, removal, alteration, or use; and alterations to a site must be reviewed and approved by the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission (County of Santa Barbara 2011b).
July 21, 2011
E-4
eligible for listing, on several registers and lists including the Santa Barbara County Landmarks/Places of Historic Merit inventories. Therefore, the Goleta General Plan identifies the Bishop Ranch as a locally significant resource because it was previously identified by the County as a Place of Historic Merit. .There are no other known or documented historic period resources located on the property. E.1.3 Cultural Landscape
There is limited agricultural land remaining within the City of Goleta. The history of agriculture on the property is provided in the Chapter 2, Setting, and Appendix B. This history is connected to the culture of the valley and the City. The General Plan (discussed in detail below) encourages protection of property related to the agricultural heritage of the City, as well as heritage landscapes and planting through the policies and implementation actions identified in the General Plan.
E.2
E.2.1

Federal
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 USC 470 et seq.) has increased the responsibilities of the federal government regarding preservation of important and significant cultural resources from federal, federally assisted, or federally licensed activities. This mandate to preserve these resources is consistent with other essential considerations of national policy and applies to both public and private lands. Section 106 of the NHPA, and its amendments, requires that all federal agencies review and evaluate how their actions or undertakings may affect historic properties. Review under Section 106 is designed to ensure that historic properties are considered throughout the various stages of federal project planning and execution. Under Section 106, historic properties are those prehistoric and historic resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). If a site contains little potential for scientific interpretation because of minimal resources, site impairment or other limitations to research, its ability to provide substantiation for, or testing of, explicit research questions seriously impairs its value to researchers. Conversely, a site may possess data and information that, although not unique, may significantly contribute to the archaeological database of an area or region. In general then, significance is a value judgment for several reasons, including direction of research, comparative anthropology, management, and administration. Significance is not an inherent property of an archaeological or historical resource; it is ascribed. According to federal law, pursuant to NHPA, archaeological resources are significant if they are eligible for nomination to the NRHP. To determine site significance through application of NRHP criteria, several levels of potential significance that reflect different (although not necessarily mutually exclusive) values must be considered. As provided in 36 CFR 60.4:
July 21, 2011
E-5
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and (a) that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or (b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant on our past; or (c) that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (d) that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
E.2.2
State
State Historic Building Code In California, the State Historical Building Code (SHBC) provides some degree of flexibility to owners of historic structures towards meeting building code requirements. The SHBC standards and regulations are performance-oriented rather than prescriptive, as most building codes are. Jurisdictions must use the SHBC when dealing with qualified historical buildings, structures, sites, or resources (in the case of Goleta Designated Historical Landmarks [DHLs] or National Register properties) in permitting repairs, alterations, and additions necessary for the preservation, rehabilitation, relocation, related reconstruction, change of use, or continued use of a DHL. The State Historical Building Safety Board has adopted the following definition for a qualified historical house or resource:
A qualified historical building or structure is any structure, collection of structures, and their associates sites, deemed of importance to the history, architecture or culture of an area by an appropriate local, state, or Federal governmental jurisdiction. This should include designated structures declared eligible or listed on official national, state, or local historic registers or official inventories such as the National Register of Historic Places, State Historic Landmarks, State Points of Historical Interest, and officially adopted city or county registers or inventories of historical or architecturally significant sites, places, or landmarks.
Once approved by the Goleta City Council, a DHL is eligible to apply to the SHBC. Under the provisions of the SHBC, new construction or modifications must conform to prevailing codes, although the elements of the existing structure are given the flexibility of reasonable and sensitive alternatives. The alternative building standards and regulations encompassed by the SHBC are intended to facilitate the renovation in a manner that assists in the preservation of original or restored architectural elements and features, encourages energy conservation, provides a cost-effective approach to preservation, and ensures the safety of occupants. Application of the SHBC can greatly assist a community in preserving the overall integrity of a given structure or an entire neighborhood or district, and should be considered in the context of
July 21, 2011
E-6
planning efforts. Consideration of the SHBC in the planning process may make preservation and enhancement of historic structures more feasible and encourage renovation and restoration rather than demolition. E.2.3 Local
County of Santa Barbara Ordinance Section 18A-9 and 18A-10 Places of Historic Merit This section defines a place of historic merit and how such a site is so designated. Specifically, the Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission is authorized and directed to locate and identify other places of historic merit that may satisfy the criteria for designation as a historic landmark, or by reason of a unique feature have, in the opinion of the commission, a special historic, aesthetic, or cultural value. Sites may be designated as having historic merit by the commission under the provisions of this section even though the sites may not qualify for designation as an historic landmark. The designation of sites as having historic merit does not require conditions or restrictions on use, improvements, or renovations. However, the commission may require maintenance of a site as a condition for continued recognition of the historic merit designation. The commission may make a designation of historic merit and/or landmark status by resolution of the commission adopted in a regular or special meeting. Following the adoption of the resolution, the commission sends a copy of the resolution to the owners of the site as it appears on the latest assessor records. The commission maintains records of all sites that have been given recognition under the provisions of the ordinance and forwards to the clerk of the board of supervisors copies of all resolutions making such designations. City of Goleta General Plan The following policies in the Open Space and Visual and Historic Resources Elements of the GP/CLUP seek to identify, protect, and preserve important cultural and historical sites: Policy OS 8: Protection of Native American and Paleontological Resources. Objective: To identify and protect prehistoric and historic cultural sites and resources from destruction or harmful alteration. Policy VH 5: Historic Resources. Objective: To identify, protect, and encourage preservation of significant architectural, historic, and prehistoric sites, structures, and properties that comprise Goletas heritage. Policy VH 6: Historical and Cultural Landscapes. Objective: To identify, preserve, protect, and enhance significant historic landscaping, gardens, and open spaces, including agricultural areas and heritage trees, which contribute to the setting and context of Goleta.
Specifically, policy VH 5 identifies these additional relevant policies: VH 5.1 Local Historic Landmarks. [GP] Locally significant historic sites or structures designated as Landmarks by the County and the City upon its incorporation include Stow House, Sexton House, Goleta Depot, Barnsdall-Rio Grande Gasoline Station, and
July 21, 2011
E-7
the Shrode Produce Company Tomato Packing House. Locally significant historic sites or structures that are designated as Places of Historic Merit include the Daniel Hill Adobe, a portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad (engineered cut representing the former site of a portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad), and Bishop Ranch. Stow House, Sexton House, and the Goleta Depot are listed in the National Register of Historic Places. There are no State Historic Landmarks in Goleta. Table 6-1 and Figure 6-2 provide a summary of structures or sites that have been previously listed or are eligible for listing in one of these registers or inventories. VH 5.2 Locally Significant Historic Resources. [GP] Structures or sites, including landscaping, having special historic, aesthetic, or cultural value to Goleta shall be designated as locally significant historic resources. A locally significant historic resource may include those resources listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register for Historic Places, State Historic Landmarks, or the Santa Barbara County Landmarks/Places of Historical Merit inventories, as well as resources designated by the City. The City shall use the following eligibility criteria when considering a site or structure, including landscaping, for designation as a locally significant historic resource: a. It exemplifies or reflects special elements of the citys cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, architectural, landscape architectural, or natural history. b. It is identified with persons or events of local, state, or national history. c. It embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period, or method of construction or is an example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship. d. It represents works of a notable builder, designer, architect, or landscape architect. e. It includes a geographically definable area possessing a concentration of historic, prehistoric, or scenic properties that are unified aesthetically. f. It has a location with unique physical characteristics, including landscaping, or is a view or vista representing an established visual feature of a neighborhood or community.
g. It embodies elements of design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship representing a significant structural, architectural, or landscape architectural achievement. h. It reflects significant geographical patterns associated with different eras of settlement and growth. i. j. It is one of a few remaining examples possessing distinguishing characteristics of an architectural, landscape architectural, or historical type. It includes rare or specimen plant materials associated with a particular period or style of landscape history.
VH 5.4 Preservation of Historic Resources. [GP] Historic resources and the heritage they represent shall be protected, preserved, and enhanced to the fullest extent feasible. The City shall recognize, preserve and rehabilitate publicly owned historic resources and provide incentive programs to encourage the designation, protection, and preservation of privately owned historic resources. Various incentives or benefits to the property owner shall be considered, such as direct financial assistance, reduced permitting fees to
July 21, 2011
E-8
upgrade structures, flexibility with regard to allowed uses, compliance with the State Historic Building Code rather than the Uniform Building Code, faade conservation easements, identification of grant sources, provision of information regarding rehabilitation loan financing, and tax advantages. VH 5.5 Alterations to Historic Resources. [GP] Any proposed alterations to historic resources shall be subject to a Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 historical study. Any alterations deemed acceptable that may affect the historical integrity of a historic site or structure shall respect the character of the building and its setting and maintain architectural consistency with the original site or structure. Such proposals may require an evaluation from a cultural resources professional or landmarks commission and/or design review prior to approval. To encourage rehabilitation, maintenance, and sensitivity in additions and remodels, the City shall support adaptive reuse of historic sites and structures and may consider allowing for flexibility when applying zoning regulations that retain or promote the historical significance. VH 5.6 Demolition of Historic Structures. [GP] Structures proposed for demolition shall be subject to a Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 historical study. If a structure or site is determined important to the citys heritage, preservation or relocation shall be pursued before demolition. In the event preservation or relocation is not feasible and/or demolition is deemed acceptable, the Phase 1 and/or Phase 2 historical study shall identify appropriate mitigation measures, which may include but not be limited to the following: a. Provide public notice of the availability of the structure through advertisements or other means. b. Salvage and reuse building elements that have value and may be irreplaceable such as cornices, columns, mantels, doors, hardware, and lighting fixtures. c. Video- and photo-document the structure and its setting using archival quality materials. VH 5.7 New Construction. [GP] Development approved in proximity to an identified historic resource shall respect and be aesthetically compatible with the structures or sites in terms of scale, materials, and character. VH 5.8 Public Information and Involvement. [GP] The City shall encourage and promote public awareness and appreciation of Goletas historic resources through measures such as informational guides and tours. The City shall support public recognition programs through awards and plaques that acknowledge designated or rehabilitated resources. The City shall encourage public participation in defining historic values of properties.
City of Goleta Ordinance Section 15.10.050 Definitions of the Goleta municipal code defines historic structure as: Listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places (a listing maintained by the Department of the Interior) or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as meeting the requirements for individual listing on the National Register;
July 21, 2011
E-9
Certified or preliminarily determined by the Secretary of the Interior as contributing to the historical significance of a registered historic district or a district registered as a historic district; Individually listed on a state inventory of historic places in states with historic preservation programs which have been approved by the Secretary of the Interior; or Individually listed on a local inventory of historic places in communities with historic preservation programs that have been certified either: by an approved state program as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, or directly by the Secretary of the Interior in states with approved programs.
Section 16.06.120 Preservation of Natural Features of the Goleta municipal code identifies that in all subdivisions due regard shall be given to the preservation of natural features such as large trees, natural groves, watercourses, scenic points, historic spots, and similar community assets which will add attractiveness and value to the property if preserved.
E.3
E.3.1

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in terms of environmental, regulatory and permitting, and services in the sections below. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the City of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property as an urban land use or to resume active agricultural practices on the property. Service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. The existing prehistoric and historic cultural resources were identified on the property as discussed above. They were evaluated within the context of the property should an urban land use or an active agricultural use occur in the future and within the context of the past agricultural history. Therefore, the alteration or loss of these cultural resources as a result of future land use activities from a cultural resources perspective is evaluated. E.3.2 Assumptions
Assumptions associated with the cultural resources analysis include the following: It is assumed any active agricultural use of the property would generally maintain existing natural features located on site and the existing ranch house . The existing historic period resource may be removed to accommodate future urban land uses; however, it could also be incorporated into open space uses associated with urban land uses.
July 21, 2011
E-10
E.4
E.4.1
Evaluation
There are several opportunities and constraints associated with the property in terms of cultural resources. These are summarized in Table E-2 below.
July 21, 2011
E-11
TABLE E-2: SUMMARY OF CULTURAL RESOURCES CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Existing Condition Environmental There are five prehistoric sites known to exist within the property that were disturbed by previous agricultural activities on the property.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The five known prehistoric sites are currently undisturbed due to the vacant nature of the property; thus, they remain generally preserved subsequent to their original disturbance by the previous agricultural activities.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future change of land use designation of the property to urban uses could result in destruction of the currently undisturbed prehistoric sites associated with grading, trenching, and other construction activities. Past agricultural practices have already disturbed the sites to a certain extent due to plowing, tree planting and removal, construction of water features, etc.. Therefore, active agricultural uses would continue to preserve in place the buried and undisturbed potions of these five sites. However, it would probably result in continued slow degradation of the sites. Future change of land use designation of the land to urban uses may result in the destruction of the historic period resource. Future active agricultural land uses would generally maintain existing topography and would be generally preserve the historic period resource. Future change to urban use would not support the past agricultural history of the property. Future active agricultural use would support the past agricultural history of the property and the City.
One historic period resource, the Bishop Ranch House, outbuildings and grounds, are present and mostly intact on the property.
The current buildings are preserved due to the vacant nature of the property.
The property has a past agricultural history.
The property could be considered representative of the agricultural history of the City.
Regulatory and Permitting
Policy OS 8 Protection of Native
This policy is meant to protect existing
Future change to urban use could likely
July 21, 2011
E-12
Existing Condition
American and Paleontological Resources. Objective: To identify and protect prehistoric and historic cultural sites and resources from destruction or harmful alteration. Policy VH 5 Historic Resources. Objective: To identify, protect, and encourage preservation of significant architectural, historic, and prehistoric sites, structures, and properties that comprise Goletas heritage.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint open land, prehistoric sites, and historical sites, such as the ones identified on the property.
Existing Condition 1 Rating
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint result in an inconsistency with this policy because it may destroy the five known prehistoric sites and may destroy the historic period resource on site. Future active agricultural use would probably result in continued slow degradation of archaeological and historic period resources and would not be inconsistent with this policy. Future change to urban uses resulting from a land use designation change would result in an inconsistency with this policy because it may destroy the five known prehistoric sites and the existing historic period resource on site. Future active agricultural use would probably result in continued slow degradation of archaeological and historic period resources and would not be completely inconsistent with this policy. Future change to urban uses resulting from a land use designation change would result in an inconsistency with this policy because it may destroy the existing historic period resource on site. Future active agricultural use would probably result in continued slow degradation of archaeological and historic period resources and would not be inconsistent with this policy.
Relevance to Future Property Use 2 and Rating Urban Ag
This existing prehistoric and historic sites identified on the property represent Goletas heritage as defined by the City in its policies. The prehistoric archaeological sites are a non-renewable resource, and therefore need to be treated carefully. The historic period resource, which is representative of a certain time in the Citys history, is also unlikely to be replaced if lost.
Policy VH 6 Historical and Cultural Landscapes. Objective: To identify, preserve, protect, and enhance significant historic landscaping, gardens, and open spaces, including agricultural areas and heritage trees, which contribute to the setting and context of Goleta.
Service There are no service constraints for
The existing historic landscape surrounding the historic period resource is currently undisturbed.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
July 21, 2011
E-13
Existing Condition cultural resources.
Relevance to Future Property Use 2 and Rating Urban Ag
Table Notes 1 Existing Conditions Rating indicates how well the existing conditions support the resource area (e.g., aesthetics, agriculture, biology, etc.). The rating is defined in one of the following three ways: Positive (+) indicates an opportunity, or an issue which would not pose a constraint. Neutral (/) indicates an issue that is neutral and neither positive or negative. Negative (-) indicates a constraint that would be difficult to overcome. 2 The Urban column indicates the property would be converted to some type of urban use, and the Ag column indicates the property would be converted to some type of active agricultural. The Future Property Use rating is the same as defined above (positive, neutral, or negative) and indicates how well an urban use or ag use would support the resource area given the identified opportunities or constraints.
July 21, 2011
E-14
E.4.2
Property Previous studies have indicated the historical significance of the Bishop Ranch house and landscaped area (Horne and Craig 1978). Additionally, County documents indicate the Bishop Ranch house and the landscaped area is also a Place of Historic Merit. A locally significant historic resource under the General Plan may include those resources listed, or eligible for listing, on several registers and lists including the Santa Barbara County Landmarks/Places of Historic Merit inventories. Therefore, the Bishop Ranch house and landscaped area is identified in Table 6-1 of the General Plan as a locally significant historic site. The General Plan calls for the protection, preservation, and enhancement of historic resources and the heritage they represent. Removal of the Bishop Ranch house and landscaped area would result in the loss of this historic period resource. General Plan Policy 6.2 states Historical and cultural landscapes and the heritage they represent shall be protected, preserved, and enhanced to the fullest extent feasible. The City may consider acquiring protective easements to maintain landscapes such as the Bishop Ranch house and landscaped area. Future active agricultural use of the vacant lands found on the site, and/or acquisition of the Bishop Ranch house and landscaped area through a protective easement would help to preserve and maintain the Citys agricultural heritage. E.4.3 Additional Analysis Required and Questions
The prehistoric sites would likely need to be excavated, studied, and documented, prior to disturbance. As a historic period resource, the Bishop Ranch house and landscaped area would be subject to the processes and documentation described above in Section E.1.2., which includes evaluation of significance and planned mitigation, potentially including preservation in place. The property would likely be subject to Federal or State cultural resources regulations if the land use designation change resulted in urban development regulated by a Federal or State agency.
July 21, 2011
E-15
Appendix F Demographics, Land Use, and Housing
Appendix F: Demographics, Land Use and Housing
F.
DEMOGRAPHICS, LAND USE, AND HOUSING
This section discusses demographics, housing, jobs-to-housing balance, and land use on the Bishop Ranch property (property) and of the City of Goleta (City) and Goleta Valley. This section describes the following:

existing demographics, housing, jobs-to-housing balance using most recently available data; future demographics, housing, jobs-to-housing balance using information from the General Plan; regulatory setting for housing, jobs, and land use; constraints and opportunities associated with a change in land use for demographics, housing, and jobs-to-housing balance.
Specifically, this section outlines the implications of converting the property to an urban use or active agricultural use on the demographic projections of Goleta, including the General Plan and SBCAG Population Growth Forecast. Additionally, it discusses the Citys future, relative to the Housing Element of the General Plan, Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan 20072014 and beyond, as well as other State and regional housing-related mandates required by the City. The data used in this chapter is 2010 information except where noted. If 2010 information could not be used, the next mostrecent-year information is provided. The 2010 data may not be provided because of the methodology used by the U.S. Census to collect data.
F.1
Existing Environmental Conditions
Several different geographic areas are addressed in this section. The term Goleta Valley refers to the area west of Santa Barbara including the City of Goleta; Isla Vista; the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) campus; Hope Ranch; and the Santa Barbara Airport. The South Coast subregion includes the Carpinteria and Santa Barbara and Goleta valleys (Figure F-1). The most recent information from the U.S. Census and California Department of Finance is provided when available. If recent data was not available, the data from the Goleta General Plan EIR was used. The land use designation for the 240-acre property has changed over time; therefore, this section summarizes the various designations and the local agencies with authority over the property over time. In 1951, the County of Santa Barbara zoned the property as highway residential and highway commercial. In 1957, the property was re-zoned as single-family residential. From 1961 to 1975, the property was designated residential (6,000 to 8,000 square-foot lots) and in 1976, the Countys Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element called for two to five units per gross acre of the property. In 1984, the County of Santa Barbara zoning identified residential lots at 6,000 to 8,000 square feet. In 1993, the Santa Barbara Goleta Community Plan placed the property within Goletas urban boundary line and noted that the land use designation would be A-1 (urban agriculture) for the life of the plan or for 10 years from the adoption of the plan. In 2003,
July 21, 2011
F-1
the County was to review the site to determine if the agricultural land use designation was still appropriate. In 2002, the City of Goleta was established and Bishop Ranch was included within the City limits by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). In 2005 the City began preparation of its first General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan. The General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan was adopted on October 2, 2006 and became effective on November 1, 2006. The City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (General Plan) land use designation for Bishop Ranch is Agriculture. The zoning map designation for Bishop Ranch is Agriculture, 40-acre Minimum Parcel Size (AG-I-40). Figure 2-4 identifies the existing General Plan land use designation of the site and surrounding area and Figure 2-5 identifies the existing zoning of the property and surrounding area. The 240-acre Bishop Ranch is one of the Citys primary agricultural designated resource areas. Bishop Ranch makes up approximately 60 percent of the remaining agricultural designated land in the City. It is also the single largest undeveloped area remaining in the City. Currently the Bishop Ranch property primarily comprises vacant land (Figure 2-3, Existing Conditions) which has not been irrigated or cultivated in numerous years. F.1.1 Population and Demographics
According to the California Department of Finance, the City of Goletas population in April 1, 2010 was 29,888 , which was seven percent of Santa Barbara Countys population (SBCAG 2011). As of January 1, 2006, the incorporated City limits included 5,075 acres, or approximately 7.9 square miles. SBCAGs Regional Growth Forecast 20052040 Report South Coast predicts Goletas populations to increase over the 20052040 period by 20.5 percent.1 Generally the South Coast area of the County has been growing more slowly than the North County area of Santa Barbara County. The Countys population distribution is forecast to continue to shift toward the North County by SBCAG, largely due to the availability of vacant land designated for residential growth (SBCAG 2007). The 2010 median age within Goleta was 36.5 years (SBCAG, 2011). The 2009 median age within the Goleta Census Designated Place (CDP) was 34.9 years, compared to the County median of 33.7 years. In 2009, slightly fewer than 7.7 percent of City residents were less than five years old, 77.9 percent were 18 years or older, and 13.4 percent were senior citizens over 65 years old. In 2000, slightly fewer than 25 percent of the City residents were less than 18 years old, 12 percent were young adults of college age, and 11 percent were senior citizens over 65 years old (City of Goleta 2006). The age profile for the City contained two large bulges: one in the 35-to45-year age group (usually referred to as the working or family age group), and the other in the 20-to-30-year age group, most likely attributable to the Citys proximity to UCSB (City of Goleta 2004 in City of Goleta 2006).
The 2007 SBCAG growth projection data, based on the 2000 Census information was used in this document. This is because the SBCAG growth projection data is currently being revised to incorporate the more recent 2010 Census information.
July 21, 2011
F-2
San Luis Obispo
Kern
Santa Ynez Subregion

Santa Barbara Ventura Los Angeles
Cuyama Subregion
PA C I F I C OCEAN
Orange Orange
154
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\demohousing\figf_1_south_coast_subregion.mxd SM (07-18-11)
South Coast Subregion

101
Unincorporated County of Santa Barbara
Property
192
Mission Mission Canyon Canyon
Goleta
Ellwood Pier
Santa Barbara
192

Isla Vista
Coal Oil Pt Goleta Pt
Hope Ranch
225
UCSB
Goleta Pier
225
PAC I FI C O CE AN
1.5 Miles
Legend City of Goleta City of Santa Barbara Coastal Zone

Figure F-1 SOUTH COAST SUBREGION
In 2010, approximately 69.7 percent of the Citys population was considered white with no other race identified in their heritage. The largest single racial minority was Asian, making up 9.1 percent of the population; 4.5 percent of the population had a mixed racial heritage. Just over one quarter of the Citys population (32.9 percent) identifies themselves as of Hispanic heritage. While in the past the U.S. Census of Population reported Hispanic heritage along with racial data, the Census no longer considers Hispanic heritage as a racial category, and persons of Hispanic heritage are now reported separately (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). F.1.2 Household and Family Size
The estimated 2010 average household size for the Goleta CDP was 2.72 (SBCAG, 2011), and the average family size was 3.22 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a).2 The 2009 median household income within the Goleta CDP limits was $69,304 and the median family income was $84,721. Senior households (head of household over 65 years of age) comprised 23.3 percent of all households. Single-person households comprised 10 percent. Households headed by women comprised 5.8 percent of all households in 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau 2007 in City of Goleta 2007). Large families (five or more persons) comprised 13 percent of all households in 2000 (Census 2000 in Goleta 2007). F. 1.3 Employment
According to the SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast, there were approximately 24,702 jobs in the City in 2010 and 26,146 are predicted for 2015. This employment growth is based on an average of the 20002010 rate of nonresidential square footage developed, SBCAG Congestion Management Program, and UCSB Economic Forecast data (SBCAG 2007). According to the EIR prepared for the General Plan, the largest sector of employment in Goleta Valley was the public sector (refer to Chart 3.8-1), which includes County and City employees and educational workers in all public institutions. The single largest employer, with 9,528 employees, was UCSB, located just outside Goletas city limits (UCSB 2004). Other large public employers in Goleta Valley include the County of Santa Barbara and the Goleta Union School District. The service sector is the next largest with one-quarter of all jobs in the area. The largest employer in the service sector is Bacara Resort and Spa. Located within Goletas city limits, Bacara Resort employed 752 people and was the 24th largest employer in the County. Manufacturing employment comprises 15 percent of total wage and salary employment. The largest employer in this sector is Raytheon with three divisions located in the City and more than 1,900 employees. SBCAG has prepared estimates of current employment by geographic areas, known as Transportation Analysis Zones (TAZ), to assist transportation planning in the County. Figure F-2
2
The difference between a family and a household is that a family is composed of two or more related people, while a household consists of related or unrelated persons residing in a dwelling unit. Because households include oneperson households, the average household size is usually lower than the average family size.
July 21, 2011
F-3
illustrates the distribution of employment according to these estimates (SBCAG 2000). These estimates indicate that approximately 50 percent of all jobs in the Goleta Valley area are in the City. An updated SBCAG commuter profile conducted in 2007 found that commuter activity was virtually unchanged from 2002, wherein approximately nine out of ten Santa Barbara County commuters (92 percent) live and work within Santa Barbara County. The remaining eight percent work in neighboring counties with San Luis Obispo supplying jobs for five percent of Santa Barbara County workers. Later, SBCAG updated these commute estimates with Caltrans inter-county travel data. The Caltrans Count Station data show an increase in the number of commuters from Ventura County by about 12 percent or up to 10,100 commuters per day traveling from Ventura County (alone not including thru traffic from further south) into Santa Barbara County. SBCAG reported other estimates that suggest that the overall number of commuters between western Ventura County and the south coast of Santa Barbara County was as high as 16,000 per day in 2005. If it were assumed that these commute estimates relate to employment in Goleta, then at least 3,100 workers commute to the City from outside the South Coast. Jobs-to-Housing Ratio The jobs-to-housing balance concept is a comparison of the number of jobs provided at workplaces located in an area to the number of workers who reside in that same area. The concept of achieving an appropriate balance between housing, as measured by resident work force, and jobs in an area has been used in regional planning in an attempt to define possible public policy purposes, such as presumed reductions in traffic congestion and decreases in employee long-distance commuting. Current research suggests that a reasonable upper limit for a jobs-to-housing ratio can be as high as 1.5. A ratio above this could indicate that there may be an insufficient supply of housing to meet the needs of the local workforce. The 2010 jobs-to-housing ratio for the City is shown in Table F-1. The ratio has been developed using California Department of Finance population and housing unit estimates from SBCAGs Regional Growth Forecast. As shown in Table F-1, there is currently a jobs-to-housing imbalance within the City. This indicates that there may be an insufficient supply of housing to meet the needs of the local workforce. This seems to be consistent with the jobs-to-housing data that was included in SBCAGs Regional Growth Forecast, which is shown in Table F-2. TABLE F-1: CITY OF GOLETA 2010 JOBS-TO-HOUSING RATIO ESTIMATE
Population Jobs Total Residential Units Jobs-to-housing Ratio Notes:
1 2
29,8881 24,7022 11,4731 2.15
Based on California Department of Finance estimates. Based on SBCAG Regional Growth Forecasts.
July 21, 2011
F-4
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\DemoHousing\FigF_2_Distr_Employment.ai SM (07-18-11)
Legend
City_Limits
Employment in 2000
1 100
.
City of Goleta california, August 2003
10,000
Figure F-2 DISTRIBUTION OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE GOLETA VALLEY
TABLE F-2: SBCAGS JOBS-TO-HOUSING RATIO

Jurisdiction 2010 South Coast 1.49 City of 1.78 Santa Barbara City of Goleta 2.07 Unincorporated 0.76 Source: SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast
The concept of jobs-to-housing balance, and of what constitutes a desirable or superior ratio remains debated and may vary depending upon the geographic scale evaluated and from one area to another. Jobs-to-Employed Residents Ratio The jobs-to-employed residents ratio takes into account variations in labor force participation (City of Goleta 2009). This is especially important in settings such as Goleta where there are larger-than-average proportions of households that may have a typical labor force participation, such as households composed of elderly persons and students (City of Goleta 2009). A jobs-to-employed residents ratio that is greater than 1.0 indicates the community provides more jobs than it has residents seeking jobs. With this out-of-balance condition, the community is likely to experience traffic congestion associated with people coming to jobs from outside the area. It could also experience intensified pressure for additional residential development to house the labor force. A jobs-to-employed residents ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that a community has fewer jobs than employed residents demanding employment. Under this condition most residents need to commute outside of the community (i.e. out-commute) for employment. The resulting commuting patterns can lead to traffic congestion and adverse effects on both local and regional air quality. Employment patterns in Goleta Valley and the Goleta Census Defined Place (Goleta CDP3) are summarized below.4
The 2000 U.S. Census of Population reported a resident labor force of 41,361 in the Goleta Valley. In comparison, the July 2003 UCSB Economic Forecast Project (UCSB 2004) estimated a total of 39,375 jobs in the Goleta Valley in 2000, composed of 35,468 wage and salary jobs and the balance of nonwage jobs. Despite employment increasing at a faster rate than population growth over the last decade, as of 2000, the total number of jobs in the Goleta Valley (39,375) roughly equaled the number of workers who lived in the Goleta Valley (41,361). The jobs-to-employed residents ratio within the Goleta Valley
The Goleta CDP includes the City of Goleta and most of the area between the City of Goleta and the City of Santa Barbara, including Hope Ranch. Unlike the term Goleta Valley, the Goleta CDP does not include Isla Vista (which is its own CDP), the UCSB campus, and the Santa Barbara Airport. 4 Since there is no established system of reporting employment information by place of work for just the City of Goleta, this type of information is reported here for the Goleta Valley. The information for this section is from three primary sources: the 2000 U.S. Census of Population, which provides information for resident households; the UCSB Economic Forecast Project (UCSB 2004), which provides employment information; and SBCAG Regional Housing Needs (2008).The resident workers-to-jobs ratios are presented below for several different geographic areas within Santa Barbara County, including the Goleta Valley and Goleta CDP (City of Goleta 2009).
July 21, 2011
F-5
was 0.95 using these two data sources. Stated differently, there were about 950 jobs located in the valley for each group of 1,000 employed residents of the valley, a slight jobs deficit and therefore a slight net out-commute to jobs located in other areas.
The 2000 U.S. Census estimates a total of 27,265 jobs in the Goleta CDP and 27,515 workers living in the CDP, or slightly less than one job per employed resident. The ratio of the number of jobs to the number of resident workers within the Goleta CDP was 0.99 as of 2000, as shown in Table F-3 (City of Goleta 2009b). This means there are slightly more workers living in the CDP than there are jobs and therefore workers are going outside the CDP to work.
The data in Table F-3 also show equivalent information for other jurisdictions in Santa Barbara County. The data indicate that the cities of Santa Barbara and Santa Maria have excess jobs relative to the number of employed residents and are therefore net importers of labor or workforce from outside their boundaries. The Goleta CDP and the cities of Carpinteria, on the other hand, have more employed residents than jobs, or a net out-commute. TABLE F-3: U.S. CENSUS ESTIMATED DAYTIME POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT-RESIDENCE RATIOS (2000)
Place Name Goleta CDP Isla Vista CDP City of Santa Barbara City of Santa Maria City of Carpinteria Santa Barbara County Total Resident Population 55,204 19,344 92,325 77,423 14,194 399,347 Total Workers Working in Place 27,265 8,429 60,307 34,358 6,813 188,900 Total Workers Living in Place 27,515 8,360 46,866 29,874 7,075 179,445 Employment Residence Ratio 0.99 1.01 1.29 1.15 0.96 1.05
Source: U.S. Census 200 PHC-T-40 from http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/daytime/daytimepop.html in City of Goleta 2009b.
F. 1.4
Housing Characteristics
As of April 1, 2010, there were an estimated 11,473 housing units in the City, which represented 7.5 percent of the Countys housing units at that time (SBCAG, 2011). Comparisons of housing units and vacancy rates for April 2010 are shown in Table F-4. TABLE F-4: 2010 HOUSING ESTIMATES
Housing Units Housing Units Occupied Units (Households) Vacant Units Santa Barbara County Total 152,834 142,104 10,730 Percent of County 100% 93% 7% City of Goleta 11,473 10,930 570 Percent of City 100% 95% 5%
Source: California Department of Finance 2010b/SBCAG, 2011
According to the 2000 U.S. Census, over half of the housing units in the City (57 percent, or 6,053 units) are owner-occupied, with 41 percent (or 4,467 units) occupied by renters. The
July 21, 2011
F-6
remaining two percent (or 260) of the units in the City at the time of the U.S. Census were vacant. In comparison, 69 percent of the housing units in the Goleta CDP, 56 percent of the County, and 66 percent of the State are owner-occupied. Only three percent, or 329 of the units in the City in 2000 existed in 1950. The number of units added in each decade from 1960 has declined. A total of 4,374 units were added from 1960 to 1969; 2,789 units were added from 1970 to 1979; 1,209 units were added from 1980 to 1989; and 710 units were added from 1990 to 2000. From January 2001 through September 2005, a total of 691 units have been completed and added to the housing stock. Between 2007 and 2009, a total of 135 units have been completed and 568 units have been approved (City of Goleta 2010). This trend shows that housing development in the City has dropped. Table F-5 identified the number of current housing unit estimates in the County and City. TABLE F-5: 2008 HOUSING ESTIMATES Santa Barbara Percent of City of Goleta County Total County Housing Units Single Family Detached Units Single Family Attached Units Multiple Family (24 Units) Multiple Family (5+ Units) Mobile Homes 154,452 90,185 100% 58.4% 11,516 5,870
Percent of City
7.5% 51.0%
11,602
7.5%
1,588
13.8%
13,858
9.0%
761
6.6%
30,063
19.5%
2,676
23.2%
8,744
5.7%
Difference with County
621
5.4% Difference with County
Percent Vacant Persons per Household
4.3% 2.8
2.5% 2.7
-1.9% 0.1
Source: California Department of Finance 2008.
Housing Affordability and Costs Goleta Valley housing prices were increasing significantly faster than the county average but slower than the prices in the city of Santa Barbara (City of Goleta 2010). The housing price
July 21, 2011
F-7
appreciation in the northern part of Goleta Valley closely matches price trends in the area west of State Street in the city of Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara County has the fourth-highest housing costs of the areas shown as of 2001, following San Francisco, Monterey, and Orange County. The nationwide mortgage crisis and declining economy seems to have affected the housing market in the City. According to the California Association of Realtors median home prices in the City have dropped by approximately 22.4 percent in the last year. The January 2009 median home price was $702,500 and dropped to $545,000 by January 2010. Even with the drop in home prices in the City, sales prices for housing continue to exceed the ability of many low- and moderate-income households to pay, particularly for first-time homebuyers and new entrants to the local housing market. Rents have increased in recent years but less rapidly than sales prices. The rental housing market is particularly influenced by demand from UCSB students (City of Goleta 2009). Rental housing is relatively more affordable than ownership housing. Average monthly rents in the Goleta market area in 2008 were $1,439 for a 1-bedroom unit and $1,455 for a 2-bedroom unit (Apartment Ratings 2009 in City of Goleta 2009). A two-person household earning 80 percent of median income ($41,400 per year) could afford a rent of about $1,035 per month if they spent 30 percent of their income on housing. Overall rents have gone up by over 8.5 percent between April 2007 and April 2008. As shown in Table F-4, Goletas vacancy rate is 5 percent based on the 2010 Census. A vacancy rate of five percent is generally used to represent equilibrium in the multifamily housing market. The South Coast and Goleta are far below this equilibrium point. This structurally low apartment vacancy rate, combined with market rents that continue to accelerate faster than the overall cost of living, is clear evidence that there is a shortage of rental housing in the South Coast area. The traditional standard for determining housing affordability is when housing costs do not exceed 30 percent of the income of a household. This standard is recommended by the Governors Office of Planning and Research General Plan Guidelines, which define housing costs that exceed 30 percent of the income of a household as overpayment for housing. Fifty three percent of owners with mortgages, 10 percent of owners without mortgages, and 59 percent of renters in Goleta spent 30 percent or more of their household income on housing (U.S. Census Bureau 2009a).
F.2
F.2.1
Future Environmental Conditions

Santa Barbara County, Regional Growth Forecast 20072040
Santa Barbara County, Regional Growth Forecast presents a forecast of population, employment, and land use to the year 2040 for Santa Barbara County, its major economic and demographic regions, and its eight incorporated cities. The following information has been summarized from SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast 20052040 (SBCAG 2007) as it relates the City of Goleta, City of Santa Barbara and South Coast. The South Coast subregion includes the Carpinteria and Santa Barbara\Goleta valleys. Forecasts are prepared for both the cities and unincorporated areas.
July 21, 2011
F-8
Population The South Coast cities of Carpinteria, Santa Barbara, and Goleta are forecast to increase in population between 20052040 by seven, 3.5 and 20.5 percent respectively. Housing Characteristics The forecast of potential new residential units compared to the maximum residential capacity estimates shows that there is the potential for additional 8,200 housing units at the end of the forecast period. Several individual jurisdictions such as the Cities of Santa Barbara (1,843 units) and Goleta (2,619 units), will reach buildout over the 35-year forecast period. In general, household size, which is the number of persons living in a housing unit, is expected to decline, reflecting demographic changes in family types due to higher housing costs. Housing affordability has become, and will continue to be, a key factor in housing choice. In the South Coast there will continue to be a disparity between median housing prices and median incomes. Furthermore, land availability can affect new residential development by reducing the available supply. This, in turn, could influence future housing prices by increasing the prices over time. Employment The 2040 forecast relationship of jobs and housing shows a continuing higher proportion of jobs (+125,000 jobs) than homes (+80,000 homes) in the South Coast. Additional workers for vacant jobs not filled by Santa Barbara County residents are assumed to come from San Luis or Ventura Counties. Jobs-to-Housing Ratio Table F-6 shows the projected jobs-to-housing ratio for the South Coast cities. TABLE F-6: JOBS-TO-HOUSING RATIO
Jurisdiction South Coast City of Santa Barbara City of Goleta Unincorporated 2015 1.52 1.80 2.10 0.77 2020 1.53 1.81 2.11 0.77 2025 1.55 1.83 2.09 0.77 2030 1.54 1.84 2.02 0.77 2035 1.53 1.85 1.97 0.77 2040 1.53 1.85 1.98 0.77
Source: SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast 20052040, August 2007.
Land availability can affect new residential development and employment opportunities. The forecast of commercial, industrial, and retail employment compared to the ultimate theoretical buildout of nonresidential land uses reveals that the South Coast will likely exhaust its commercially zoned land toward the end of the forecast period, resulting in higher employment densities, increasing land costs and potential reduction in future job growth. Limited vacant land, and Measure E restrictions will limit the potential for nonresidential development in the Santa Barbara City limits (which includes the Municipal Airport). However, employee densities in downtown Santa Barbara will likely increase due to high rents and maximization of available space. The South Coast Region is expected to add approximately 4,490,271 square feet, the
July 21, 2011
F-9
City of Santa Barbara is expected to add 1,932,604 square feet, and the City of Goleta is expected to add 2,081,000 square feet.5 Additional employees will require more housing. However, more workers may live in less expensive areas of the region or outside of the County to afford the cost of housing, and may commute further to their jobs. In the South Coast region the business community will likely experience increased difficulty in recruiting workers due to lack of affordable housing in the area. Resident workers provide the majority of labor in the county. Due to aging of the population and increasing housing costs there may be fewer resident workers in the future. The forecast anticipates increased labor force participation rates by females and increased commuting to provide additional workers over time. The 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP) provides an estimate of commuters from the adjacent counties of San Luis Obispo County to the north and Ventura County to the south. The estimates show 9,000 commuting into Santa Barbara County from Ventura and 7,480 from San Luis Obispo County. More current estimates suggest approximately 15,000 commuters from Ventura County into Santa Barbara each day. F.2.2 City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Potential Buildout
The following section has been summarized from Section 3.8, Population and Housing, of the Goleta GP/CLUP Supplemental EIR where appropriate (City of Goleta 2009): Population Population growthassociated implementation of the updated GP/CLUP is anticipated to result in an additional 7,421 people, resulting in a population of 38,100 by the buildout year of 2030. This represents an increase of 24 percent over the current 2010 population of 31,099. The GP/CLUPs projected 2030 population forecast is slightly higher than that projected by SBCAG for the City (37,300). Housing As presented in the 2006 Final GP/CLUP EIR, at full Plan buildout an additional 3,880 residential units are alloweda 33 percent increase over existing 2005 conditions. This includes construction of new units on vacant sites as well as redevelopment of existing sites to include new residential units in mixed-use projects, such as construction of some units on sites occupied by shopping centers. The new units allowed by the GP/CLUP would have a higher proportion of multi-family structures than the existing conditions. It is estimated that the additional residential development would allow an increase in population of about 7,420, an increase of just over 24 percent. As estimated from American Community Survey 20052007 Census data, there were 559 overcrowded housing units, or 5.3 percent of all occupied units, in Goleta. Census 2000 data
Goleta has numerous office and industrial developments recently completed or under construction. A 104-room, three-story Hampton Inn hotel, fronting Hollister Avenue, is under construction. A development on the 6700 block of Hollister Avenue is a proposal of just over 700,000 square feet of Office/R&D space, self-storage, and onsite service related uses. The Cabrillo Business Park, on the corner of Los Carneros and Hollister currently pending approval, has the potential to add 704,000 new square feet and 1,500 new employees over its 10- to 15-year phased development.
5
July 21, 2011
F-10
suggest that overcrowding occurs more often in renter-occupied housing than in owneroccupied housing. Employment The updated Plan would allow an additional 2,081,000 square feet of industrial and commercial development over the existing amount of commercial/industrial space within the City, a 17 percent increase over the 2005 condition. It is estimated, based on 2005 SBCAG traffic analysis zone data, that approximately 50 percent of jobs in the Goleta Valley were located within the boundaries of the City of Goleta, or a total of about 19,700 jobs. In its Regional Housing Needs Allocation Report (2002a), SBCAG estimated a total of 23,000 jobs within the City of Goleta. In its latest Regional Housing Needs Allocation Report (2008), SBCAG estimated a total of 23,561 as of 2005 and an additional 2,285 jobs projected to occur between 2007 and 2014 for a total of 25,846 jobs within the City. With a total of about 12,120,000 square feet of industrial and commercial floor area in 2004, estimates of the amount of square feet per job vary from 530 to 615 square feet. The GP/CLUP allows an estimated 2,081,000 additional square feet of industrial and commercial floor area. It is anticipated that newly developed space could likely to be more intensively used than the stock of older structures. With a potential range of one job per 500 square feet to one job per 615 square feet, the additional jobs that could occur as a result of implementation of the Plan would range from 3,400 to 3,900 for a total range of up to 29,246 to 29,746 jobs citywide at full Plan buildout (City of Goleta 2009). Jobs-to-Housing Ratio The new jobs-to-housing ratio at full buildout could range from 1.97 to 1.98 (Table F-6) indicating a future jobs-to-housing imbalance because the ideal ratio is 1.5. This estimate is slightly lower compared to the 2.02 ratio estimated in SBCAGs Regional Growth Forecast for the year 2030 and slightly higher than the jobs-to-housing ratio in the 2006 GP/CLUP EIR (1.49 to 1.74). This means there would not be enough housing for the jobs anticipated to be provided by Plan buildout. However, this is a decrease from the current estimated ratio of 2.15 (Table F1) and 2.07 (Table F-2), which means there would be additional housing added upon Plan buildout. This increase in housing still would not sufficiently meet the full needs of the work force. Jobs-to-Employed Residents Ratio The new jobs-to-employed residents ratio would range from 0.58 to 0.67 at full Plan buildout, indicating a future jobs-to-employed residents imbalance because the ideal ratio is 1 (City of Goleta 2009).6 This indicates the City would have fewer jobs than residents living in the City demanding employment. There are several possible reasons for the reduction in the ratio. First, the total resident population could be increasing at a greater rate than the corresponding increase to the total jobs in place and the total workers living in place. This would result if the overall residential population substantially grew. Alternatively, the total resident population could remain generally the same, as well as the increase in total jobs, but the total workers living in
As presented in the 2006 GP/CLUP Final EIR, the jobs-to-housing ratio for the increment of growth allowed by the plan ranges from 0.87 to 1.01. This compares to a 2.07 ratio estimated by SBCAG in its 2007 RGF. The new jobsemployed residents ratio was determined by assuming that there will be about 1.5 employed residents per each new residential unit and that 95 percent of new units will be occupied. Given those assumptions, the increment of additional employed residents would be about 5,820.
July 21, 2011
F-11
place could substantially decrease. Under this scenario, the aging population would go into retirement and no longer work in the place they live, thus lowering the ratio. F. 2.3 Regional Housing Needs and Available Land
California law requires each city and county, when preparing its State-mandated Housing Element, to include local housing programs to provide sufficient sites to accommodate its allocated share of housing needs for all income groups. The Regional Allocation Concept seeks to ensure that each jurisdiction, to the extent feasible and appropriate, provides housing for its resident population and those households that might reasonably be expected to reside within the jurisdiction, with a variety of housing appropriate to their needs. As a result of SBCAGs RHNA process completed in August 2008, the City was allocated a total of 1,641 units for the 2007-to-2014 planning period. SBCAG further divided the total housing need allocated to the City into four income categories of housing affordability, per State law. The housing need allocated to Goleta included 377 very low-income units (23 percent), 279 lowincome units (17 percent), 230 moderate-income units (14 percent), and 755 above moderateincome units (46 percent) as shown in Table 10-1 (shown below as Table F-7. The housing need for very low-income units is then divided in half between extremely low-income units (189 units or 12 percent) and very low-income units (188 units or 11 percent), per State law, as shown in Table F-8. As a result of SBCAGs RHNA, the City of Goleta has been allocated a total of 1,641 units for the 2007-to-2014 planning period as shown in Table F-7. The City must demonstrate that adequate sites will be made available to address its share of the regional housing need for the same planning period. Production of new housing that has come on the market and approved projects since the beginning of the RHNA period (January 1, 2007) has nearly met all of the Citys need for above moderate-income housing. Combined with pending residential projects, this need is exceeded. Table F-7 also shows the Citys remaining need as of June 2009. This table reflects a remaining need from 2009 to 2014 for 938 extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing units. TABLE F-7: SUMMARY OF REMAINING REGIONAL HOUSING NEED (2009 TO 2014)
Category Extremely Low Income 189 -0 Very Low Income 188 4 Low Income Moderate Income 230 2 Above Moderate Income 755 125 Total
RHNA (2007 2014) Units Completed (2007-June 2009) Approved Projects Remaining Affordable Housing
279 4
1,641 135
-0 189*
86 98*
16 259*
15 213
451 179
568 938
July 21, 2011
F-12
Needs
* = The combined lower income (extremely low, very low, and low) housing remaining need is 546 units.
State law provides that sites where the zoning allows densities of 20 or more units per acre are deemed to accommodate housing for lower-income households in suburban jurisdictions such as Goleta. The law presumes that these densities are sufficient to make affordable housing feasible. Goleta has identified sufficient sites at densities of 20 units or more per acre to achieve the RHNA requirements for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing between 2000 and 2014. Combined with the constructed units and approved projects since the beginning of the RHNA period as shown in Table 10-1 (shown below as Table F-8), this RHNA requirement is far exceeded.
TABLE F-8: SUMMARY OF HOUSING UNIT POTENTIAL IN GOLETA (2009 TO 2014)

Category Vacant Sites with Existing Residential Zoning Vacant Sites to Be Rezoned Vacant Sites Designated for Mixed Use Redevelopment Sites Total More Than 20 Units Per Acre 1,529 312 199 157 2,197 Less Than 20 Units Per Acre 414 0 43 46 503 Total 1,943 312 242 203 2,700
Source: Land Inventory by City of Goleta, 2009 in City of Goleta 2009
According to the City Housing Element, currently zoned sites for residential development have a total unit potential for 1,645 units, which is far above the remaining total RHNA need of 938 units (City of Goleta 2010). By adding sites planned for rezoning (an additional 631units) the total unit capacity is 1,338 units above the remaining total RHNA for the 2007-to-2014 planning period. Currently zoned sites at 20 units per acre have a capacity for 1,220 units, which is far above the remaining RHNA for lower-income housing (546 lower income units). Of the 1,220 units at 20 units or more per acre, 963 are located on vacant residential sites. Based on this information, it appears that the City will meet its regional housing needs allocation of 1,641 units for the 2007-to-2014 planning period. At this time it is uncertain if the City will meet this allocation under General Plan 2030 buildout conditions because it is unknown what RHNA allocation will be beyond 2014.
F.3
F.3.1

Federal
Federal regulations are not applicable to demographics, housing, jobs-to-housing balance, or local land use.
July 21, 2011
F-13
F.3.2
State
Housing Element and Government Code Section 65583 State requirements are specific and extensive for the housing element of a citys general plan and are described in Government Code Section 65583. This section requires an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Additionally, it requires identification of adequate sites for housing, making adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. State law defines the general topics that a housing element must cover, including:

document housing-related conditions and trends; provide an assessment of housing needs; identify resources, opportunities, and constraints to meeting those needs; establish policies, programs, and quantified objectives to address housing needs; identify adequate sites with appropriate zoning densities and infrastructure to meet the communitys need for housing (including its need for very low-, low-, and moderateincome households); and address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to housing development. Local
F.3.3
City of Goleta General Plan The Housing, Land Use, and Transportation Elements of the GP/CLUP contain policies relevant to the evaluation of population and housing impacts. Lists of these policies are provided below. Housing Element The Housing Element addresses the City of Goletas housing needs through a required planning period ending June 30, 2009. The Element contains updated information and strategic directions (policies and specific actions) that the City is committed to undertake to address its housing needs. The GP/CLUP includes the following housing policies related to potential population and housing impacts:

Policy HE 1: Equal Housing Opportunities. Objective: Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons and ensure effective application of fair housing law. Policy HE 3: Linkage of Housing and Jobs. Objective: Create housing nearby to where people work and encourage participation in the Citys affordable housing program from commercial, office, industrial, and other nonresidential uses. Policy HE 4: Variety of Housing Choices and Affordable Housing Opportunities. Objective: Provide a variety of choices in the type, size, cost, and location of new housing units; encourage more efficient use of existing housing and vacant sites and redevelopment of obsolescent existing development.
July 21, 2011
F-14
Policy HE 5: Special Needs Housing and Support Programs. Objective: Encourage provision of housing for population groups that require special assistance and link such housing to health and human services programs intended to meet the needs of seniors, people with disabilities, the homeless, and other persons in the community identified as having special housing needs. Policy HE 6: Adequate Sites to Meet Goletas RHNA. Objective: Identify adequate sites designated at densities to accommodate the Citys SBCAG assigned fair share of the south coasts RHNA and particularly the need for extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income housing. Policy HE 7: Opportunities for Mixed-Use Housing. Objective: Allow housing in nonresidential areas where residential use is appropriate to the setting and where mixed-use projects can be encouraged to address jobs and housing needs. Policy HE 8: Preservation of Existing Housing and Neighborhoods. Objective: Protect, conserve, and enhance the existing stock of housing and ensure that existing affordable housing at risk of conversion to market rates will remain affordable. Policy HE 9: Excellence in New Housing Design [GP] Objective: Ensure that new housing is well designed to be compatible with and enhance Goletas neighborhoods and the community as a whole. Policy HE 10: Production of New Affordable Housing. Objective: Provide incentives to encourage the development of long-term affordable housing. Policy HE 11: Inclusion of Very Low-, Low-, and Moderate-Income Housing in New Development. Objective: Strengthen residential inclusionary requirements and incentives to require affordable housing as part of market-rate residential projects. Policy HE 12: Funding for Affordable Housing [GP] Objective: Identify was to increase ongoing local and other funding resources and/or financial-equivalent incentives for lower-income and special needs housing.
Land Use Element The Land Use Element defines Goletas planned long-range development pattern and physical character, as well as the extent and distribution of future growth in the City. The policies of this element are designed to balance the various concerns and needs of the City and its residents and will guide future change to fit the desired character of Goleta. The goal of the Land Use Plan is to to maintain a land use pattern that provides continuity with the past and present use and development of the City and locates the various uses in a manner that is consistent with the fundamental goals and principles of the plan. The GP/CLUP includes the following land use policies related to potential population and housing impacts:
Policy LU 1: Land Use Plan Map and General Policies. Objective: To maintain a land use pattern that provides continuity with the past and present uses and development of the city and locates the various uses in a manner that is consistent with the fundamental goals and principals of the plan.
July 21, 2011
F-15
Policy LU 2: Residential Land Uses. Objective: To provide appropriate land areas for the residential needs for existing and future city residents consistent with the existing character of the citys neighborhoods. LU 2.2: Residential Use Densities. [GP/CP] All proposed residential projects shall be consistent with the recommended standards for density and building intensity set forth in this plan. The recommended densities described in the policies for the residential use categories and in Table 2-1 are maximum permitted densities but are not guaranteed. Density of development allowed on any site shall reflect site constraints, including:
a. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA). b. Areas prone to flooding and geologic, slope instability, or other natural hazards. c. Areas with stormwater drainage problems. d. Presence of other significant hazards or hazardous materials. e. Protection of significant public and private views. f. Exposure to exterior noise levels that exceed a Community Noise Exposure
Level (CNEL) of 60 dBA (see related NE 1.2). g. Areas with archaeological or cultural resources. h. Deficiencies in the type or level of services necessary for urban development, such as transportation facilities (roadway and pedestrian), sewer and water service, and emergency service response time. i. Prevailing densities of adjacent developed residential areas.
Policy LU 3: Commercial Land Uses. Objective: To provide lands in locations that are suitable, functional, attractive, and convenient for an appropriate mix and scale of residential- and business-serving commercial uses, including business and professional offices, retail trade, business services, and residential mixed uses. Policy LU 7: Agriculture. Objective: To preserve existing agricultural lands and reserve vacant lands suitable for agriculture to maintain the option of future agricultural use, including local production of food commodities.
Transportation Element The Transportation Element, also known in State law as the Circulation Element, guides the continued development and improvement of the transportation system to support land uses planned in the Land Use Element. This element contains goals and policies to improve overall circulation in Goleta and ensure that future development is supported by appropriate transportation facilities. The GP/CLUP includes the following transportation policies related to potential population and housing impacts:
Policy TE 1: Integrated Multi-Modal Transportation System. Objectives: To create and maintain a balanced and integrated transportation system to support the mobility needs of Goletas residents and workforce, with choice of bus transit, bicycle, and pedestrian as well as private automobile modes. To reduce the percentage of peak-hour person-trips that are made by automobile and provide the facilities that will enable
July 21, 2011
F-16
diversion of trips from automobiles to other modes. To develop, maintain, and operate a balanced, safe, and efficient multimodal transportation system to serve all persons, special-needs populations, and activities in the community.
Policy TE 2: Transportation Demand Management. Objective: To attempt to influence individual travel behavior, particularly by workers at larger-scale employers, to lower future increases in peak-hour commute trips and other trips by persons in singleoccupant vehicles. Policy TE 13: Mitigating Traffic Impacts of Development. Objective: To ensure that new development is supported by adequate capacities in transportation systems, including city streets and roads, without reducing the quality of services to existing residents, commuters, and other users of the city street system. Policy TE 15: Regional Transportation. Objective: Participate in developing regional transportation solutions to expand choices for local citizens, make the highway system more efficient, improve regional bus service, consider potential commuter rail service, and create an interconnected system of bicycle routes and trails.
City of Goleta Ordinance There are no local ordinances that would be applicable to this topic.
F.4
F.4.1

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in terms of environmental, regulatory and permitting, and services in the sections below. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the community of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property either in an urban land use fashion or to resume active agriculture on the property. Service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. F.4.2 Assumptions
The following assumptions were made to complete the analysis:

It is assumed that the property could accommodate all types of residential, commercial, agricultural, and open space. It is assumed that any active agricultural use of the property would not include habitable buildings and therefore would not generate population growth.
July 21, 2011
F-17
F.5
A.5.1
Evaluation
There are several different opportunities and constraints associated with the property regarding demographics, land use, and housing. These are summarized in Table F-9.
July 21, 2011
F-18
TABLE F-9: SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHICS, LAND USE AND HOUSING CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Relevance to Future Property Use and Rating2 Urban Ag + /
Existing Condition Environmental The property currently has no population or demographic associated with it and it currently generates no jobs. As described above, a jobs/housing imbalance has existed since 2010. These numbers indicate there is an insufficient supply of housing to meet the needs of the local workforce which means that those who work in the City would likely not be able to afford to live in the City and would have to commute in.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The property is vacant and does not contribute or detract from this balance.
Ex. Cond. Rating1 /
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint The jobs/housing imbalance trend is projected to continue in the future. Additional residential homes provided by urban uses would contribute to correcting this imbalance. According to the City Housing Element, currently zoned sites for residential development have a total unit potential for 1,645 units, which is far above the remaining total RHNA need of 938 units (City of Goleta , 2010). By adding sites planned for rezoning (an additional 631units) the total unit capacity is 1,338 units above the remaining total RHNA for the 2007-to-2014 planning period. Based on this information, it appears that the City will meet its regional housing needs allocation of 1,641 units for the 2007-to-2014 planning period. Continuation of Existing active agriculture uses in accordance with Policy LU-7 would have minimal impacts on the jobs-tohousing balance, considering it is not anticipated that a large number of jobs associated with agricultural operations would be created in the limited area remaining in the City in active agricultural use. The jobs-to-employed residents trend will become unbalanced within the City in the future. It is likely the urban development would involve neighborhood serving and would likely not result in a significant increase in the net out-commute and in-
The property currently has no population or demographic associated with it and it currently generates no jobs. The jobs-toemployed residents ratio was balanced as of 2000.
The property is vacant and does not contribute or detract from this balance.
July 21, 2011
F-19
Existing Condition
Ex. Cond. Rating1
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint commute. Active agriculture uses would have minimal impacts on the jobs-to-employed residence balance because it is not anticipated that a large number of jobs would be created. A change to urban use could provide additional affordable housing; however, urban uses, absent substantial 20-housingunits-per-acre zoning and onsite production of affordable housing, might be a constraint on the outcome of the States RHNA process. The affordability status of completed projects within the City is ensured with affordability agreements and covenants (deed restrictions) as a condition of approval with the City. For example, the Sumida Gardens project, providing a total of 200 rental units, sets affordability requirements based on the median area income. Affordability levels are based on the income limits published by HCD. The number of units by affordability level and the terms of restriction are specified in Table 10A-32, Approved and Existing Affordable Housing Units of the Housing Element. The affordability of future extremely low-, verylow, low-, and moderate-income households will be ensured through affordability covenants. See Housing Element Policy 10.2Other Incentives for Affordable Housing Developments, as implemented through Program IP-11BMonitoring and Long Term Affordability. Refer to Housing Element Policies HE 8.3, HE 10.2, and HE 11.7 and Implementation Program IP-11B for related policies that assure long-term
The property currently has no affordable housing requirements. Based on an analysis of potential housing sites conducted for the Housing Element, the City has concluded that there are enough adequate sites within the city to build housing to meet it share of the regional housing needs for the RHNA 2007-to-2014 planning period.
Housing affordability has become a key factor in housing choice in the City and the South Coast. More workers may live in less expensive areas to afford the cost of housing and commute further to their jobs. Lack of affordable housing in the City has caused many workers to live out of town and commute to their jobs. The City currently has a plan for affordable housing and could provide the needed affordable housing through 2014.
July 21, 2011
F-20
Existing Condition
Ex. Cond. Rating1
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint affordability of units at the very low-, low-, and moderate-income affordability levels. Active agricultural uses would not generally influence the Citys ability to provide equal housing since they are currently forecasted to meet the 2014 needs.
Regulatory and Permitting The property is currently designated as agriculture for both land use and zoning.
The property is currently vacant land that has been actively cultivated in the past.
Any change of the existing land use designations and zoning to urban use would need general plan amendments and zone changes. Active agriculture would not require general plan amendments or zone change and likely no discretionary action would be taken. Future urban development on the property would be inconsistent with the land use assumptions and growth forecasts made in the SBCAGs Regional Growth Forecasts. Active agriculture would be consistent with the growth forecasts in the most recent SBCAG Regional Growth Forecasts. Any change to urban use could alter the future jobs/housing imbalance predicted by Plan buildout. Additional residential homes provided by urban uses would contribute to correcting this imbalance. Active agricultural uses would have minimal impacts on the jobs-to-housing balance because it is not anticipated that a large number of jobs would be created. Any change to urban use could provide needed housing that is projected to be lacking by SBCAG. .
The property is designated as agriculture.
Currently the land is vacant and is designated as agriculture and the SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast presumes no possible change of land use designation for lands with a general designation of agriculture.
Population growth and buildout as planned for in the General Plan indicates that there would be a slight jobs/housing imbalance at Plan buildout.
The property currently does not contribute to jobs or housing because it is vacant land.
Population growth and buildout as planned by SBCAG indicates there would be a jobs housing imbalance in the City of Goleta.
The property currently does not contribute to jobs or housing as it is vacant land.
July 21, 2011
F-21
Existing Condition The General Plan identifies a number of policies regarding the importance of linking housing and jobs. (Policies HE 3, 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3). The objective of these policies is to create housing near to where people work and encourage participation in the Citys affordable housing program from commercial, office, industrial, and other nonresidential uses.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The property currently does not contribute to jobs or housing because it is vacant land.
Ex. Cond. Rating1 /
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Any future development on the property could result in a change to the current jobsto-housing balance and therefore could result in an inconsistency with some or all of these policies, including Policy HE3, HE 3.1,HE 3.2, and HE 3.3. It is likely the urban development would involve neighborhood servicing and may not result in a jobs-tohousing imbalance. Conducting active agricultural uses would have minimal impacts on the jobs-tohousing balance since it is not anticipated that a large number of jobs would be created. Urban uses on the property do not have the ability to affect meeting the Citys RHNA requirements for the years 2000 and 2014 because the City has concluded that there are enough adequate sites within the City to build housing to meet its share of the regional housing needs for the RHNA 2007to-2014 planning period. However, a change to urban use in the future could provide additional affordable housing. Although developed uses, absent substantial 20housing-units-per-acre zoning and onsite production of affordable housing, might be a constraint on the outcome of the States regional housing needs allocation process (RHNA). Active agricultural uses would have no impact on the Citys ability to provide equal housing by 2014. The affordability status of completed projects within the City is ensured with
The General Plan identifies a number of policies regarding the importance of providing equal housing opportunities. Based on an analysis of potential housing sites conducted for the Housing Element, the City has concluded that there are enough adequate sites within the city to build housing to meet it share of the regional housing needs for the RHNA 2007-to-2014 planning period.
The property currently does not contribute to affordable housing as it is vacant land.
July 21, 2011
F-22
Existing Condition
Ex. Cond. Rating1
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint affordability agreements and covenants (deed restrictions) as a condition of approval with the City. For example, the Sumida Gardens project, providing a total of 200 rental units, sets affordability requirements based on the median area income. Affordability levels are based on the income limits published by HCD. The number of units by affordability level and the terms of restriction are specified in Table 10A-32 Approved and Existing Affordable Housing Units of the Housing Element. The affordability of future extremely low, verylow, low and moderate-income households will be ensured through affordability covenants, see Housing Element Policy 10.2 Other Incentives for Affordable Housing Developments, as implemented through Program IP-11B Monitoring and Long Term Affordability and Refer to Housing Element Policies HE 8.3, HE 10.2, and HE 11.7, and Implementation Program IP-11B for related policies that assure longterm affordability of units at the very low, low, and moderate income affordability levels. N/A
Service Population and Housing is not a service and does not provide a service; therefore there are no service constraints for this
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table Notes 1 Existing Conditions Rating indicates how well the existing conditions support the resource area (e.g., aesthetics, agriculture, biology, etc). The rating is defined in one of the following three ways: Positive (+) indicates an opportunity or an issue that would not pose a constraint. Neutral (/) indicates an issue that is neutral and neither positive or negative. Negative (-) indicates a constraint that would be difficult to overcome. 2 The Urban column indicates that the property would be converted to some type of urban use and the Ag column indicates that the property would be converted to some type of active agricultural use. The Future Property Use rating is the same as defined above (positive, neutral, or negative) and indicates how well an urban use or ag use would support the resource area given the identified opportunities or constraints.
July 21, 2011
F-23
Appendix F: Demographics, Housing, and Land Use
F.5.2
Jobs-to-Housing Balance As discussed above, a jobs-to-housing imbalance has existed within the City since 2010. The jobs-to-housing ratio at full General Plan buildout (2030) could range from 1.97 to 1.98, indicating a future jobs-to-housing imbalance (the ideal ratio is 1.5). This estimate is slightly lower compared to the 2.02 ratio estimated by SBCAG for 2030 and slightly higher than the jobs-to-housing ratio in the 2006 GP/CLUP EIR (1.49 to 1.74). At full Plan buildout the jobs-toemployed residents ratio would range between 0.58 to 0.67, which is also below the ideal ratio of 1. Future growth opportunities in the City will be limited due to the limited amount of vacant land. The property could accommodate a mix of future residential and commercial development. It is likely that the land use designation change would result in the development of additional commercial space that would be of neighborhood in scope and scale, and therefore it likely would not result in such a substantial increase in jobs as to further exacerbate the current jobsto-housing imbalance. Furthermore, it would likely not result in a significant increase in the net out-commute and in-commute because it would be generally neighborhood serving. However, the jobs to housing balance would be required to be re-assessed under the General Plan requirements and as part of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Regional Growth Forecast process. If growth property creates more jobs than housing, additional pressure on the regional transportation system would result, triggering regulatory requirements to address the imbalance locally. In the future the limited land availability, the limited housing availability and limited vacancy opportunities would continue to drive up housing and rental prices in the City. The addition of the property as an urban use would increase the amount of land available for development in the City. However, housing development can be constrained by limited resources (such as potable water availability and circulation), which means that if the property is designated urban land use, property currently identified as urban land use in the General Plan may not be developed and high housing and rental price conditions will continue. Strategies used to create a balance are: mixed use requirements (developments with both commercial and residential units), linkage programs that require nonresidential development projects to contribute to an affordable housing fund, and private-public partnerships in which governments contribute financially in order to support and encourage developments that help balance jobs and housing. Implementation of HE Policies 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 would encourage and support a future jobs-to-housing balance. The City could also implement phasing agreements into future development agreements that balance job and housing creation throughout the construction period. This would ensure that both residential construction and jobs are properly timed and phased together. According to the City Housing Element, currently zoned sites for residential development have a total unit potential for 1,645 units, which is far above the remaining total RHNA need of 938 units (City of Goleta , 2010). By adding sites planned for rezoning (an additional 631units) the total unit capacity is 1,338 units above the remaining total RHNA for the 2007-to-2014 planning
July 21, 2011
F-24
period. Based on this information, it appears that the City will meet its regional housing needs allocation of 1,641 units for the 2007-to-2014 planning period. Affordable Housing Also related to this is the issue of housing affordability. Currently there seems to be disparity between median housing prices and median incomes. The County is acknowledged to be facing a substantial affordable housing shortage. More workers may live in less expensive areas to afford the cost of housing, and commute further to their jobs. This also results in an increase in the net out-commute, thereby potentially increasing the existing traffic volumes between Goleta and Santa Barbara on US-101, which also results in increased air quality, GHG emissions, and noise impacts. The analysis of sites conducted for the Housing Element evaluated potential site constraints so that realistic development potential from each site could be determined. Based on this analysis, the City of Goleta has identified sufficient sites at densities of 20 units or more per acre to achieve the RHNA requirements for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderateincome housing between 2007 and 2014. Combined with the constructed units and approved projects since the beginning of the RHNA period, this RHNA requirement is far exceeded. Therefore, the City has demonstrated that it does not currently need property to meet the RHNA requirements for the 2007-to-2014 planning period. It is unclear what future RHNA requirements will be beyond the 2007-to-2014 planning period. With limited vacant lands and limited sites having the potential for redevelopment within the City, it may be difficult for the City to identify sites in the future to fulfill future affordable housing needs, if any are identified by SBCAG. The property site could be used to develop future low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing to help the City meet its future RHNA requirements (i.e., those housing requirements that would be identified beyond the current RHNA 2007-to-2014 planning period). However, developed uses, absent substantial 20housing-units-per-acre zoning and onsite production of affordable housing, would likely have a negative effect on the outcome of the States RHNA process. The affordability status of completed projects within the City is ensured with affordability agreements and covenants (deed restrictions) as a condition of approval by the City. For example, the Sumida Gardens project, providing a total of 200 rental units, sets affordability requirements based on the median area income. Affordability levels are based on the income limits published by HCD. The number of units by affordability level and the terms of restriction are specified in Table 10A-32 Approved and Existing Affordable Housing Units of the Housing Element. The affordability of future extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households will be ensured through affordability covenants; see Housing Element Policy 10.2 Other Incentives for Affordable Housing Developments, as implemented through Program IP11B Monitoring and Long Term Affordability, and Refer to Housing Element Policies HE 8.3, HE 10.2, and HE 11.7 and Implementation Program IP-11B for related policies that ensure longterm affordability of units at the very low-, low-, and moderate-income affordability levels. The Bishop Ranch applicant asserts that the property would help solve some of the Citys housing needs for affordable or price-sensitive housing. The application also claims the property would provide an opportunity to re-balance the overemphasis on multi-family units and would result in the less disruption to the character of the City of Goleta. The Bishop Ranch parcel property could provide future affordable housing if the need is identified beyond 2014 by
July 21, 2011
F-25
SBCAG and the HCD, and it provides substantial 20-housing-units-per-acre zoning and onsite production of affordable housing. However, as of preparation of this document it appears that the City can meet RHNA 2007-to-2014 requirements for affordable housing without the property. In 2008, 51 percent of the housing units in the City were considered single-family residences and 23 percent of the units were considered multi-family units. After review of Tables 10A-24 and 10A25 of the Draft Housing Element Technical Appendix it appears that there is a variety of housing types and densities proposed. Active Agricultural Uses Active agricultural uses on the property would have minimal impacts on the jobs-to-housing balance because it is not anticipated that a large number of jobs would be created. However, by keeping the existing land use designation and having active agriculture use there would be the potential to provide farmworker housing on the site, which is consistent with IP-5G Farmworker Housing and Policy HE 5: Special Needs Housing and Support Programs. F.5.3 Additional Analysis Required and Questions
The jobs to housing balance would be required to be re-assessed under the General Plan requirements and as part of the SBCAG Regional Growth Forecast process. If growth property creates more jobs than housing, additional pressure on the regional transportation system would result, triggering regulatory requirements to address the imbalance locally.
July 21, 2011
F-26
Appendix G Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards
Appendix G: Geology, Soils, and Geologic Hazards
GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND GEOLOGIC HAZARDS
This section discusses the geology, soils, and geologic hazards of the Bishop Ranch property (property) and adjacent areas. This section describes the following:
environmental setting regarding geology, soils, and geologic hazards such as seismic hazards on the property, including figures identifying the existing topography and geologic resources, soil types and their characteristics, erosion, and seismic hazards; regulatory setting for geology, soils, and geologic hazards; and constraints and opportunities associated with geology, soils, and geologic hazards.
This section uses information gathered from the California Geologic Service, the Public Safety Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/CLUP), the County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, the Santa Barbara Seismic Tectonic Map, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Soil Survey Handbook, the UC Davis Soil Resource Laboratory, the State of California Department of Conservation, and the City of Goleta GP/CLUP Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to generally determine if existing geology and soils on and adjacent to Bishop Ranch constrain the property.
G.1
G.1.1
Geology, Soils, and Topography
The property is broken into two distinct geological sedimentary Quaternary Units: Qoa and Qa. The quaternary unit Qoa makes up the majority of the property and is characterized by Older Dissected Surficial Sediments, made up of former alluvial deposits of silt, sand, and gravel, in places weakly consolidated; local unconformities at base. Qa is characterized as Surficial Sediments, made up of unconsolidated flood-plain alluvial deposits of silt, sand, and gravel. Figure G-1 shows the breakdown of Quaternary units across the property. Some of these underlying quaternary units are underlain by Monterey Formation (Tm) and Rincon Formation (Tr) in the northern part of the property (shown at approximately 100 feet above mean sea level on Figure G-1). Appendix A identifies soils found on the property; these are listed below in Table G-1. TABLE G-1: SUMMARY OF SOILS
Soil Symbol MeC MeD2 MeE2 DaD AaC DaC GU GcA AaA
1 2
Soil Type Name Milpas Positas fine sandy loam Milpas Positas fine sandy loam Milpas Positas fine sandy loam Diablo clay Aqueda silty clay loam Diablo clay Gullied lands Goleta fine sandy loam Aqueda silty clay loam
Slope (percent) 29 915 1530 915 29 29 N/A 02 02
Wind Erodibility 1,2 Group 3 3 3 7 5 7 N/A 3 7
Source: California Soil Resources 2011. Source: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Services 2011.
The majority of the property contains soils with moderately high erodibility potential. The USDA National Soil Survey Handbook designates the wind erodibility of soils. Soils composed primarily
July 21, 2011
G-1
of Milpas/Positas deposits (such as MeC, MeD, and MeD2) fall in wind erodibility group 3 (on a scale of 18). These soil types have a wind erodibility index of 86 tons per acre per year (tons/ac/yr) of soil. Goleta fine sand loam (GcA) also has an erodibility index of 3. Diablo and Aqueda deposits characteristically have lower erodibility. Agueda silty clay loam (AaC) falls in wind erodibility group of 5, which has a wind erodibility index of 56 tons/ac/yr. Diablo clay deposits and Aqueda clay deposits (DaD, DaC, and AaA) fall in wind erodibility group 7, which has a wind erodibility index of 38 tons/ac/yr. The property has variable topography. Although it is generally flat, approximately 34 acres have a slope that is greater than 15 percent; 19 acres have a slope that is greater than 20 percent. G.1.2 Geologic & Seismic Hazards
The property is located roughly 2,000 feet south of the Glen Annie Fault as delineated by Figure 5-1 (Geologic Hazards Map) in the Citys General Plan (Goleta 2006). Other fault zones in the area include the More Ranch Fault, located to the south of the property, and the Carneros Fault, located to the north of the property. Fault systems surrounding the property consist of:

the Goleta Fault, located to the east/northeast; the Dos Pueblos Fault, located to the west/northwest; the Eagle Fault, located to the west/northwest; and the Las Varas Fault located to the west of the property.
According to the General Plan Safety Element, none of these faults are classified as active by the State Division of Mines and Geology or subject to an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. However, the More Ranch Fault is considered active, according to the Santa Barbara County Seismic Safety and Safety Element (SSSE; 2011). Geologic and seismic hazards such as ground shaking and liquefaction could potentially affect the property. Based on the proximity to the More Ranch fault, which is considered potentially active, the property would likely experience ground shaking in the event of a seismic event. Liquefaction is the loss of tensile strength within soil associated with soil pore water pressure during a seismic event. Based on the County of Santa Barbaras geographic information system (GIS) liquefaction map, the property falls within two severity classes: Severity Class 3 (High) and Severity Class 2 (Moderate). Approximately 41 acres of Severity Class 3 exist on the property, with 200 acres of Severity Class 2. Therefore, the conditions for liquefaction to occur exist on the current property. The conditions for other soil-related hazards such as compressible or collapsible soils and expansive soils also exist. The General Plan Safety Element states that expansive soils occur within Monterey and Rincon Formations, which are found underlying the property. Therefore, there is the potential for the presence of expansive soils. Figure 3.6-3 of the GP/CLUP also shows the presence of compressible soils on the property. Approximately 19 acres of the property contain compressible soils. Figure 5-1 of the General Plan Safety Element also identifies locations of high and moderate landslide potential. No areas of high or moderate landslide potential occur on or nearby the property; therefore, the likelihood of landslides is small.
July 21, 2011
G-2
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Geo\FigG_1_Quaternary_Units_1.ai SM (07-18-11)
Source: Michael F. Hoover
Figure G-1 QUATERNARY UNITS
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Geo\2011Mar\FigG_1_Quaternary_Units_2.ai SM (07-18-11)
Source: Michael F. Hoover
Figure G-1 Continued QUATERNARY UNITS
Radon gas is a naturally occurring carcinogen, which can occur in association with various geologic formations such as Rincon Formations. Some Rincon Formations are located under the surface formations in the northern part of the property (See Figure G-1). The State Department of Conservation designates the property as moderate potential for indoor radon levels to exceed four picocuries per liter (Department of Conservation 2011). Figure G-1 identifies the Rincon Formation (Tr) location under the property and Figure G-2 identifies the faults, the liquefaction zones, compressible soils, erodible soils, and the possible radon area on the property.
G.2
G.2.1

Federal
No federal laws, ordinances, or regulations apply. G.2.2 State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is to reduce the risk to life and property caused by one type of earthquake hazardsurface fault rupture. The act prohibits the construction of most types of structures in earthquake fault zones, which are regulatory zones established by the State geologist. The State geologist defines these zones by delineating the surface traces of active faults and then issues maps showing the location of these zones. Seismic Hazards Mapping Act The purpose of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is to protect public safety from other types of earthquake hazards not related to surface fault rupture, including strong ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. Like the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act mandates that the State geologist delineate zones. The locations of these zones, called seismic hazard zones, are shown on the Seismic Hazard Zone Maps. G.2.3 Local
City of Goleta General Plan The Safety Element of the GP/CLUP contains policies that relate to geologic hazards. The following policies and implementation actions are relevant to geologic hazards on the property.
SE 1.3 Site-Specific Hazards Studies. [GP/CP] Applications for new development shall consider exposure of the new development to coastal and other hazards. Where appropriate, an application for new development shall include a geologic/soils/geotechnical study and any other studies that identify geologic hazards affecting the proposed project site and any necessary mitigation measures. The study report shall contain a statement certifying that the project site is suitable for the proposed development and that the development will be safe from geologic hazards. The report shall be prepared and signed by a licensed certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and shall be subject to review and acceptance by the City. SE 1.6 Enforcement of Building Codes. [GP] The City shall ensure through effective enforcement measures that all new construction in the city is built according to the adopted building and fire codes
July 21, 2011
G-3
SE 1.9 Reduction of Radon Hazards. [GP] The City shall require the consideration of radon hazards for all new construction and require testing of radon levels for construction of homes and buildings located in areas subject to moderate or high potential for radon gas levels exceeding 4.0 picocuries as shown on maps produced by the California Division of Mines and Geology. The City shall require new homes to use radon-resistant construction where needed based on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. SE 4.1 Information on Faults and Geologic Hazards. [GP/CP] The City will maintain up-to-date information on faults and geologic hazards in and offshore of Goleta as provided in source documents from the California Division of Mines and Geology, the U.S. Geological Survey, and other agencies. As new information from geologic studies becomes available, the City shall incorporate this information into its maps and resources pertaining to seismic hazards. SE 4.2 Potentially Active Faults. [GP/CP] Potentially active faults shall be subject to the same requirements as active faults unless and until geological or geotechnical studies demonstrate that a given potentially active fault is not active. SE 4.3 Geotechnical and Geologic Studies Required. [GP/CP] Where appropriate, the City shall require applications for planning entitlements for new or expanded development to address potential geologic and seismic hazards through the preparation of geotechnical and geologic reports for City review and acceptance. SE 4.5 Adoption of Updated California Building Code Requirements. [GP] The City shall review, amend, and adopt new California Building Code requirements, when necessary, to promote the use of updated construction standards. The City shall consider and may adopt new optional state revisions for Seismic Hazards. SE 4.10 Avoidance of Liquefaction Hazard Areas for Critical Facilities1. [GP/CP] The City shall discourage the construction of critical facilities in areas of potential liquefaction. In cases where construction of such facilities cannot avoid liquefactionhazard areas, the City shall require implementation of appropriate mitigation as recommended in site-specific geotechnical and soils studies. SE 4.11 Geotechnical Report Required. [GP/CP] The City shall require geotechnical and/or geologic reports as part of the application for construction of habitable structures and essential services buildings (as defined by the building code) sited in areas having a medium-to-high potential for liquefaction and seismic settlement. The geotechnical study shall evaluate the potential for liquefaction and/or seismic-related settlement to impact the development, and identify appropriate structural-design parameters to mitigate potential hazards. SE 5.1 Evaluation of Slope-Related Hazards. [GP/CP] The City shall require geotechnical/geological, soil, and structural engineering studies for all development proposed in areas of known high and moderate landslide potential or on slopes equaling or exceeding 25 percent. The studies shall evaluate the potential for landslides, rockfalls, creep, and other mass movement processes that could impact the development; they shall also identify mitigation to reduce these potential impacts, if needed. The studies shall be included as part of an application for development.
Critical Facilities are defined in the General Plan Safety Element as hospitals, schools, communication centers, fire and police facilities, power plants, etc.
July 21, 2011
G-4
Dos Pueblos Fault
Los
Eagle Fault
Glen Annie Fault
Carn
Go l
eros Fa u lt
et a
Fa ul
Las Varas Fault

Property
More Ranch Fa ult

NOTE: If fault is not labeled it is not named.
s Lo rn e Ca ros
City L
imits
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Rd
K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Geo\FigG_2_geologic_conditions.mxd SM (07-18-11)
Lo sC
ar
ne r
os C
re
ek
A en Gl
Legend Property Seasonal Creeks Onsite Drainage Feature Geologic Conditions Faults Slope > 20% High Potential for Indoor Radon Levels Above Four Picocuries per Liter Erodible Soils
Source: City of Goleta; ESRI (2008); California Department of Conservation; FEMA
n le G A
ie R nn d
ek re
or
ie nn
De lN
200 Feet
te
Dr
nP Unio
acific
RR
400
Compressible Soils Moderate Potential for Indoor Radon Levels Liquefaction Zones Above Four Picocuries per Liter Severity Class = 3 (High) Severity Class = 2 (Moderate)
Acreages Total Site = 240 acres High Radon Areas = 47 acres Moderate Radon Areas = 35 acres Erodible Soils = 176 acres
Compressible Soils = 19 acres Liquefaction Zones (High) = 41 acres Liquefaction Zones (Moderate) = 200 acres Slopes > 20% = 19 acres
Figure G-2 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
SE 5.2 Evaluation of Soil-Related Hazards. [GP/CP] The City shall require structural evaluation reports with appropriate mitigation measures to be provided for all new subdivisions, and for discretionary projects proposing new nonresidential buildings or substantial additions. Depending on the conclusions of the structural evaluation report, soil and geological reports may also be required. Such studies shall evaluate the potential for soil expansion, compression, and collapse to impact the development; they shall also identify mitigation to reduce these potential impacts, if needed. SE 5.5 Minimization of Grading in Hazardous Areas. [GP/CP] All construction proposed for areas with steep (equal to or greater than 25 percent) slopes or subject to soil and slope-related hazards shall minimize the area to be graded and shall also minimize the area of vegetation removal or disturbance.
City of Goleta Zoning Ordinance The City Municipal Codes establish standards for geology thresholds that state: Section 21-93 Findings Required for Approval of a Lot Line Adjustment. Otherwise, to be deemed a residentially developable parcel for the purposes of this subsection, only, existing and proposed parcels shall satisfy all of the following criteria as set forth in the County Comprehensive Plan and zoning and building ordinances:
Slope Stability: Development of the parcel including infrastructure avoids slopes of thirty (30) percent of greater.
Section 21-7 Submission of Tentative Maps Including Tentative Parcel Maps. (6). A preliminary grading plan showing the location and magnitude of all cut and fills that will result from the street and lot development of the proposed subdivision shall be provided when natural slopes of ten percent of steeper occur within the area be subdivided. County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual The County Environmental Threshold and Guidelines Manual includes requirements for construction noise that apply in the absence of a City municipal code. The geology thresholds state that: Impacts related to geology have the potential to be significant if they involve any of the following characteristics:
The project site or any part of the project is located on land having substantial geologic constraints, as determined by P&D or PWD. Areas constrained by geology include parcels located near active or potentially active faults and property underlain by rock types associated 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. The project proposes construction of a cut slope over 15 feet in height as measured from the lowest finished grade. The project is located on slopes exceeding 20% grade.
July 21, 2011
G-5
G.3
G.3.1

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in terms of environmental, regulatory and permitting, and services in the sections below. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the City of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property as an urban land use or to resume active agricultural practices on the property. Service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. Existing information geologic considerations and hazards was gathered from various sources as described and mapped above in the environmental conditions section. Regulatory requirements were reviewed and included as applicable to geologic hazards. Presence or absence of the geologic hazard is noted on the property and surrounding area and evaluations are made as to the potential effect of those hazards to urban or active agricultural use. G.3.2 Assumptions
The following assumptions are incorporated into the analysis:

Any development is required to adhere to building codes with respect to seismic hazards and therefore would adhere to these codes. The landslide potential is assumed to be negligible, as shown in the General Plans land slide probability map. Under an active agricultural condition, structures would be limited to a ranch house, farmworker housing, barns, storage, and other support buildings. All appropriate geotechnical studies identified by the policies of General Plan and required by the City of Goleta and the State of California would be prepared prior to any urban development on the property.
G.4
A.4.1
Evaluation
There are several opportunities and constraints associated with the property in terms of geology, soils, and geologic hazards. These are summarized in Table G-1.
July 21, 2011
G-6
TABLE G-2: SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Resource Opportunity or Constraint The More Ranch Fault. Existing Condition 1 Rating / Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future change to urban use could result in the exposure of people or structures to seismic shaking located along the More Ranch Fault. Structures developed would be subject to seismic shaking. Future change to urban use could result in the exposure of structures to expansion from underlying soils and possible damage. Future change to urban or active agricultural use could result in the exposure of people or structures to liquefaction events. Structures would be potentially exposed to liquefiable layers, which could result in extensive damage to structures on the property. Future change to urban or active agricultural use could result in the exposure of people or structures to compressible soils. Future change to land use should consider the exposure of people to increased levels of Radon gas in light of the presence of the Rincon Formation underlying the property. Increased agricultural use would remove much of the natural ground cover, which could increase surface contact to wind and accentuate erosion when and if the soil is exposed. Urban uses would initially increase the potential for erosion during construction, when the soil is exposed; however, the potential for erosion would likely be reduced during operation by covering much of the erodible surface with Relevance to Future Property Use and Rating2 Urban Ag /
Existing Condition Environmental The More Ranch Fault is located to the south of the property and is considered active.
Most of the property is underlined by both Rincon and Monterey formations, which are associated with the potential presence of expansive soils. The property could potentially be subject to liquefaction associated with water within the alluvial substrate and seismic events (Santa Barbara County 2009).
Expansive soils.
Liquefaction.
The property could potentially be subject to compressible soils (approximately 19 acres within the property are considered compressible). The property is underlined by Rincon formations, which are known sources of Radon Gas (approximately 47 acres have a high potential for radon and approximately 35 acres have moderate potential for radon). The majority of the property contains soils with moderate to high erodibility (approximately 175 acres).
Compressible soils.
Radon gas.
The property is currently vacant land.
July 21, 2011
G-7
Existing Condition Regulatory and Permitting The General Plan identifies a number of policies requiring geotechnical studies for new development within the City, including: SE 1.3, SE 4.3, SE 4.11, SE 5.1, and SE 5.2. SE 5.5 identifies that a minimization of grading will occur in hazardous areas (slopes greater than 25 percent), while the County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual designates a slope of 20 percent as having the potential for significant impacts. The zoning ordinance recommends minimization of grading on slopes greater than 30 percent. Service There are no service constraints for geology.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint impermeable layers and landscaping. Geotechnical studies would be required per the General Plan policies for development of the property. A change in land use to urban uses that does not preserve steep slopes on the property or minimize grading would be inconsistent with this policy because of the acreage of steep slopes on the property. Agricultural uses would not involve development on steep slopes.
These policies do not apply to the existing vacant land. The property currently has 19 acres of slopes greater than 20 percent.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
July 21, 2011
G-8
G.4.2
Geological hazards associated with the property are currently considered negligible because the property does not include habitable structures or geologically sensitive land uses. The potential inclusion of increased agricultural development or the possible change of land use designation from an agricultural land use to an urban land use could potentially expose new structures and people to geological hazards including ground shaking, liquefaction, compressible soils, expansive soils, and radon. The General Plan Safety Element and the Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual designate policies that require or suggest geotechnical studies to access the probability and extent of different geological hazards that may affect the property. These studies would likely require design specifications for development or modifications to the property to reduce potential hazards. Erosion potentially would likely be decreased by urban development because the property would be graded and largely covered with impermeable surfaces and landscaping. Overall, any development on the property would be required to follow building codes, prepare geotechnical reports, and be constructed to withstand certain earthquake activities. Therefore, much of the hazards associated with geology could be reduced through geotechnical studies and geotechnical design of structures. Active agriculture would generally not be affected by geologic hazards with the exception of the potential for increased erosion. The property contains moderately high erosion potential associated with soil types. Increased agricultural production could potentially remove what natural layer of vegetation exists on the site and expose topsoil to increased wind, thereby increasing erosion. G.4.3 Additional Analysis Required and Questions
Geologic and seismic hazards exist on the property. Geologic analysis from a certified geologist would be required if the property were to be developed under an urban land use.
July 21, 2011
G-9
Appendix H Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Appendix H: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
This section discusses hazards and hazardous materials on the Bishop Ranch property (property) and adjacent areas. It describes the following:

environmental setting including existing hazardous materials and hazardous wastes within and adjacent to the property, regulatory setting for hazardous materials, and constraints and opportunities associated with hazardous materials.
This section uses information gathered from Federal, State and local hazardous materials databases, Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), and the Safety Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/CLUP) to generally determine if existing hazards within and adjacent to Bishop Ranch constrain the property. For information regarding airborne hazardous materials and the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) please see Appendix C, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases.
H.1
H.1.1
Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Generators
As defined by the State of California, a hazardous material or waste is a substance that is toxic, ignitable or flammable, reactive, and/or corrosive (California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22, Section 66261). The distinction between hazardous materials and wastes is that wastes are typically used (spent) hazardous materials (e.g., waste oil and process-generated byproducts such as petroleum residue from oil and gas processes). Hazardous materials may be stored and/or used in certain manufacturing or industrial operations in construction, and in operations at other commercial facilities such as gas stations, hospitals, commercial businesses (e.g., dry cleaners, and chemical and paint suppliers), and retail businesses. Hazardous wastes may be generated at such industrial, manufacturing, or commercial facilities as part of normal operations (e.g., dry cleaners, gas stations, oil refineries) or at residential homes. Aerosols, asbestos, batteries, fluorescent bulbs, mercury, motor oil, and lead-based paint are examples of such hazardous waste. The primary concerns associated with the release of a hazardous material are the short- and long-term effects that exposure to a hazardous substance may have on the public. To minimize potential impacts, hazardous materials are governed by regulations that require proper storage and handling, employee and public noticing, spill contingency planning, business/environmental management plans, and other emergency preventative and response measures necessary to ensure public safety and to minimize the risk of accidental releases and associated environmental impacts. The Hazardous Material Release Response Plans and Inventory Law (California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95) provides the regulatory framework that mandates what is necessary to minimize risk and ensure public safety (see Section H.2, Applicable Regulations:).
July 21, 2011
H-1
Hazardous wasteproducing businesses must obtain a Santa Barbara County Hazardous Waste Generator Permit and comply with State regulations. The permit must be renewed annually. There are 151 sites listed with the Santa Barbara County Fire Department (SBCFD) as hazardous waste generators in the City of Goleta (County of Santa Barbara Fire Department 2003). Hazardous Materials Business Plans (HMBPs) are required for businesses that handle or store hazardous materials at specific volumes or amounts. The HMBP provides an inventory of hazardous materials stored on site, emergency response and contingency procedures, and an employee training program. The administering agencies for hazardous materials use and hazardous materials and wastes handling, storage, and disposal in the City of Goleta (City) are the Santa Barbara County Fire Prevention Division (SBCFPD) and the Santa Barbara County Office of Emergency Services (SBCOES). The SBCFPD administers the HMBPs. There are approximately 100 businesses in Goleta that have HMBPs (County of Santa Barbara Fire Department 2003). The SBCFPD also regulates and enforces underground storage tank installation and monitoring requirements, including permitting and inspecting. The SBCFPD is also responsible for administering the States leaking underground fuel tank (LUFT) program. The purpose of the LUFT program is to oversee the proper assessment and remediation of contaminants released from underground storage tanks that primarily store petroleum products. There are approximately 50 identified LUFTs within the City, and, of those, 16 are still open cases and in some stage of investigation and/or remediation (Geotracker 2011). In addition to the LUFT program, Santa Barbara County has a Site Mitigation Unit (SMU) to address non-LUFT releases that do not fall under the auspices of LUFT. Guidelines for assessment/ remediation in SMUs are very similar, if not the same, as LUFTs. Businesses using acutely hazardous materials (AHM) must submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP) in accordance with the California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program, pursuant to Title 19 of the CCR Public Safety, Division 2 Office of Emergency Services (CCR 2004). The SBCFD Hazardous Materials Unit (HMU) administers the requirements of CalARP and requires such businesses to prepare a RMP (also referred to as a Risk Management and Prevention Program [RMPP] by HMU) that details past AHM accidents, AHM equipment condition, maintenance and monitoring, and controls to minimize the risk of accident.1 H.1.2 Historic and Documented Hazardous Sites
The City has a history of urban uses, including extensive and diverse industrial, commercial, and residential uses, as well as agricultural and rural land uses. The City has a history of known contaminant releases, with active remediation sites, some closed sites, and a number of properties that can be considered a higher risk for contamination based on historic or current land uses. As a result of the history of industrial and commercial development, there are several
To identify the number of Risk Management Plans in the City, a physical search of the CUPA records would be required. This was not performed at this time.
July 21, 2011
H-2
sites within the City that have the potential to have been impacted by previous or current releases of contaminated materials. As discussed in Chapter 2, Setting, and Appendix B, Agriculture, the property was part of the much larger Bishop Ranch and was historically used for agricultural purposes. It is known that several crops grew at Bishop Ranch including limes, lemons, walnuts, olives, almonds, and grapes; the ranch has also been used for raising cattle. Based on the past history of agricultural production, it is likely that the property was subject to some type of pesticide, herbicide, and/or fertilizer use. However, no soil or groundwater testing has been done to determine whether residual agricultural chemicals remain on the property. A search of government sources and databases was conducted by Environmental Data Resources (EDR) to identify listed hazardous material users, hazardous materials generators, or hazardous release sites within and surrounding the property (EDR 2010 and Attachment 2). In addition Figure 3.7-1 of the General Plan identifies one hazardous site within the property. Although the General Plan and figure do not identify the nature of the site, it is likely a Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) and could be the same historic LUST identified by the EDR search. Per the EDR report, there is only one site located on the property for a Historical Underground Storage Tank (HIST UST). There is another listing for a LUST Cleanup Site, the status of which is Completed Case Closed. There are no other listings on the property. Most of the other sites identified by the EDR report are located south of US-101, down gradient or at lower elevations than the property. The listing closest to the property is to the south across the US-101, and contains three hazardous material sites: a drycleaner, an industrial facility, and a building owned by Raytheon listed as a small quantity generator. All other listings are more distant, either near these listings to the south or to the west of the property. All listings are greater than 0.25 mile from a central point on the property. H.1.3 Wastes Oil and Gas Production, Processing, and Transport of Hazardous Materials and
Oil and Gas Pipelines Natural gas pipelines operating outside of industrial facilities and public works facilities are located in most City rights-of-way (ROWs). Oil pipelines are less common but are also typically located within City ROWs. These pipelines are regulated by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the California Public Utilities Commission. In part because of regulatory oversight, oil and gas pipelines within the City are not subject to frequent leaks. Third party damage to pipelines, however, remains a major cause of pipeline leaks, and third party caused gas leaks can result in an explosion. One major oil and gas production and processing facility, the Venoco Ellwood Onshore Oil and Gas Processing Facility (EOF), is located within the Citys boundaries near its western boundary and near the shoreline. No known natural gas pipelines or oil pipelines extend through the property (American Title Company 2011).
July 21, 2011
H-3
Road and Rail Transport Transportation corridors occupied by vehicles or railcars transporting hazardous material or wastes are also potential sources of accidental releases that could affect various areas of the property. Transportation of hazardous materials and wastes in the City is most likely to occur along US-101 and Cathedral Oaks Road. There are Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) tracks that run just to the south of the property, and the railroad is likely to transport hazardous materials as well. Goleta is a participant in the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. The City, in cooperation with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the County, and the State Offices of Emergency Services, is responsible for emergency preparedness and response. The Hazard Mitigation Plan would be utilized to identify evacuation routes and secondary emergency accesses and to provide information to the community regarding appropriate individual actions in the event of accidental releases from vehicles transporting hazardous materials or wastes. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) enforces DOT, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and State and local regulations. The CHP and SBCFD would respond to incidents associated with transport of hazardous materials. H.1.4 Urban and Wildland Fire Hazards
Urban fires pose a potential risk to structures in any city. In addition, certain areas within Goleta have been designated as high wildland fire hazard areas. The area adjacent to the property north of Cathedral Oaks Road is designated as a high wildland fire hazard area. The property is not designated as such. Land that is susceptible to high fire hazards generally includes steep slopes and ample vegetation, or fuel load. The existing topography of the property has over 41 acres of land at a 1020 percent slope and an additional 19 acres of land at a slope of 20 percent or greater. Much of the land is vacant mowed nonnative grass, with clusters of trees. H.1.5 Airport-Related Hazards
The property is located within the Airport Influence Area for the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport. For the City, hazards associated with airport operations consist primarily of the risk of aircraft accidents in areas outside of the immediate airport. The risk of accidents is highest during takeoffs and landings. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), a body within the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG), participates in the regulation of land use within its sphere of influence. The City is a member of SBCAG. The ALUCs policies and standards for development are contained in the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP 1993). The ALUC classifies Zone II Safety Areas that are based on degree of hazard. These areas are:
Safety Area 1 (Clear Zone): This is the most restrictive area because it is subject to the greatest danger. It must contain no obstructions that extend into airspace requirements of landing aircraft as defined in the Federal Aviation Administrations (FAAs) Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 77. The clear zone is defined as land under the approach slope from the primary surface end out to the point where the approach slope is 50 feet above ground level. The length of the clear zone varies with runway class; for Santa Barbara Airports its extension from the runways end is: Runway 7 2,700 feet; Runway 25 1,900 feet; Runway 15-33, E, W 1,200 feet (SBCAG ALUP 1993).
July 21, 2011
H-4
Safety Area 2 (Approach Zone): This zone is an extension of the clear zone in which uses that do not result in a concentration of people or particular fire hazard are generally allowed. Height restrictions in the approach zone are more severe than in other zones except the clear zone and must be absolutely enforced (SBCAG ALUP 1993). Safety Area 3 (General Zone): This area encompasses the remainder of Zone II and is the least restrictive. This is the area in which airport traffic patterns occur.
As identified in Figure 3.7-1 of the General Plan (Goleta 2006), the property is located northwest of the airport in Safety Area 3, or the General Zone. The property is situated north of the Approach Zone and Clear Zone located west of the airport. The property is also situated west of the approach zone that is north of the airport.
H.2
H.2.1
Applicable Regulations
Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 United States Code [USC] Section 6901-6987) The goal of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a Federal statute passed in 1976, is the protection of human health and the environment, the reduction of waste, the conservation of energy and natural resources, and the elimination of the generation of hazardous waste as expeditiously as possible. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 significantly expanded the scope of RCRA by adding new corrective action requirements, land disposal restrictions, and technical requirements. The corresponding regulations in 40 CFR 260-299 provide the general framework for managing hazardous waste, including requirements for entities that generate, store, transport, treat, and dispose of hazardous waste. Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) (42 USC 11001 et seq.) Also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), EPCRA was enacted by Congress as the national legislation on community safety. This law was designated to help local communities protect public health, safety, and the environment from chemical hazards. To implement EPCRA, Congress required each state to appoint a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC). The SERCs were required to divide their states into Emergency Planning Districts and to name a Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) for each district. EPCRA provides requirements for emergency release notification, chemical inventory reporting, and toxic release inventories for facilities that handle chemicals. Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77, Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace, (14 CFR 77.1, et seq.) FAR Part 77 Objects Affecting Navigable Airspace sets forth criteria for preservation of navigable airspace in the area of airport traffic patterns. Obstruction standards and procedure for notification of the FAA prior to construction or alteration of an existing or potential obstruction to navigable airspace are included within FAR Part 77. Santa Barbara County, the City of Goleta, the City of Santa Maria, and Lompoc have zoning ordinances that include airport approach zone overlays that apply more rigorous standards than those generally imposed by
July 21, 2011
H-5
FAR Part 77 (ALUP 1993). Planning boundaries and airport-specific recommendations for height restrictions are included in the ALUP. Spill Prevention and Control Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule Businesses that store petroleum products in aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) are required to prepare an SPCC Plan and provide secondary containment in case of a release. The SPCC Plan provides an inventory of oil-containing ASTs and vessels stored on site, the amounts of oil stored in each, emergency response and contingency procedures, and an employee training program. H.2.2 State
Proposition 65 Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, was enacted as a ballot initiative in November 1986. Proposition 65 requires the governor to publish, at least annually, a list of chemicals known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Proposition 65 generally requires that a warning be posted in businesses with ten or more employees where listed chemicals are used or present. Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities SBCAPCD has implemented the State Air Resources Boards Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Asbestos from Construction, Grading, Quarry, and Surface Mining Operations in lieu of adopting a County-specific rule. This rule is designed to limit asbestos emissions from building demolition/renovation activities. The rule requires buildings to be surveyed for asbestos-containing material (ACM) before building demolition. It also mandates ACM removal procedures to limit emissions. Hazardous Material Release Response Plans and Inventory Law (California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95) This State law requires businesses that handle more than 500 pounds (solid), 55 gallons (liquid), or 200 cubic feet (gas) of hazardous materials to develop a Release Response Plan for hazardous material emergencies. In addition, the business must prepare a Hazardous Materials Inventory of hazardous materials stored or handled at the facility above these thresholds. Hazardous materials must be stored in a safe manner. This law is designed to reduce the occurrence and severity of hazardous materials releases. An exemption exists for facilities (retail stores) handling hazardous materials contained solely in a consumer product and prepackaged for direct distribution to, and use by, the general public. Before a new certificate of occupancy is issued to a business that must comply with this law, the local agency must find that the business is in compliance with this law or the certificate will be denied. Both the Release Response Plan and the Hazardous Materials Inventory must be supplied to the CUPA for the program. In Goleta, the CUPA is the SBCFPD. Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.5) The Hazardous Waste Control Law is the basic hazardous waste law for California. It establishes criteria for defining hazardous waste and its safe handling, storage, treatment, and
July 21, 2011
H-6
disposal. The law is designed to provide cradle-to-grave management of hazardous wastes, as well as to reduce the occurrence and severity of hazardous material releases. The SBCFPD administers the program. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) DTSCs mission is to restore, protect, and enhance the environment and to ensure public health, environmental quality, and economic vitality by regulating hazardous waste, conducting and overseeing cleanups, and developing and promoting pollution prevention. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of the Federal RCRA of 1976, the California Health and Safety Code, and other laws that affect hazardous waste specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB) The CCRWQCB works on behalf of the State Water Quality Control Board (SWRCB) and implements the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). In particular, the CCRWQCB requires investigations from responsible parties where groundwater has been or may have been impacted by hazardous materials and/or waste releases to soil and groundwater. The CCRWQCB requires plans from industrial facilities, as defined by their respective State Industrial Codes, that use and/or store hazardous materials and wastes. The intent of the plans is to ensure that nonpoint source discharges from respective industrial facilities to surface waters of the State are eliminated. Often such facilities will have an HMBP and an SPCC plan. California Food and Agricultural Code The California Food and Agriculture Code regulates food preparation processes in an effort to enhance, protect, and perpetuate the ability of the private sector to produce food in a way that benefits the general welfare and economy of the State. The code also regulates the use of pesticides to avoid groundwater contamination and other hazards that can adversely affect the general welfare of nearby receptors. H.2.3 Local
Santa Barbara County Fire Department SBCFD provides fire suppression and fire prevention services to the City. The department has established standards for building and development review to minimize fire hazards and to provide for adequate fire suppression. SBCFD adheres to standards for fire hydrant spacing, fireflow, and need for sprinkler systems when reviewing proposed development within the City. Standards for peak-load water supply require that adequate water flow is available for effective fire suppression. The property is located to the south of a High Fire Hazard Severity zone. The SBCFPD has defensible space standards that require a 100-foot buffer of defensible space around all buildings and structures. This buffer requires 30 feet of clear space immediately adjacent to the building or structure and beyond that 30-foot buffer, there must be 70 feet where flammable vegetation is spaced to reduce plant-to-plant, plant-to-tree, and tree-to-tree transfer of fire both vertically and horizontally (SBCFPD 2010).
July 21, 2011
H-7
City of Goleta General Plan Safety Element The policies of the Safety Element are intended to preserve and protect Goletas safe environment and address hazards to public safety that may be found in the Citys natural and built environment in order to allow quality development in conformance with the provisions of the GP/CLUP. The following principles and goals, which are not in order of priority, provide the foundation for the detailed policies in Section 5.2 of the Safety Element. 1. Ensure that new development is sized, sited, and designed to avoid or minimize exposure to known physical or other hazards and that appropriate mitigations are included to reduce or avoid risks to people and property. 2. Ensure that new critical facilities (hospitals, schools, communication centers, fire and police facilities, power plants, etc.) are located and designed to continue functioning after potential earthquakes or other disasters. 3. Minimize exposure to hazardous materials for all residential development through consideration of appropriate locations for new residential development as well as potential impacts of new or expanded industrial uses. 4. Increase awareness of residents and workers of coastal, geological, industrial, and other hazards, as well as appropriate hazard avoidance measures and emergency preparedness. 5. Strictly enforce California Building Code compliance to protect building owners and occupants and minimize risk of structural damage and economic disruption. City of Goleta Municipal Code The Citys municipal code identifies regulations related to hazardous materials storage, notification of illegal discharges, public nuisances, and contamination cleanup plan development and implementations (Sections 8.02, 12.13.030, 13.04.130, and 8.05.040)
H.3
H.3.1

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in terms of environmental, regulatory and permitting, and services in the sections below. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the City of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property either as urban land use or to resume active agricultural practices on the property. Service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. As described above, the presence or absence of hazards and hazardous materials is identified on the property and uses surrounding the property. The presence or absence of those hazards is then compared to urban uses or active agricultural uses. An evaluation is made as to whether
July 21, 2011
H-8
the presence or absence of hazards or hazardous materials would constrain the future uses. Hazards associated with geology, air quality, hydrology are discussed in their respective chapters. H.3.2 Assumptions
The following assumptions were made to conduct the analysis.
Soil and groundwater testing have not been conducted on the property to determine whether past agricultural activities have left residual compounds above regulatory testing limits. Future urban development will require a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase II depending on the results of the Phase I. The soil may have residual contamination. Future active agricultural use would use fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and other potentially hazardous chemicals. Habitable structures would not be built as part of active agriculture uses.
H.4
H.4.1
Evaluation
There are several opportunities and constraints associated with the property in regards to hazards and hazardous materials. These are summarized in Table H-1 below.
July 21, 2011
H-9
TABLE H-1: SUMMARY OF HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Relevance to Future Property Use 2 and Rating Urban Ag + +
Existing Condition Environmental There are no currently known hazardous material sites or hazardous material waste sites located on the property. There are currently no uses on the property that require the use, disposal, or transport of hazardous materials. The property is located outside of Safety Zone 3 of the airport. The property was previously used as agricultural land.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The property is free of known hazardous material sites.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future use of the property would not likely be hindered by hazardous material sites or hazardous materials waste sites. Future use of the property may use hazardous materials that could result in exposure to humans or the environment There are no constraints on land use on the property due to its proximity to the airport. Future use of the property may be constrained if the property soil has residual pesticides or herbicides. Active agricultural uses would likely use fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides.
-
There are no major industrial uses using large quantities of hazardous materials around the property.
The property is free of the use, disposal, or transportation of hazardous materials. Hazards associated with the airport currently do not occur. Lands that were previously used for agricultural purposes are known to use herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers, which can be hazardous to human health and the environment. It is unknown if soils on the property currently have residual pesticide or herbicides from past use or if they have degraded below regulatory levels. Generally the property is not surrounded by uses that are considered hazardous, such as industrial uses. The property is vacant and not exposed to these types of hazardous uses.
+ /
+
-
+ -
Some of the uses surrounding the property may handle or transport hazardous materials, such as the orchards to the north and east and US-101 and Glen Annie Road to the south and west.
Future urban use of the property would not likely be constrained by the surrounding properties because there are no major industrial uses using large quantities of hazardous materials on site. Future urban use of the property would likely not be constrained by the surrounding properties handling or transport of hazardous materials. Any transport of hazardous materials on US-101 would comply with regulations identified in the regulatory and permitting setting, and the agricultural use of pesticides and herbicides to the north and east of the property would also be highly regulated.
July 21, 2011
H-10
Existing Condition Regulatory and Permitting SBCFD requires 30 feet of clear space immediately adjacent to the building or structure; extending beyond that 30foot buffer, it is required that there be 70 feet where flammable vegetation is spaced to reduce plant-to-plant, plantto-tree, and tree-to-tree transfer of fire both vertically and horizontally. Other regulations associated with hazards are project- and site specific. Because the property has no currently known hazardous materials sites and has no current use of hazardous materials, the regulations are not applicable to the existing conditions. Service Hazards is not a service and does not provide a service; therefore there are no service constraints for Hazards.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The property is vacant land and does not have to comply with the defensible space requirement.
Existing Conditions 1 Rating /
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint SBCFD would require urban development to comply with the defensible space requirement to protect structures and buildings.
Relevance to Future Property Use 2 and Rating Urban Ag / /
N/A
N/A
Constraints and opportunities related to the future use would be project- and sitespecific with regards to hazards. Therefore, a discussion of future use(s) as it relates to regulations is not applicable at this time.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
July 21, 2011
H-11
H.4.2
Exposure to Hazardous Materials There are two means by which the property could expose the environment and the public to hazardous materials. First, there could be existing hazardous sources on site that could expose the environment and/or people during construction and/or operation. Second, future uses of the property could expose the environment and/or people through daily use of various hazardous materials. Both of these are discussed below. Based on the results of the EDR search there are no hazardous material sites located on the property, and the LUST that was listed has been closed per review by the appropriate regulatory authority. In addition, Figure 3.7-1 of the General Plan identifies one hazardous site within the property. Although the General Plan and figure do not identify the nature of the site, it is likely an LUST and could be the same historic LUST identified by the EDR search (Goleta 2006). All other sites are located south of the property and are identified as being down-gradient from the property. The lower elevation of these listings would greatly reduce any exposure from soil and groundwater hazards to the property and future use of the property. The property was once in agricultural production and herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers may have been used. There would be an extensive length of time between future development and when the property was last used for agricultural purposes; therefore, any residual pesticide, herbicide, and/or fertilizer in the soil or groundwater may have been greatly reduced to levels below regulatory limits. Thus, there is a low probability of hazardous materials currently being located on the property. However, the County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual states: highly-sensitive land uses (e.g., hospitals or schools) are generally given greater protection from hazardous situations overall. Therefore, any future urban development would be a sensitive land use that would be given greater protection from hazardous situations. Prior to the development of the property, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment would be required, and, depending on the results, a Phase II and remedial activities may be required. Under urban conditions, commercial or residential land uses could use hazardous materials. This could include hazardous materials used at dry cleaners, autobody shops, or other specific land uses that are designated commercial. In addition, residential homes could use hazardous materials for daily purposes such as landscaping or cleaning. However as discussed in Section H.2, Applicable Regulations, these specific types and quantities of hazardous materials are regulated and require management plans, response plans, and full disclosure to the appropriate authorities. Therefore, any future development on the property would have a low probability of exposing the environment or people to hazardous materials that could result in adverse effects. The property could remain designated and zoned as agricultural land. The majority of agricultural production uses various pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, which can be considered hazardous depending on how much people are exposed to and the routes of exposure (direct application, groundwater, etc.). There are several residential developments within approximately 0.5 mile of the property, and, therefore, agricultural practices on the property could expose the environment and/or people to hazardous materials. However, as with the commercial uses discussed above, agricultural chemicals are highly regulated, and strict management of those chemicals would be required. Furthermore, there is existing active
July 21, 2011
H-12
agriculture north of Cathedral Oaks Road; therefore, the existing conditions include active agriculture within proximity to residential uses. Air Traffic Hazards As discussed in the existing conditions, the property is located outside of Safety Area 3, or the General Zone. Any future land use on the property, whether urban or agricultural, would not result in an air traffic hazard. H.4.3 Additional Analysis Required and Questions
Any change in land use that resulted in urban development would require a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a Phase II Assessment depending on the results of the Phase I to thoroughly research the potential hazards associated with past agricultural uses on the property.
July 21, 2011
H-13
Appendix I Hydrology and Water Quality
Appendix I: Hydrology and Water Quality
I.
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
This section discusses the hydrology and water quality of the Bishop Ranch property (property) and adjacent areas. This section describes the following:

existing surface watery hydrology, hydrogeology, and groundwater basins within the Bishop Ranch and adjacent to it; regulatory and permitting related to hydrology and water quality; and constraints and opportunities associated with hydrology and water quality.
This section uses Section 3.9 Water Resources of the Goleta General Plan CLUP Final EIR and a hydrologic report prepared by Michael F. Hoover regarding the hydrologeology of the property (Hoover 2010).
I.1
Figure I-1 identifies the hydrology features of the property and adjacent to the property, such as: the two drainage features which both drain into Glen Annie Creek; and, flood zones. In addition, it identifies the stream buffers recommended by the General Plan and discussed in Section I.1.2. I.1.1 Watershed and Surface Waters
The City is located in the South Coast watershed (California Department of Conservation 2007). There are 12 surface waters (creeks) which extend from north to south and terminate in Pacific Ocean. These include Los Carneros and Glen Annie Creek (also known as Tecolotito Creek). Both creeks are listed as impaired on the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list (see regulations and permits below for discussion of impaired water resources). The Los Carneros Creek is listed as impaired for salinity, pathogens, nutrients, and miscellaneous. The Glen Annie Creek is listed as impaired for salinity. Also, Goleta Slough, which receives flows from Los Carneros, Las Vegas, San Pedro, Maria Ygnacio, and San Jose Creeks, is listed as impaired for pathogens and priority organics (California EPA 2010). Los Carneros Creek is not located on the property, but located on the eastern edge of the property and extends north to south, terminating at the Pacific Ocean. Glen Annie Creek is located to the west of the property, across from Glen Annie Road. It to extends from north to south, and terminates at the Pacific Ocean. The Glen Annie Creek does not cross the property and is located in an open culvert just south of the propertys southwestern border. Figure 2-6 in Chapter 2 identifies the location of these two creeks. The stream alluvium located adjacent to Los Carneros Creek and Glen Annie Creek and consists of unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay with occasional cobbles, gravels, and boulders. The alluvium is approximately 20 to 40 feet deep on the property, but can be as deep as 95 feet at nearby locations. This alluvium is generally shallow. Water quality of surface waters and runoff generated within the watershed is dependent on a number of variables; these include the types of land uses within the watershed and the amount
July 21, 2011
I-1
of pervious and impervious surfaces within the watershed. There are about 3,357 acres of impervious surfaces in the city and 1,694 acres of pervious surfaces in the City. Currently, the property is vacant and therefore is 100% pervious. This allows percolation of precipitation into the groundwater and reduces the velocity of stormwater runoff into receiving waters during a storm. The property is considered all pervious (e.g., vacant land). The property comprises approximately 14% of the Citys pervious surfaces. There are water resources located toward the middle and eastern edge of the property and drain into Glen Annie Creek. Figure 2-6 in Chapter 2 identifies their location. During the site visit by ICF staff, they were noted to have no running water, but standing water was present and there were patches of soggy soils (ICF 2010). I.1.2 Flooding
Figure 3.9-2 of the Goleta General Plan FEIR (2006) shows the 100-year and 500-year flood zones in and adjacent to the City. The property is not within or adjacent to the 500-year flood zone, however, it is within and adjacent to the 100-year flood zone. Figure 3.9-2 of the Goleta General Plan FEIR (2006a) also identifies the tsunami zone of the City. The property is not within this zone as identified on Figure 2-6 of Chapter 2. I.1.3 Groundwater Basins and Hydrogeology
The Santa Barbara Basin and the Goleta Basin are the two main aquifers in the City area. The Goleta Basin is approximately 9,210 acres and approximately 8 miles long and 3 miles wide (DWR 2004 and GWD 2006 in Goleta 2006).The Goleta Basin is divided into two main subbasins, the North-Central and the West subbasins. However, in much of the technical literature, the Basin is divided into three subbasins: the North Subbasin, the Central Subbasin, and the West Subbasin. Consistent with the Goleta Water Districts (GWD) Urban Water Management Plan (2005), this document follows the latter nomenclature of three subbasins. The boundary between the North and West subbasins is characterized by significant changes in water quality and hydraulic characteristics that may be related to an overall facies change and/or change in source rock material in underlying sediments (GWD 2005 in Goleta 2006). The North and Central Subbasins are believed to have a combined total of about 30,000 to 60,000 acre-feet (AF) of operational storage (GWD 2005 in Goleta 2006). Well hydrographs indicate that periods of historically high groundwater levels occurred in the mid 1940s, the early 1970s, and in 2004 (GWD 2005 in Goleta 2006). Historic low groundwater levels occurred in the 1990s. Wells located throughout the basin indicate that water levels have been increasing throughout the basin since 1991 (DWR 2004 in Goleta 2006), but are still below sea level as of 2004. The basin is protected from seawater intrusion by the presence of uplifted bedrock along the More Ranch Fault (GWD 2005 in Goleta 2006). The active area of recharge for the GGWB is in the lower reaches of the various creeks as they flow across the permeable sediments in the North Subbasin. Recharge is minor in the more fine-grained shallow sediments in the Central and West Subbasins, although GWD wells in the
July 21, 2011
I-2
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\hydro\figi_1_hydro_features.mxd SM (07-19-11)
nie R d
Way gton o v in C
s Lo ro s rn e Ca
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Rd
CALLE Re a l
Del Norte Dr
Gl en An e ni Cr ee k
Gle nn nA ie Rd
Lo sC
a rn e ro sC
r ee
500 Feet
1,000
Legend City of Goleta Property Drainage Feature Streamside Protection Area 100 foot Buffer* (14.17 acres) 25 foot Buffer (0.88 acres) FEMA Flood Areas FEMA Flood Area: 100-Year Flood (4.93 acres) FEMA Flood Area: 500-Year Flood (0.00 acres) Note: General Plan policies CE 2.2 and SE6.6 identify the setbacks and streamside protection areas related to streams. Acres presented in parenthesis are within the property boundary. *Buffers for seasonal creeks were determined by adding the buffer to the edge of mapped vegetation.
Figure I-1 HYDROLOGIC FEATURES AND FLOOD ZONES BISHOP RANCH PROPERTY STUDY
Source: City of Goleta; ESRI (2008);FEMA
Central Subbasin provide artificial sources of recharge as discussed under the Water Supply and Demand setting in Appendix K, Public Services. Groundwater quality in the basin is characterized as being of a calcium bicarbonate nature with total dissolved solid (TDS) concentrations ranging from 700 to 800 milligrams per liter (DWR 2004 in Goleta 2006). The property is located above the West subbasin of the Goleta Basin. There are five geologic units within the vicinity of the property oldest the rock units are: Quaternary alluvium (Qac); intermediate-age Alluvium (Qia); Santa Barbara formation (Qsb); Monterey Shale (TM); and, Rincon Shale (Tr). There is a 15 to 40 foot thick veneer of unconsolidated boulders, sands, silts, and clays that underlies the majority of the property. These terrace deposits or intermediate age alluvium may contain some groundwater. The Santa Barbara formation underlies the majority of the Goleta and Santa Barbara Basins and is the primary aquifer in the local area. At the property the Santa Barbara formation is less than 50 feet deep based on nearby well logs, geologic outcrops and the depth of several abandoned wells located on the property. The Monterey formation underlies the Santa Barbara formation and the alluvium at depth. The Monterey formation varies in compositions from a mudstone to brittle shale. Water quality in the Monterey is usually poor (over 1200 parts per million of total dissolved solids). The Rincon shale occurs at the north end of the property. Generally this shale holds very little water and results in extremely poor water quality.
I.2
I.2.1

Federal and State
Clean Water Act The CWA is the primary Federal law that protects the quality of the Nations surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands. It operates on the principle that all discharges into the Nations waters are unlawful unless specifically authorized by a permit; permit review is the CWAs primary regulatory tool. The following paragraphs provide additional details on specific sections of the CWA. Water Quality Certification Under CWA Section 401, applicants for a Federal license or permit to conduct activities that may result in the discharge of a pollutant into waters of the United States must obtain certification from the state in which the discharge would originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency with jurisdiction over affected waters at the point where the discharge would originate. Therefore, all projects that have a Federal component and may affect state water quality (including projects that require federal agency approval, such as issuance of a Section 404 permit) must also comply with CWA Section 401. Section 401
July 21, 2011
I-3
certification or waiver is under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for the City of Goleta. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Act, passed in 1969, articulates the Federal CWA (see Clean Water Act above). It established the SWRCB and divided the State into nine regions, each overseen by an RWQCB. The SWRCB is the primary state agency responsible for protecting the quality of the States surface and groundwater supplies, but much of its daily implementation authority is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. The Porter-Cologne Act also assigns responsibility for implementing CWA Sections 303(d), 401, and 402 to the SWRCB and RWQCBs. Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives Beneficial uses define the resources, services, and qualities of the aquatic system that are the ultimate goals of protecting and achieving high water quality. Water quality objectives are designed to protect these beneficial uses. The RWQCB has set water quality objectives for all surface waters in the basin concerning ammonia, bacteria, biostimulatory substances, chemical constituents, color, dissolved oxygen, floating material, oil and grease, pH, pesticides, radioactivity, salinity, sediment, settleable material, suspended material, tastes and odors, temperature, toxicity, and turbidity. Also, specific objectives for concentrations of chemical constituents are applied to bodies of water based on their designated beneficial uses. According to the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the beneficial uses for the Los Carneros Creek include: Municipal and Domestic Supply, Agricultural Supply, Groundwater Recharge, Water Contact Recreation, Non-Contact Water Recreation, Wildlife Habitat, Cold Fresh Water Habitat, Warm Fresh Water Habitat, Freshwater Replenishment, and Commercial and Sport Fishing. The Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District also identifies: Municipal and Domestic Supply, Groundwater Recharge, Water Contact Recreation, NonContact Water Recreation, Wildlife Habitat, Cold Fresh Water Habitat, Warm Fresh Water Habitat, Migration of Aquatic Organisms, Freshwater Replenishment, and Commercial and Sport Fishing as beneficial uses for the Glen Annie Creek (Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 2010). List of Impaired Water Bodies Under CWA Section 303(d) and Californias Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 (Porter-Cologne Act) (see below), the State of California is required to establish beneficial uses of state waters and to adopt water quality standards to protect those beneficial uses. Section 303(d) establishes the total maximum daily load (TMDL) process to assist in guiding the application of state water quality standards, requiring the states to identify streams whose water quality is impaired (affected by the presence of pollutants or contaminants) and to establish the TMDL, or the maximum quantity of a particular contaminant that a water body can assimilate without experiencing adverse effects. Permits for Placement of Fill in Waters and Wetlands CWA Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill materials into waters of the United States, which include oceans, bays, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Project
July 21, 2011
I-4
proponents must obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) for all discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands, before proceeding with a proposed activity. Before any actions that may impact surface waters are carried out, a delineation of jurisdictional waters of the United States must be completed following Corps protocols (Environmental Laboratory 1987) in order to determine whether the project area encompasses wetlands or other waters of the United States that qualify for CWA protection. These include any or all of the following:
areas within the ordinary high water mark of a stream, including nonperennial streams with a defined bed and bank and any stream channel that conveys natural runoff, even if it has been realigned, and seasonal and perennial wetlands, including coastal wetlands.
Wetlands are defined for regulatory purposes as areas inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions (33 CFR 328.3; 40 CFR 230.3). Permits for Stormwater Discharge CWA Section 402 regulates construction related stormwater discharges to surface waters through the NPDES program, administered by the EPA. In California, the SWRCB is authorized by the EPA to oversee the NPDES program through the RWQCBs (see related discussion under Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act below). The City of Goleta is under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast RWQCB (Region 3). The NPDES program provides for both general permits (those that cover a number of similar or related activities) and individual permits. Most construction projects that disturb more than 1 acre of land are required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit, which requires the applicant to file a public notice of intent to discharge stormwater from construction sites and to prepare and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). As an owner or operator of a separate municipal stormwater sewer system (MS4), the City has obtained coverage under the Phase II Stormwater General NPDES Permit, as previously described. As part of the Phase II NPDES permit program, the City is required to develop a stormwater management program. The City has prepared a stormwater management plan describing their program, which contains the six required elements defined by the SWRCB (City of Goleta 2005, pg. 8 in Goleta 2006). The six elements include:

public education and outreach on stormwater impacts; public involvement/participation; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction site runoff control; post-construction stormwater management in new development and redevelopment; and pollution prevention/good housekeeping for municipal operations.
July 21, 2011
I-5
I.2.2
Local
City of Goleta General Plan The City of Goleta General Plan Conservation Element and Public Safety Element identifies goals and policies associated with protecting the hydrology and water quality of the City. The policies relevant to the property in both of these elements are identified below. Conservation Element Guiding Principles/Goals and Policies Goal 2. Preserve, restore, and enhance the physical and biological integrity of Goletas creeks and natural drainages and their associated riparian and creekside habitats.

Goal 5. Protect water quality and the biological diversity of Goleta Slough and Devereux Slough. Goal 9. Manage water resources at the watershed level cooperatively with other agencies to maintain high groundwater and surface water quality to protect marine aquatic habitats. Goal 10. Manage groundwater and surface water resources to promote water quality and quantity adequate to support natural ecosystem processes and functions. Policy CE 2: Protection of Creeks and Riparian Areas. The objective of this policy is to enhance, maintain, and restore the biological integrity of creek courses and their associated wetlands and riparian habitats as important natural features of Goletas landscape. Policy CE 2.1. Designation of Protected Creeks. The provisions of this policy shall apply to creeks shown in Figure 4-1. These watercourses and their associated riparian areas are defined as ESHAs. They serve as habitat for fish and wildlife, provide wildlife movement corridors, provide for the flow of stormwater runoff and floodwaters, and furnish open space and passive recreational areas for city residents. Policy CE 2.2. Streamside Protection Areas. A streamside protection area (SPA) is hereby established along both sides of the creeks identified in Figure 4-1 of the Goleta General Plan (see Figure I-2). The purpose of the designation shall be to preserve the SPA in a natural state in order to protect the associated riparian habitats and ecosystems. The SPA shall include the creek channel, wetlands and/or riparian vegetation related to the creek hydrology, and an adjacent upland buffer area. The width of the SPA upland buffer shall be as follows: a. The SPA upland buffer shall be 100 feet outward on both sides of the creek, measured from the top of the bank or the outer limit of wetlands and/or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. The City may consider increasing or decreasing the width of the SPA upland buffer on a case-by-case basis at the time of environmental review. The City may allow portions of a SPA upland buffer to be less than 100 feet wide, but not less than 25 feet wide, based on a site specific assessment if (1) there is no feasible alternative siting for development that will avoid the SPA upland buffer; and (2) the projects impacts will not have significant adverse effects on streamside vegetation or the biotic quality of the stream.
July 21, 2011
I-6
ro San Ped
La s
re e k Fairview Ave
Creek
Ve ga sC
Winchester Canyon Creek
reek
Cree
Tecolote C
Annie Glen
C re e k
reek eros C
n
Cathedral Oaks Rd
El Encanto Creek
rn Los Ca
Ke llog gA ve
nyon
d Ca
_ ^ n
n tera L La Pa
n n n
n
Patterson A ve
Ma ria Ign a
2,400
d nnie R Glen A
Ellw oo
Cathedral Oaks Rd
_ _ ^ ^
Los Carneros Lake
_ ^
_ ^
_ ^
Cal le R
n _ ^
_ n^ ( [
Calle Real
_ ^ ( [
Union Pacific RR
_ ^

101
Ellwood Pier
! !
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Hydro\FigI_2_ESHA.ai SM (07-19-11)
_ ^ n _ ^Hollister Ave _ ^ [ " _ [ b ^Deverbx Cre [ b _ [ ^ b _ [_ [ eu [ ek^ b^ _ ^ [ [ b [ b [

101
Fairview Ave
! [ [
_[ ^
eal
_ ^ !
ll Be
n yo an C
k ee Cr
Los
R eros Carn
te Hollis
r Ave
( [
J San Old ose ek C re
Hollister Ave
s r
217
Storke Rd
Rd
( [
Me sa R d
Sa nJ
Phe lps
k Rancho Goleta tascadero Cree A Lake
os e
Cr
( [
ee k
Goleta Slough
_ ^
n
Devereux Slough
El Colegio Rd
Goleta Pier
Isla Vista UCSB
[
Pacific Ocean
Coal Oil Pt
_ ^
Campus Lagoon
0 1,200 Feet
Amended by Reso. 09-59, 11/17/09

Legend
Environmentally Sensitive Habitats
Beach and Shoreline Unvegetated Open Creek Channel Open Water Riparian/Marsh/Vernal Pool Native Grassland Sage Scrub/Dune/ Bluff Scrub Native Upland Woodlands /Savannahs Monarch Butterfly and/or Raptor Roosting Habitat Critical Habitat for the Western Snowy Plover
Goleta Pt
Special-Status Species
[ b
Cooper's Hawk Nest Kite Nest Red-Shouldered Hawk Nest Red-Tailed Hawk Nest Vulture Roost Western Snowy Plover
[ [ b
[
"
( [ Southern Tarplant _ ^ Monarch Butterfly Aggregation _ ^ Ellwood Main Monarch Grove
[ ! [ [ [
Tidewater Goby Red-Legged Frog Globose Dune Beetle Santa Barbara Honeysuckle Black-Flowered Figwort
Other Features
Goleta City Boundary
Sources:Habitat mapping conducted by Jones & Stokes in April-May 2006 based on aerial imagery (1-foot resolution) and field observation, merged with 1) information on the occurrence of special status habitats and species collected by City from recent information from local environmental review ; 2) mapping of creeks, ponds, lakes and reservoir location based on USGS topographic map review and habitat management plan documents, air photo interpretation, Coastal Zone and field survey; and 3) review of California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records by Jones & Stokes for occurrence of special status species in the Goleta and Dos Pueblos quadrangles and vicinities (2006 databases). Schools Habitats reflect those comprising an ESHA.
Creeks
Figure I-2 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATED ESHA AND CREEK LOCATIONS
Note: ESHA locations are approximate. Any area not designated on the ESHA map that meets the ESHA criteria shall be accorded the same protections as if the area was shown on the map. ESHA buffers are not shown on this map. Refer to the applicable policy in the General Plan for the specific buffer widths.
cio C
ton An an S
ree
b. If the provisions above would result in any legal parcel created prior to the date of this plan being made unusable in its entirety for any purpose allowed by the land use plan, exceptions to the foregoing may be made to allow a reasonable economic use of the parcel, subject to approval of a conditional use permit.
Policy CE 2.3. Allowable Uses and Activities in Streamside Protection Areas. The following compatible land uses and activities may be allowed in SPAs, subject to all other policies of this plan, including those requiring avoidance or mitigation of impacts: a. Agricultural operations, provided they are compatible with preservation of riparian resources. b. Fencing and other access barriers along property boundaries and along SPA boundaries. c. Maintenance of existing roads, driveways, utilities, structures, and drainage improvements. d. Construction of public road crossings and utilities, provided that there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternative. e. Construction and maintenance of foot trails, bicycle paths, and similar low-impact facilities for public access. f. Resource restoration or enhancement projects. g. Nature education and research activities. h. Low-impact interpretive and public access signage. i. Other such Public Works projects as identified in the Capital Improvement Plan, only where there are no feasible, less environmentally damaging alternatives.
Policy CE 2.5. Maintenance of Creeks as Natural Drainage Systems. Creek banks, creek channels, and associated riparian areas shall be maintained or restored to their natural condition wherever such conditions or opportunities exist. Creeks carry a significant amount of Goletas stormwater flows. The following standards shall apply: a. The capacity of natural drainage courses shall not be diminished by development or other activities. b. Drainage controls and improvements shall be accomplished with the minimum vegetation removal and disruption of the creek and riparian ecosystem that is necessary to accomplish the drainage objective. c. Measures to stabilize creek banks, improve flow capacity, and reduce flooding are allowed but shall not include installation of new concrete channels, culverts, or pipes except at street crossings, unless it is demonstrated that there is no feasible alternative for improving capacity.
July 21, 2011
I-7
d. Drainage controls in new development shall be required to minimize erosion, sedimentation, and flood impacts to creeks. Onsite treatment of stormwater through retention basins, infiltration, vegetated swales, and other best management practices (BMPs) shall be required in order to protect water quality and the biological functions of creek ecosystems. e. Alteration of creeks for the purpose of road or driveway crossings shall be prohibited except where the alteration is not substantial and there is no other feasible alternative to provide access to new development on an existing legal parcel. Creek crossings shall be accomplished by bridging and shall be designed to allow the passage of fish and wildlife. Bridge abutments or piers shall be located outside creek beds and banks, unless an environmentally superior alternative exists.
Policy CE 10.1. New Development and Water Quality. New development shall not result in the degradation of the water quality of groundwater basins or surface waters; surface waters include the ocean, lagoons, creeks, ponds, and wetlands. Urban runoff pollutants shall not be discharged or deposited such that they adversely affect these resources. Policy CE 10.2. Siting and Design of New Development. New development shall be sited and designed to protect water quality and minimize impacts to coastal waters by incorporating measures designed to ensure the following: a. Protection of areas that provide important water quality benefits, areas necessary to maintain riparian and aquatic biota, and areas susceptible to erosion and sediment loss. b. Limiting increases in areas covered by impervious surfaces. c. Limiting the area where land disturbances occur, such as clearing of vegetation, cutand-fill, and grading, to reduce erosion and sediment loss. d. Limiting disturbance of natural drainage features and vegetation.
Policy CE 10.3. Incorporation of Best Management Practices for Stormwater Management. New development shall be designed to minimize impacts to water quality from increased runoff volumes and discharges of pollutants from nonpoint sources to the maximum extent feasible, consistent with the Citys Storm Water Management Plan or a subsequent Storm Water Management Plan approved by the City and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. Post construction structural BMPs shall be designed to treat, infiltrate, or filter stormwater runoff in accordance with applicable standards as required by law. Examples of BMPs include, but are not limited to, the following: a. Retention and detention basins. b. Vegetated swales. c. Infiltration galleries or injection wells.
July 21, 2011
I-8
d. Use of permeable paving materials. e. Mechanical devices such as oil-water separators and filters. f. Revegetation of graded or disturbed areas. g. Other measures as identified in the Citys adopted Storm Water Management Plan and other City-approved regulations.
Policy CE 10.4. New Facilities. New bridges, roads, culverts, and outfalls shall not cause or contribute to creek bank erosion or creek or wetland siltation and shall include BMPs to minimize impacts to water quality. BMPs shall include construction phase erosion control, polluted runoff control plans, and soil stabilization techniques. Where space is available, dispersal of sheet flow from roads into vegetated areas, or other onsite infiltration practices, shall be incorporated into the project design. Policy CE 10.6. Stormwater Management Requirements. The following requirements shall apply to specific types of development: a. Commercial and multiple-family development shall use BMPs to control polluted runoff from structures, parking, and loading areas. b. Restaurants shall incorporate BMPs designed to minimize runoff of oil and grease, solvents, phosphates, and suspended solids to the storm drain system. c. Gasoline stations, car washes, and automobile repair facilities shall incorporate BMPs designed to minimize runoff of oil and grease, solvents, car battery acid, engine coolants, and gasoline to the stormwater system. d. Outdoor materials storage areas shall be designed to incorporate BMPs to prevent stormwater contamination from stored materials. e. Trash storage areas shall be designed using BMPs to prevent stormwater contamination by loose trash and debris.
Policy CE 10.7. Drainage and Stormwater Management Plans. New development shall protect the absorption, purifying, and retentive functions of natural systems that exist on the site. Drainage Plans shall be designed to complement and use existing drainage patterns and systems, where feasible, conveying drainage from the site in a nonerosive manner. Disturbed or degraded natural drainage systems shall be restored where feasible, except where there are geologic or public safety concerns. Proposals for new development shall include the following: a. A Construction-Phase Erosion Control and Stormwater Management Plan that specifies the BMPs that will be implemented to minimize erosion and sedimentation; provide adequate sanitary and waste disposal facilities; and prevent contamination of runoff by construction practices, materials, and chemicals.
July 21, 2011
I-9
b. A Post-Development-Phase Drainage and Stormwater Management Plan that specifies the BMPsincluding site design methods, source controls, and treatment controlsthat will be implemented to minimize polluted runoff after construction. This plan shall include monitoring and maintenance plans for the BMP measures.
Policy CE 10.8. Maintenance of Stormwater Management Facilities. New development shall be required to provide ongoing maintenance of BMP measures where maintenance is necessary for their effective operation. The permittee and/or owner, including successors in interest, shall be responsible for all structural treatment controls and devices as follows: a. All structural BMPs shall be inspected, cleaned, and repaired when necessary prior to September 30th of each year. b. Additional inspections, repairs, and maintenance should be performed after storms as needed throughout the rainy season, with any major repairs completed prior to the beginning of the next rainy season. c. Public streets and parking lots shall be swept as needed and financially feasible to remove debris and contaminated residue. d. The homeowners association, or other private owner, shall be responsible for sweeping of private streets and parking lots.
Safety Element Guiding Principles/Goals, and Policies Goal 1. Ensure that new development is sized, sited, and designed to avoid or minimize exposure to known physical or other hazards and that appropriate mitigations are included to reduce or avoid risks to people and property.

Goal 7. Strictly enforce California Building Code compliance to protect building owners and occupants and minimize risk of structural damage and economic disruption. Policy SE 6.1. Map of Flood Hazard Areas. The City shall use the most recent edition of the federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM maps) in evaluating applications for new or expanded development on properties subject to flood hazards. All applications for new or expanded development shall be required to show, where applicable, the floodway, 100-year floodplain, and the 500-year floodplain on the site plan showing the proposed development. The map in Figure 5-2 is a facsimile rather than the official flood hazard map and is intended only to be illustrative of possible flood hazard areas. Policy SE 6.2. Areas Subject to Local Urban Flooding. In addition to flood hazard areas shown on the FIRM maps, the City may require applications for new or expanded development in areas with known persistent local urban flooding to include measures that lessen the urban flooding hazard and/or that mitigate its effects on the proposed development. This requirement shall apply to flooding on any street or roadway that provides access to the proposed development. Policy SE 6.4. Avoidance of Flood Hazard Areas. The City shall discourage any new intensive development in any flood hazard area. Similarly, the City shall require appropriate flood mitigation for intensification of existing development in any floodprone
July 21, 2011
I-10
area. The City shall not approve development within areas designated as the 100-year floodplain that would obstruct flood flow (such as construction in the designated floodway), displace floodwaters onto other property, or be subject to flood damage. The City shall not allow development that will create or worsen drainage problems.
Policy SE 6.6. Enforcement of Watercourse Setback Ordinance. A minimum 50-foot setback shall be required from streambanks and flood control channels for all new development (see related Policy CE 2.2). For projects that would be rendered infeasible by the application of such minimum setbacks, the project applicant shall provide a sitespecific engineering study with recommended mitigation measures to allow for a reduced setback that would not expose development to unacceptable risk. Furthermore, in these cases, the City shall consult with the Santa Barbara County Flood Control District to determine whether the proposed lesser setback would be appropriate, in that it would allow access for flood control maintenance and enable proper operation of the channels. The City shall maintain and enforce the policies and standards within a Water Course Setback Ordinance.
City of Goleta Ordinances Existing City ordinances that are applicable to hydrology and water quality include: Title 13 Public Services Chapter 13.04 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the City, and protect and enhance the quality of watercourses and water bodies within the City pursuant to and in a manner consistent with the Clean Water Act and Porter-Cologne Act by reducing pollutants and non-stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable by prohibiting non-stormwater discharges into the storm drain system and improving stormwater management. This chapter establishes methods for controlling the introduction of pollutants and nonstormwater discharges into the storm drain system and waters of the State in order to comply with requirements of the NPDES permit process. The objectives of this chapter generally regulate the contribution of pollutants to the drainage system, prohibit illicit discharges, and establish the legal authority to carry out inspections and monitoring. Title 15 Buildings and Construction Chapter 15.10 Floodplain Management. The purpose of this chapter is to promote public health, safety, and general welfare, and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to generally protect human life and health and minimize damage caused by flooding to property and the local business economy. Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District The Flood Control District for Santa Barbara County provides and promotes flood protection, water conservation, and adequate water supplies for visitors of Santa Barbara County. The Flood Control District has authority to review and approve proposed improvements located along certain creeks and channels that it maintains within Goleta City limits. For additional information regarding stormwater control and the County Flood Control and Water Conservation District please refer to Appendix L Water Supply, Wastewater and Utilities.
July 21, 2011
I-11
I.3
I.3.1

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in terms of the following issue areas: environmental, regulatory and permitting, and services. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the community of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property either in an urban land use fashion or to resume active agriculture on the property. And service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. Water supply and services and stormwater infrastructure are services possibly associated with hydrology and water quality and these are discussed in Appendix L, Utilities. Hydrology and water quality are influenced by the mixture of land uses and the ability of the natural surface and ground water sources to absorb pollution and contain volumes of stormwater runoff and precipitation without damaging habitat. Urban uses are known to alter surface waters by the velocity and volume of stormwater generated from impervious surfaces. Furthermore, they are known to generate pollutant loads into receiving waters as runoff comes into contact with impervious surfaces. Active agricultural uses are generally more pervious when compared to urban uses and therefore may generate less volume and lower velocities of storm water runoff. Active agricultural uses can also generate pollutant loads comparable to urban uses; however the pollutants are different than those generated by urban uses. I.3.2 Assumptions

The property provides some amount of groundwater recharge to the Goleta Groundwater Basin which cannot be currently quantified. Active agriculture would generally maintain existing topography and natural features of the property.
I.4
I.4.1
Evaluation
There are several different opportunities and constraints associated with the property associated with hydrology and water quality. These are summarized in the table below.
July 21, 2011
I-12
TABLE I-1 SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Relevance to Future Property Use 2 and Rating Urban Ag \ \
Existing Condition Environmental The eastern edge of the property and a portion of the property in the south west are located in the 100year floodplain. This area is approximately 5 acres. There are two onsite drainages located on the property.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The property currently contains no development or structures in the 100year floodplain.
Ex. Cond. Rating1 \
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint There is only a small area of the existing property within the 100-year floodplain compared with the rest of the property available for either urban uses or active agricultural uses. Alteration of the drainage features themselves could result in direct impacts to their ability to handle stormwater runoff and ability to provide habitat. Furthermore, alteration of the pervious and impervious surfaces on the property could indirectly alter the drainage features via water quality changes or streambed changes (e.g., erosion). Future urban uses or active agricultural uses could result in polluted stormwater runoff to the existing impaired Los Carneros and Glen Annie creeks.
These creeks provide drainage routes for the existing property during storm events and provide riparian habitat (See Appendix C Biology for discussion of habitat provided).
Los Carneros and Glen Annie Creeks are impaired for salinity, pathogens, nutrients, and miscellaneous. Los Carneros Creek drains to Goleta Slough, an impaired water body for pathogens and priority organics.
The property is primarily pervious surfaces located in the Goleta Groundwater Basin.
Property may currently contribute soil to these creeks; however, because the property is currently vacant and pervious, it likely does not contribute many other possible pollutants. Property may currently contributed soil to the Goleta Slough; however, because the property is currently vacant and pervious, it likely does not contribute many other possible pollutants. Some groundwater recharge is assumed to take place on the property because of its pervious nature.
Future urban uses or active agricultural uses could result in polluted stormwater runoff to the existing impaired Los Carneros and Glen Annie creeks.
Alteration in the previous nature of the property as a result of future urban uses could have an impact on groundwater recharge Active agricultural would retain a majority of the pervious nature of the property; however, it could contribute to water quality degradation in the Goleta Groundwater Basin. See Appendix D, Biology. See Appendix D, Biology.
Regulatory and Permitting Property is subject to CWA Section 401. Property is subject to CWA Section 404.
July 21, 2011
I-13
Existing Condition Property is subject to CWA Section 402 NPDES program.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint Currently, there are no permits associated with the property that regulate stormwater runoff because they are not needed.
Ex. Cond. Rating1 +
General Plan Policy CE 2.1 Los Carneros and Glen Annie Creek are designated by the General Plan as Protected Creeks. General Plan Policy CE 2.3 requires streamside protection areas established along both sides of the Los Carneros Creek and Glen Annie Creek.
These watercourses provide flow of stormwater runoff and floodwaters from the vacant property. The property is vacant land and maintains a vegetative buffer along Los Carneros Creek. Roads are located in between the property and Glen Annie Creek.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Urban uses or active agricultural uses could result in polluted stormwater discharges. Urban uses would likely require construction stormwater discharge permits and water quality management plans for operation. Active agricultural uses may be required to control their stormwater discharges as well. Alteration in drainage patterns and an increase of impervious area as a result of urban uses could result in impacts to flow of stormwater runoff and floodwaters. Urban uses which require a change in the buffer areas resulting from urban development in streamside protection areas along the Los Carneros and Glen Annie creeks would result in a violation of this policy. Active agricultural operations are an allowed activity under this policy provided it is compatible with preservation of riparian habitats. Alteration of drainage patterns could result in impacts to the capacity the two drainage features that drain into the Los Carneros, Glen Annie and the two onsite drainages. Urban development would result in impacts to surface water quality stormwater runoff in the Goleta Slough and the Los Carneros and Glen Annie creeks. Although urban uses associated with the land use designation change would not result in industrial uses, generally known to contaminate groundwater, spills and discharges associated with urban uses such as gas stations are also known sources of groundwater degradation. Additionally, agricultural development would retain the pervious nature of the property and thereby allow limited groundwater recharge; however, active agriculture could contribute to water quality
Relevance to Future Property Use 2 and Rating Urban Ag -
General Plan Policy CE 2.5 Capacity of natural drainage courses cannot be diminished. General Plan Policy CE 10.1 Cannot degrade water quality of groundwater basins or surface waters.
The existing property does not constrain the capacity of drainage to and within the Los Carneros, Glen Annie and the two onsite drainages. The existing property is not a source of polluted runoff or contaminated groundwater recharge.
July 21, 2011
I-14
Existing Condition General Plan Policy CE 10.2 Limits increases in impervious surfaces; limits land disturbances such as clearing of vegetation, cut-and-fill, and grading; limits disturbance of natural drainage features and vegetation. General Plan Policies CE 10.6, 10.7, 10.8 Development of polluted runoff and stormwater contamination control plans. General Plan Policy SE 6.2 100year flood plain.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The existing property is considered all pervious with steep grades and inclines at the east, middle, and western boundaries of the property. The existing property also has two drainage features and is adjacent to the Los Carneros and Glen Annie creeks. Currently, there are no control plans associated with the property that regulate polluted runoff and stormwater contamination because none are needed. The existing property does not expose people or structures to areas subject to local urban flooding.
Ex. Cond. Rating1 +
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint degradation in the Goleta Groundwater Basin. Urban development of the property could substantially reduce the amount of pervious surfaces in the City and potentially conflict with this policy. Agricultural development would retain a majority of the pervious surface on the property and would generally maintain the existing topography. Alteration in drainage patterns and urban and agricultural development could result in polluted stormwater runoff.
Relevance to Future Property Use 2 and Rating Urban Ag \
Future urban use could expose people and structures to areas subject to local urban flooding. However the area in which flooding occurs is very small on the property. The City may requirement development plans to include measures that lessen the urban flooding hazard. Active agriculture would not likely expose people or structures to local urban flooding. Future urban or active agricultural uses could contribute to polluted stormwater runoff and nonstormwater discharges and potentially degrade the quality of watercourses and two onsite drainages and creeks adjacent to the property. Future urban use could expose people and structures to areas subject to 100-year flooding. Development in these areas would be subject to additional regulations and agency approvals. Active agriculture would not include habitable structures in these areas.
Goleta Ordinance 13.04 Stormwater Management and Discharge Control to protect and enhance quality of watercourses and water bodies. Goleta Ordinance 15.10 Floodplain Management 100-year floodplain.
The existing property is currently not considered a source of polluted stormwater runoff and nonstormwater discharges and it currently drains into two impaired water bodies. The property currently contains no development or structures in the 100year floodplain.
July 21, 2011
I-15
Existing Condition Service Water supply and services
Resource Opportunity or Constraint See Appendix L, Utilities
Ex. Cond. Rating1 N/A
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint See Appendix L, Utilities
Relevance to Future Property Use 2 and Rating Urban Ag N/A N/A
Table Notes 1 Existing Conditions Rating indicates how well the existing conditions support the resource area (e.g., aesthetics, agriculture, biology, etc.). The rating is defined in one of the following three ways: Positive (+) indicates an opportunity, or an issue which would not pose a constraint. Neutral (/) indicates an issue that is neutral and neither positive or negative. Negative (-) indicates a constraint that would be difficult to overcome 2 The urban column indicates the property would be converted to some type of urban use and the Ag column indicates the property would be converted to some type of active agricultural. The Future Property Use rating is the same as defined above (positive, neutral, or negative) and indicates how well an urban use or ag use would support the resource area given the identified opportunities or constraints.
July 21, 2011
I-16
I.4.2
Various features associated with hydrology and water quality on the property are discussed below. 100-year Floodplain The eastern edge of the property and a portion of the property in the south west are located in the 100-year floodplain. Since this is a small amount of area compared the size of the property, any urban development that might occur under a land use designation change could be planned to avoid these hazard areas. If avoidance is not feasible, compliance with California Building Code standards and other agency ordinances and regulations would be required. Drainage Feature There are two drainage features that provide drainage routes for the property during storm events. A land use designation change to urban uses or active agricultural uses would need to consider the drainage features. This could be a constraint for both urban and agricultural development as both would need to avoid interference with the natural drainage pattern in and around these creeks. For more information on Waters of the United States, see appendix D, Biology. Impaired Waters The Los Carneros and Glen Annie Creeks run along the western and eastern borders of the property, but are not located on the property. Both creeks provide a drainage route for runoff and stormwater and drain into the Goleta Slough. These three water bodies are listed as impaired for various pollutants discussed above under the Clean Water Act. Development associated with a change of land use designation would need to incorporate best management practices and drainage controls to avoid further degradation of these impaired waters. However, active agricultural uses may also contribute to pollutant loading into these impaired waters. This could be a constraint on urban and active agricultural uses as both may need to avoid practices that would contribute to polluted urban runoff. Groundwater Recharge The property is located in the Goleta Groundwater Basin. It can be considered a source for groundwater recharge because of its pervious surfaces (e.g., vacant land). Urban development associated with a land use designation change would result in an increase of impervious surfaces and would generally reduce groundwater recharge. If it is determined that the site is a source for groundwater recharge in the City and/or County, this could constraint any urban development associated with a land use designation change. Active agricultural uses would generally allow for the site to continue as a source for groundwater recharge and would therefore be a potential opportunity. However, active agriculture could involve practices that would contribute to polluted groundwater recharge. Goleta General Plan Policies and Ordinances According to Goleta General Plan Policy 2.1, Los Carneros and Glen Annie Creeks are designated as Protected Creeks. Goleta General Plan policy CE 2.3 addresses allowable uses and activities in protected creeks and establishes Streamside Protection Areas. These areas are established 100 feet from either side of a protected creek. Urban development associated
July 21, 2011
I-17
with a land use change or active agriculture would be located outside the 100 foot stream buffer because the creek is separated from the property by Glen Annie Road and US-101. However, approximately 14 acres of the property are located within the 100 foot buffer for Los Carneros Creek. Urban development associated with a land use designation change as development could be planned to avoid these areas. This is an opportunity for active agriculture because agricultural operations are an allowed activity under this policy provided it is compatible with preservation of riparian habitats. Under Goleta General Plan Policy CE 2.5, the capacity of natural drainage courses should not be diminished by development or other activities. This could be a constraint for urban development associated with a land use designation change or active agriculture. Design considerations would need to minimize erosion, sedimentation and flood impacts to the drainage features. Furthermore, the use of retention basins, infiltration, bio swales and other BMPs would further protect water quality. Goleta General Plan Policies CE 10.1 and CE 10.2 address new development and water quality. Under these policies new development should not result in degradation of water quality of groundwater or surfaces waters. Furthermore, siting of new development should limit increases in impervious surfaces and land disturbances such as clearing of vegetation, cut-andfill- and grading to reduce erosion and sedimentation. This could be a constraint for urban development associated with land use designation change since it may introduce an increase in impervious surfaces and increased stormwater runoff. For more information on stormwater capacity in the city, see Appendix L, Utilities. This would be a neutral constraint for active agricultural uses as it would not increase impervious surfaces in the city; however, active agricultural uses should avoid practices which would contribute to polluted groundwater recharge and runoff. Design considerations would be same as those for Policy CE 2.5. Goleta General Plan Policies 10.6, 10.7 and 10.8 and Goleta Ordinance 13.04 address development of stormwater management and drainage plans to control polluted runoff. The development of management plans and BMPs are neutral constraints on urban development associated with a land use designation change or active agricultural uses. Design considerations could include a construction phase erosion control plan and stormwater management plan and operational phase drainage and stormwater management plans. Furthermore, compliance with Clean Water Act permits and incorporation of retention basins, infiltration, and bio swales could further protect water quality. Goleta General Plan Policy SE 6.2 addresses areas subject to local urban flooding and Goleta Ordinance 15.10 addresses floodplain management. The City may require applications for urban development associated with a land use designation change on the property to lessen the impact to people, housing, and structures. The 100-year floodplain covers a minimal amount of area at the edges of the property compared to the size of the property; therefore, urban uses or active agricultural uses would generally not be constrained.
July 21, 2011
I-18
I.4.3
Additional Analysis Required and Questions
How much water is recharged on the existing site and how does this compare to the rest of the city and county? Need to determine if the site is a source for substantial groundwater recharge and if there would be a net deficit if existing property conditions change. Drainage plan would be prepared as part of approvals for any development resulting from a land use designation change.
July 21, 2011
I-19
Appendix J Noise
Appendix J: Noise
NOISE
This section discusses the existing noise conditions of the Bishop Ranch property (property) and adjacent areas. This section describes the following:
existing environment with respect to the existing noise levels on the property and on surrounding land uses adjacent to the property, and existing and future noise contours of traffic, railway, and airport noise sources; regulatory setting for noise; and constraints and opportunities associated with noise.
This section uses the Noise Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/CLUP), the County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual, and the City or Goletas (Citys) Municipal Codes to generally determine if existing and future noise conditions within and adjacent to Bishop Ranch constrain the property.
J.1
Noise Terminology
Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. It may be loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired sound that is typically associated with human activity and that interferes with or disrupts normal, noise-sensitive, ongoing activities of others. Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause hearing loss, the principal human response to environmental noise is annoyance. The response of individuals to similar noise events is diverse and influenced by the type of noise, the perceived importance and suitability of the noise in a particular setting, the time of day and type of activity during which the noise occurs, and the sensitivity of the individual. (Harris 1979.) Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air, that are sensed by the human ear. Sound is generally characterized by frequency and intensity. Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in Hertz (Hz), while intensity describes the sound's level, volume, or loudness and is measured in decibels (dB). Environmental sounds are commonly quantified by evaluating all sound frequencies according to a weighting system that reflects that human hearing is less sensitive to low frequencies and extremely high frequencies than to mid-range frequencies. This frequency-dependent modification is called A-weighting, and the decibel level measured is called the A-weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a noise source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the dBA curve. A sound level of 0 dBA is approximately the threshold of human hearing and is barely audible under extremely quiet listening conditions. Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dBA. Sound levels above about 120 dBA begin to feel uncomfortable to the human ear and eventually painful at still higher levels. (Harris 1979.) In a community environment, a change in noise level of 3 dBA is barely perceptible to the average person, while a 5 dBA change is considered as clearly perceptible. A change in sound
July 21, 2011 J-1
Appendix J: Noise
level of 10 dBA is usually perceived by the average person as a doubling (or halving) of the sounds loudness; this relation holds true for loud sounds and for quiet sounds. Because of the logarithmic scale of the decibel unit, sound levels cannot be added or subtracted arithmetically and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically. However, a simple rule of thumb is useful in dealing with sound levels: if a sound's physical intensity is doubled, the sound level increases by 3 dB, regardless of the initial sound level. For example, 60 dB plus 60 dB equals 63 dB, and 80 dB plus 80 dB equals 83 dB. (Harris 1979.) Other descriptors of noise that are commonly used to help determine noise/land use compatibility and to predict an average community reaction to adverse effects of environmental noise, including traffic-generated and industrial noise, include the day-night average sound level (DNL or Ldn). As a result of recommendation by the California Health Department and State planning law, this descriptor is used by many planning agencies. The Ldn noise metric represents a 24-hour period and applies a time-weighted factor designed to penalize noise events that occur during nighttime hours, when relaxation and sleep disturbance are of more concern. Noise occurring during the daytime hoursbetween 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. receives no penalty. Noise occurring between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is penalized by adding 10 dB to the measured level. In California, the use of the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) descriptor is also permitted. CNEL is identical to Ldn except CNEL adds a 5-dB penalty for noise occurring during evening hours between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. (Harris 1979.)
J.2
Vibration Terminology
Ground-borne vibration is a small, rapidly fluctuating motion transmitted through the ground. Ground-borne vibration diminishes (or attenuates) fairly rapidly over distance. Some soil types transmit vibration quite efficiently; other types (primarily sandy soils) do not. As a point of reference, the average person can just barely perceive vibration levels of approximately 65 velocity decibels (typically in the vertical direction). A level of 80 velocity decibels is the threshold identified by the Federal Transit Administration as the point of annoyance/ interference in a residential environment for infrequent events (fewer than 70 vibration events per day). Groundborne noise is the rumbling sound caused by vibration or oscillatory motion. With groundborne noise, buildings and other structures act like speakers for low amplitude noise. As an example, groundborne noise is the low rumbling sound that occurs within a building as a train passes beneath or when a structure is close to a heavy construction activity such as pile driving. (Federal Transit Administration 1995.)
J.3
Existing Conditions
The property is vacant land zoned as agriculture. Surrounding land uses include residential land uses and Dos Pueblos High School to the west, agricultural fields and the Glenn Annie golf course to the north, residential to the northeast, with commercial and institutional (a church) on the eastern border, and Calle Real, US-101, and the UPRR rail line along the southern boundary.
July 21, 2011
J-2
Appendix J: Noise
J.3.1 Noise Sensitive Land uses
The GP/CLUP defines sensitive noise receivers as users or types of uses that are interrupted (rather than merely annoyed) by relatively low levels of noise. Such receivers include:

residential neighborhoods, schools, libraries, hospitals and rest homes, auditoriums, certain open space areas, and public assembly places.
Noise sensitive land uses are located throughout the City. Figure 3.11-1 of the General Plan EIR indicates specific noise sensitive land uses in the City where ambient sound levels were measured and Table 3.11-4 of the EIR summarizes Field Noise Measurements at Noise Sensitive Locations. The noise sensitive locations nearest to the Bishop Ranch property are:

Site No. 6 Dos Pueblos High School located along the northwest boundary of the property, and Site No 7 Christ Lutheran Church of Goleta ELCA, located along the eastern border of the property.
Other nearby existing noise sensitive locations include residences to the west. J.3.2 Existing Noise Levels
The existing noise environment on the property and in the surrounding land uses is primarily dominated by vehicular traffic from US-101 and Calle Real, which are both located immediately to the south of the property. Additionally, periodic sources of noise include rail traffic on the UPRR rail line located to the south of the property, and Santa Barbara Municipal Airport located to the southeast of the property. Figure 9-1 of the GP/CLUP shows the existing (2005) 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL contours for US-101 and the surrounding roadway network. The existing 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL contours extend approximately 250, 700, and 1,300 feet from the US-101 centerline into the property (depicted in Figure J-1). Table 3.11-1 of the General Plan EIR also shows that the 2005 noise levels along Calle Real are approximately 62 dBA CNEL at 100 feet from the centerline. However, this noise level would likely not be a dominant noise source due to the proximity of US-101. Other noise sources surrounding the property include the UPRR rail line to the south and Santa Barbara Municipal Airport to the southeast. Figure 9-2 of the GP/CLUP shows the existing 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL contours for both the UPRR rail line and the airport. The existing 65 dBA
July 21, 2011 J-3
Appendix J: Noise
CNEL contour extends into the property for a short distance. The 60 dBA CNEL contour extends approximately 250 feet into the property from the UPRR rail line. Though none of the existing 70, 65, or 60 dBA CNEL contours from the airport extends into the property, aircraft (primarily from departure vectors to the west) are clearly audible. Existing noise associated with the property would be negligible because the property is vacant land. Noise levels in the surrounding land uses (other than the transportation sources discussed above) consist of typical neighborhood noise such as dogs barking, doors shutting, and landscape work. Other noise from surrounding land uses includes noise from Dos Pueblos High School, which is located along the northwest side of the property. Noise associated with this land use would be from recreational activities and the Public Address (PA) systems on fields located on the east side of the school, which borders the property. Existing vibration levels on the property would be relatively low; the nearest sources of vibration are from heavy truck traffic on US-101 and the UPRR rail line to the south.
J.4
Future Conditions
The future noise environment on the property and in the surrounding land uses are anticipated to continue to be dominated by the transportation noise sources discussed above. These mobile source noise profiles would be larger and extend further into the property due to increased usage. Figure 9-3 of the GP/CLUP shows the future (2030) 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL contours for US101 and the surrounding roadway network. The extent of the future 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL noise contours are expected to increase marginally over the existing contours. Table 3.11-1 of the EIR also shows that the 2030 noise levels along Calle Real are approximately 64 dBA CNEL at a distance of 100 feet from the centerline. The extent of noise contours for the UPRR rail line and the Santa Barbara Municipal Airport are also expected to increase with increased use of these facilities. Figure 9-4 of the GP/CLUP shows the future 70, 65, and 60 dBA CNEL contours for both the UPRR rail line and the airport. The future 65 and 60 dBA CNEL contours for the UPRR rail line would extend onto the property approximately the same distance as the existing contours. None of the future 70, 65, or 60 dBA CNEL contours from the airport would extend into the property; however, aircraft noise would continue to be clearly audible.
J.5
J.5.1
Federal
Noise Control Act of 1972 The Federal Noise Control Act (NCA) of 1972 (Public Law 92-574) established a requirement that all federal agencies administer their programs to promote an environment free of noise that jeopardizes public health or welfare. As Congress has the authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, regulation of noise generated by such commerce also falls under
July 21, 2011
J-4
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Los Carneros Rd
Gl en
ni An eR d
250 Feet
500
Legend Property Current (2005) 60 dBA CNEL (Approximately 148 acres of the property) Current (2005) 65 dBA CNEL (Approximately 50 acres of the property)
Source: City of Goleta; ESRI (2008); California Department of Conservation
Figure J-1 EXISTING AND FUTURE NOISE CONTOURS

Future (2030) 60 dBA CNEL (Approximately 196 acres of the property) Future (2030) 65 dBA CNEL (Approximately 71 acres of the property)
Appendix J: Noise
congressional authority. The Federal government specifically preempts local control of noise emissions from aircraft, railroad, and interstate highways. Under the NCA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given the responsibility for the following:

providing information to the public regarding identifiable effects of noise on public health or welfare; publishing information on the levels of environmental noise that will protect the public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety; coordinating federal research and activities related to noise control; and establishing federal noise emission standards for selected products distributed in interstate commerce.
The NCA also directed that all federal agencies comply with applicable federal, state, interstate, and local noise control regulations. Although the EPA was given major public information and federal agency coordination roles, each federal agency retains authority to adopt noise regulations pertaining to agency programs. The EPA can require other federal agencies to justify their noise regulations in terms of NCA policy requirements. The following is a summary of key federal agencies and the jurisdiction that they have related to noise:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): noise standards for federally funded housing projects; Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): noise standards for aircraft noise; Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): noise standards for federally funded highway projects; and Federal Transit Authority (FTA): noise standards for federally funded transit projects.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency In 1974, in response to the requirements of the federal NCA, the EPA identified indoor and outdoor noise limits to protect public health and welfare (communication disruption, sleep disturbance, and hearing damage). Outdoor Ldn limits of 55 dBA and indoor Ldn limits of 45 dBA are identified as desirable to protect against speech interference and sleep disturbance for residential, educational, and healthcare areas. Sound-level criteria to protect against hearing damage in commercial and industrial areas are identified as 24-hour Leq values of 70 dBA (both outdoors and indoors). Housing and Urban Development HUD has established guidelines for evaluating noise impacts on residential projects seeking financial support under various grant programs (44 Federal Register 135:40860-40866, January 23, 1979). Sites are generally considered acceptable for residential use if they are exposed to outdoor Ldn values of 65 dBA or less. Sites are considered normally unacceptable if they are
July 21, 2011 J-5
Appendix J: Noise
exposed to outdoor Ldn values of 65 to 75 dBA. Sites are considered unacceptable if they are exposed to outdoor Ldn values above 75 dBA. The HUD goal for the interior noise level in residences is that noise not exceed an Ldn value of 45 dBA. Federal Aviation Administration 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150, Airport Noise Compatibility Planning, prescribes the procedures, standards, and methodology to be applied airport noise compatibility planning activities. Noise levels below 65 Ldn are normally considered to be acceptable for noise sensitive land uses. Federal Highway Administration FHWA regulations (23 CFR 772) specify procedures for evaluating noise impacts associated with federally funded highway projects and for determining whether these impacts are sufficient to justify funding noise abatement actions. The FHWA noise abatement criteria are based on worst hourly Leq sound levels, not Ldn or CNEL values. The worst-hour 1-hour Leq criteria for residential, educational, and healthcare facilities are 67 dBA outdoors and 52 dBA indoors. The worst-hour 1-hour Leq criterion for commercial and industrial areas is 72 dBA (outdoors). Federal Transit Administration FTA procedures for the evaluation noise from transit projects are specified in the document titled Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (FTA 1995). The FTA Noise Impact Criteria group noise-sensitive land uses into the following three categories:

Category 1: Buildings or parks where quiet is an essential element of their purpose. Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep. This includes residences, hospitals, and hotels where nighttime sensitivity is assumed to be of utmost importance. Category 3: Institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. This category includes schools, libraries, churches, and active parks.
Ldn is used to characterize noise exposure for residential areas (Category 2). For other noise sensitive land uses, such as outdoor amphitheaters and school buildings (Categories 1 and 3), the maximum 1-hour Leq during the facilitys operating period is used. The noise impacts are identified based on absolute predicted noise levels and increases in noise associated with the project. J.5.2 State
California Noise Insulation Standards Part 2 Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, California Noise Insulation Standards, establishes minimum noise insulation standards to protect persons within new hotels, motels, dormitories, long-term care facilities, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family residences. Under this regulation, interior noise levels attributable to exterior noise sources cannot exceed 45 Ldn in any habitable room. Where such residences are located in an
July 21, 2011
J-6
Appendix J: Noise
environment where exterior noise is 60 Ldn or greater, an acoustical analysis is required to ensure that interior levels do not exceed the 45 Ldn interior standard. Division of Aeronautics Noise Standards Title 21 Chapter 5000 of the California Code of Regulations identifies noise compatibility standards for airport operations. Section 5014 of the code states that the standard for the acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living in the vicinity of airports is established to be a community noise equivalent level of 65 dB. Land uses such a residences, schools, hospitals, or places of worship exposed to aircraft noise exceeding 65 dB CNEL are deemed to be in a noise impact area. This standard forms the basis for the limitation that no proprietor of an airport shall operate an airport with a noise impact area based on the standard of 65 dB CNEL unless the operator has applied for or received a variance. J.5.3 Local
City of Goleta General Plan The Noise Element of the GP/CLUP contains policies that relate to environmental noise. The following GP/CLUP policies and implementation actions are relevant to the Bishop Ranch Property.
Policy NE 1: Noise and Land Use Compatibility Standards. Objectives: To protect Goletas residents, workers, and visitors from excessive noise by applying noise standards in land use decisions. To ensure compatibility of land use with noise exposure levels, and to neither introduce new development in areas with unacceptable noise levels nor allow new noise sources that would impact existing development. Policy NE 2: Traffic Noise Sources. Objectives: To reduce or mitigate noise from existing and projected future vehicular traffic through street improvements, law enforcement, and support of alternative transportation programs. Policy NE 7: Design Criteria to Attenuate Noise. Objectives: To employ noisereduction measures that reduce levels of noise-generated at the source. To use site design and noise insulation techniques that attenuate noise levels experienced at receiver sites to acceptable levels.
Table 9.2 of the General Plan (2006) identifies the noise and land use compatibility criteria, which support the policies outlined above. This table is included as Table J-1 for reference.
July 21, 2011
J-7
Appendix J: Noise
TABLE J-1: NOISE AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA

Land Use Category Normally Acceptable Residentiallow density Residentialmultiple family Transient lodging motels and hotels Schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, and nursing homes Auditoriums, concert halls, and amphitheaters Sports arenas and outdoor spectator sports Playgrounds and neighborhood parks Golf courses, riding stables, water recreation, and cemeteries Office buildings, business commercial, and professional Industrial, manufacturing, utilities, and agriculture 5060 5060 5065 5060 Community Noise Exposure (Ldn or CNEL, dBA) Conditionally Acceptable 6065 6065 6570 6065 Normally Unacceptable 6575 6575 7080 6580 Clearly Unacceptable 7585+ 7585+ 8085+ 8085+
NA
5065
NA
6585+
NA
5070
NA
7085+
5070 5070
NA NA
7075 7080
7585+ 8085+
5067.5
67.575
7585+
NA
5070
7075
7585+
NA
Notes: Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special noise insulation requirements. Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design. Conventional construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning, will normally suffice. Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements shall be made and needed noise insulation features shall be included in the design. Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally not be undertaken. NA: Not applicable. Source: Modified from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Guidelines and State of California Standards.
July 21, 2011
J-8
Appendix J: Noise
City of Goleta Ordinances Existing references applicable to noise include the County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual and the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG) Airport Land Use Commission as discussed below. County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual The County of Santa Barbara Environmental Threshold and Guidelines Manual state
Noise from grading and construction activity proposed within 1,600 feet of sensitive receptors, including schools, residential development, commercial lodging facilities, hospitals or care facilities, would generally result in a potentially significant impact. According to EPA guidelines (see Figure 2) average construction noise is 95 dB(A) at a 50' distance from the source. A 6 dB drop occurs with a doubling of the distance from the source. Therefore, locations within 1,600 feet of the construction site would be affected by noise levels over 65 dB(A). To mitigate this impact, construction within 1,600 feet of sensitive receptors shall be limited to weekdays between the hours of 8 AM to 5 PM only. Noise attenuation barriers and muffling of grading equipment may also be required. Construction equipment generating noise levels above 95 dB(A) may require additional mitigation.
SBCAG Airport Land Use Commission The SBCAG Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has review authority over lands within the defined area of influence of the Santa Barbara Airport.
J.6
J.6.1

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in terms of environmental, regulatory and permitting, and services in the sections below. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the City of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property either as urban land use or to resume active agricultural practices on the property. Service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. Noise evaluations are based on the volume of noise generated by certain activities and the proximity of sensitive receptors (e.g., hospitals, residences, schools) to noise generating activities. The methodology to evaluate the noise setting identifies the existing noise generating sources on the property and existing sensitive uses. It identifies the location of the existing and future noise contours and compares those contours to the existing noise setting and the possible future noise setting under urban or active agricultural land uses. J.6.2 Assumptions
The analysis below makes the following assumptions:
July 21, 2011
J-9
Appendix J: Noise
Active agriculture would not require construction of large buildings or structures. Active agriculture would be consistent with the land use and zoning of the land and therefore would not require any discretionary actions that would trigger environmental documentation under CEQA.
The analysis below also assumes that the City would adhere to the Santa Barbara Thresholds and Guidelines Manuals threshold for all policies regarding the opportunities to manage transportation noise sources by:

designing compatible land uses near existing transportation facilities, imposing design standards on proposed sensitive development near existing transportation facilities, designing projects such that sensitive land uses do not exceed 65 dBA Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn), and designing or mitigating projects such that they would not generate an excess of 65 dBA CNEL that could affect sensitive receptors.
J.7
J.7.1
Evaluation
There are several opportunities and constraints associated with the property in terms of noise. These are summarized in Table J-2 below.
July 21, 2011
J-10
Appendix J: Noise
TABLE J-2: SUMMARY OF NOISE CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Existing Condition Environmental Surrounding land uses are compatible with the noise profile from the existing property.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint Limited land use activity on the property (as is) does not affect noise levels at nearby sensitive land uses.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future change to urban use could result in increased noise levels associated with the activity on the property. Future change to urban use could result in increased noise levels associated with the construction on the property.
The property is located near Santa Barbara Municipal Airport and the Union Pacific Rail Line (UPRR).
The property is located outside the airport approach zone for the Santa Barbara Airport.
The property is not located within the 65 dBA CNEL contour for the airport; therefore, no design considerations are required for a future change to urban use. Sensitive land uses located on the property could experience noise generated by the UPRR rail line.
Both the 60 and the 65 dBA CNEL contour reach within the property. However, noise from the UPRR rail line would not affect the property in its present form. Regulatory and Permitting The Citys General Plans Noise and Land Use Compatibility Criteria Matrix (Table 9-2) designates agricultural land to be 5070 CNEL, Ldn, or dBA (Normally Acceptable) and 70-75 CNEL, Ldn, or dBA (Conditionally Acceptable). These noise levels likely characterize the existing noise profile located on the property, due to the location of US-101, the UPRR rail line, and approach The existing agricultural land use is consistent with the existing noise environment (e.g., adjacent to US-101, UPRR rail line).
If the land use changes to a more sensitive land use type (i.e. urban/residential), there would be a different land use compatibility threshold designation for the property. Therefore, from an acoustical prospective this could cause potential conflict with respect to the existing or future noise level.
July 21, 2011
J-11
Appendix J: Noise
Existing Condition or departure of aircraft out of Santa Barbara Airport to the south of the property.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Active agriculture uses would increase the noise generated on the site, but would not likely violate the land use compatibility threshold for surrounding land uses.
The General Plan Noise Element Policies NE 1.1, NE 1.2, NE 1.3, NE 1.4, NE 2.1, NE 4.1 present noise thresholds and acceptable ranges of noise levels with specific land uses within the City.
These policies establish noise thresholds for different types of land uses located within the City. These policies ensure compatibility of land uses based on the type of noise generated during construction and/or land use activity. Portions of the property are located within the unacceptable threshold of the noise and land use compatibility matrix.
Future change to an urban land use could result in a potential incompatibility with the General Plan policies regarding noise and may not be consistent with residential developments. Active agriculture would increase noise generated on the site and would increase noise associated with increased traffic to and from the site. However this increase would be expected to be marginal and would not violate Policy NE 1.1.
Service There are no service constraints for Noise. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Table Notes 1 Existing Conditions Rating indicates how well the existing conditions support the resource area (e.g., aesthetics, agriculture, biology, etc.). The rating is defined in one of the following three ways: Positive (+) indicates an opportunity, or an issue that would not pose a constraint.
July 21, 2011
J-12
Appendix J: Noise
Existing Condition
2
Neutral (/) indicates an issue that is neutral and neither positive or negative. Negative (-) indicates a constraint that would be difficult to overcome
The urban column indicates the property would be converted to some type of urban use and the Ag column indicates the property would be converted to some type of active agricultural. The Future Property Use rating is the same as defined above (positive, neutral, or negative) and indicates how well an urban use or ag use would support the resource area given the identified opportunities or constraints.
July 21, 2011
J-13
Appendix J: Noise
J.7.2 Discussion of Evaluation
The property in its current state is vacant land and does not generate noise. Furthermore, the property is compatible with existing noise-generating sources such as US-101, the railroad, and the airport (i.e., it is not affected by these sources because it is vacant). Any change to the use of this property, whether increased utilization of the land in an agricultural capacity or urban development, could result in a change in the noise environment and could affect offsite or onsite sensitive land uses. Residential land uses are used as a reference point to provide a conservative discussion because they represent the lowest noise thresholds within the Land Use Compatibility Matrix. The Noise Elements Noise and Land Use Compatibility Matrix designates residential land uses as 5060 CNEL, Ldn, or dBA for normally acceptable and 6065 CNEL, Ldn, or dBA for conditionally acceptable. These levels could potentially be exceeded based on the Citys noise contours for both US-101 and the UPRR rail line, as presented in the General Plan Noise Element. Sensitive receptors include residential land uses located immediately west of the property are Dos Pueblos High School and Christ Lutheran Church located northwest and east of the property. Therefore, any noise generation on the property by urban development or from increased traffic could affect these sensitive land uses by exposing them to increased noise levels that exceed a City policy. The inclusion of increased traffic along Calle Real and other local roadways could cause noise levels to exceed General Plan thresholds and could signify a permanent increase in noise levels. Other stationary noise sources could potentially impact sensitive receivers surrounding the property. Construction noise is covered in the County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual. Construction activities have the potential to impact sensitive receivers to the west of the property. Depending on the construction equipment mix, the designated 65 dBA threshold could be exceeded. However, construction is generally exempt from standards when conducted between the hours identified in Table J-2. Active agriculture is not considered a sensitive land use. Therefore, active agriculture would not be affected by US-101 or the rail line. However, depending on the type of active agriculture, existing sensitive land uses to the west may be affected by activities on the property. This may include harvesting in the evening hours or the use of loud equipment. Non-Issues The airport and railroad would likely be non-issues regarding noise. Although some parts of the property may experience some incidental aircraft noise from flights overhead, the property is not located within the airport approach zone. Vibrations from the railroad would also likely be a nonissue for the property. The railroad tracks are located south of US-101, over 500 feet from the southern edge of the property. US-101 would likely create more vibrations than the existing railroad. Furthermore, because the property is so large, it is very unlikely that railroad vibrations would affect interior areas of the property.
July 21, 2011
J-14
Appendix J: Noise
J.7.3 Additional Analysis Required and Questions
The existing property is neither a significant noise source nor a sensitive receiver. A change of land use designation could have the potential to result in some form of noise generating activity or the addition of sensitive receivers. Acoustical analysis would be required if the property were developed as a result of the land use change.
July 21, 2011
J-15
Appendix K Public Facilities
Appendix K: Public Facilities
PUBLIC FACILITIES
This section discusses the public facilities of the Bishop Ranch property (property) and the City of Goleta (City). Public facilities include fire services, police services, libraries, schools, and parks and recreation. This section describes the following:

existing fire services, police services, libraries, schools, and parks and recreation in the City, including service response times, and any existing deficiencies; emergency preparedness; regulatory setting for public facilities; and public service needs and constraints in the future.
This section uses the Public Safety Element, Public Facilities Element, and Open Space Element of the General Plan, and conversations with respective public agencies to generally determine whether the property would be constrained by existing and future public facilities.
K.1
K.1.1
Fire Services
City of Goleta The Santa Barbara County Fire Department (SBCFD) provides fire protection and related services to the City. These services are provided by six fire stations including three within City boundaries (see Table K-1). TABLE K-1: FIRE STATION SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS, 2005
Station Number 113 12 14 Location/Address Storke Road, south of Hollister Avenue, 6901 Frey Way 5330 Calle Real 320 Los Carneros TOTAL
Source: Goleta 2006 and confirmed by Sadecki pers.comm. Notes: 1. Population estimated as of 2000 U.S. Census. 2. Personnel on duty for each shift, plus one chief officer not assigned to a particular station. 3. Station 11 houses one pumper and one ladder truck, with a total of six on-duty firefighters per day; However, Truck 11 is a countywide emergency response rescue vehicle and is not a dedicated unit that serves solely Station 11s first-in district.
Population 1 Served 21,594 16,623 5,960 44,177
Personnel2 3 (6) 3 3 9
Population per Firefighter 7,198 (3,599) 5,541 1,987 4,909
The SBCFD follows the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA) response-time objectives. Under this standard, a 5-minute response time in urban areas is considered to be adequate (Goleta 2006, Sadecki pers. comm.). Most of Goleta falls within that 5-minute response time and is adequately covered except for the western part of the City near Winchester Canyon and some of the most northerly neighborhoods, north of Cathedral Oaks Road between Fairview and Patterson Avenues (Goleta 2005).
July 21, 2011
K-1
Property The property is located within an area designated by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CalFire) as a Local Responsibility Area. The fire services in this Local Responsibility Area are provided by SBCFD. To the north of the property on the other side of Cathedral Oaks Road, the land is within a State Responsibility Area. That land is a high fire hazard severity zone as designated by CalFire. The other areas susceptible to high fire hazards generally include lands with steep slopes and ample vegetation, or fuel load. The existing topography of the property has over 41 acres of land at a 10 to 20 percent slope and an additional 19 acres of land at a slope of 20 percent or greater. Although the property is currently vacant land and does not necessarily require fire services, SBCFD would provide services should a fire occur on the property. K.1.2 Emergency Preparedness
Goleta is a participant in the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan, which was submitted to and accepted by FEMA in January 2005. The City, in cooperation with FEMA, the County, and the State Offices of Emergency Services, is responsible for emergency preparedness and response. Components of emergency preparedness and response include identifying evacuation routes and secondary emergency accesses and providing information to the community regarding appropriate individual actions in the event of various types of emergencies. K.1.3 Police Services
City of Goleta The Santa Barbara County Sheriffs Department (SBCSD) provides police services to the City of Goleta. The City of Goleta is divided into three beats, with one police car assigned to each. SBCSD officers assigned to the unincorporated areas of the County are also available, as needed, for emergency response within the City limits. Police services are provided out of three locations: Old Town on Hollister Avenue, the Camino Real Marketplace, and the SBCSD headquarters, which is in a nearby unincorporated area between Turnpike and El Sueno Roads (Goleta 2006). The City uses the ratio of 1 police officer per 1,000 residents. Currently the City has approximately 31 officers assigned, which meets the 31 officers required by the Citys ratio (Sugars pers. comm.). Property The property is located within the City limits and therefore is served by the SBCSD. However, the property is currently vacant land and does not generate any demand for police services. K.1.4 Schools and Libraries
City of Goleta Public education services are provided to the City of Goleta by the Goleta Union School District (GUSD) and the Santa Barbara School District (SBSD). GUSD owns and operates five schools within City boundaries (Brandon, El Rancho, Ellwood, Kellogg, and La Patera) and five others (El Camino, Foothill, Hollister, Isla Vista, and Mountain View) within unincorporated areas of the Goleta Valley. According to a GUSD Demographics Report that shows 20102011
July 21, 2011
K-2
Demographic Key Points and Trends, GUSD has increased its student population by ten students (GUSD 2010). Generally, enrollment has been steady for the last few years with 3,600 to 3,700 students (Kushnerov pers. comm.). The SBSD includes the elementary and secondary districts (Kushnerov pers. comm.) and oversee Dos Pueblos High School and the Goleta Valley Junior High School, which are both located within City boundaries. SBSD also oversees San Marcos High School in the eastern Goleta Valley. SBSD is still not at capacity and is under open enrollment (Hetyonk pers. comm.). The enrollment is no longer declining has stabilized (Hetyonk pers.comm.). Students within the district are allowed to transfer between schools because they are not at capacity (Hetyonk pers. comm.). The Santa Barbara Public Library System has eight library facilities, one of which is within the City of Goleta. Services at the Goleta Public Library are provided by contract with the City of Santa Barbara in a facility owned by the City at 500 North Fairview Avenue. The 2-acre library site includes a 15,347-square-foot building and parking areas. This facility provides services for the City and nearby unincorporated areas. Annual circulation has steadily increased to more than 506,000 as of 2000. In 2011 circulation was 606,741, and circulation per capita increased to 7.09 (Gray pers. comm.). In 2011, the number of visits to the library was 256,996. Services are provided by 5 full-time and 2 part-time employees (Gray pers. comm.). In 1999, an AB 1600 Fee Justification Study was conducted by David Taussig and Associates. The study concluded that the facility had a deficit of 155,855 volumes and needed an additional 26,330 square feet (Goleta 2006). Property The use of schools and libraries is associated with population and/or population growth. The property is currently vacant land and therefore does not generate a need for schools or libraries. K.1.5 Parks and Recreation
City of Goleta The City of Goleta contains 16 public parks, 4 private parks and open space areas, and 18 public open space areas. These total 526 acres, which equates to about 17 acres per 1,000 residents. The three larger City-owned regional open space preservesSperling Preserve, Santa Barbara Shores Park, and Lake Los Carneros Natural and Historical Preserve collectively account for 363 acres of these 526 acres (Goleta 2006). The City of Goleta has an abundance of open space and passive parks and has a shortage of active parks. There is currently a deficiency in public active parks, and there are no City recreational programs. The City is currently in the process of seeking out opportunity places, those that are large enough to accommodate active recreation. Availability of land and funding have been major obstacles for the development of active parks and public recreation programs. (Millar pers. comm.)
July 21, 2011
K-3
Property The use of parks and recreational facilities is associated with population and/or population growth. The property is currently vacant land and therefore does not generate a need for parks and recreation.
K.2
K.2.1

Federal and State
National Fire Protection Association Fire Code The National Fire Protection Association Fire Code provides the standards for fire protection services that the SBCFD accepts as standards for provision of adequate services. The Fire Code provides standards for firefighters-to-population ratios, equipment quantities, and response times. K.2.2 County Chapter 10 Building Regulations The purpose of this code is to provide minimum safety standards by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of buildings, and structures within the County of Santa Barbara. City of Goleta General Plan Land Use Element There are several policies within the Land Use Element relevant to public facilities. These include:
Local
Policy LU 5: Public and Quasi-Public Land Uses. Objective: To provide land areas for governmental administration and operations, schools, fire stations, and other public and institutional uses within the city. Policy LU 6: Park and Open Spaces. Objective: To provide land areas for public parks, recreation, and open space land uses and private recreational lands within the city and recognize the importance of their contribution to the overall quality of life in Goleta. Policy LU 11: Nonresidential Growth Management. Objective: To manage the timing of future growth based on maintenance of service levels and quality of life.
Public Facilities Element There are several policies within the Public Facilities Element relevant to public facilities. These include:
Policy PF 2: Other Facilities of the City of Goleta. Objective: To provide the full range of municipal public facilities to meet the needs of the Goleta community.
July 21, 2011
K-4
Policy PF 3: Public Safety Services and Facilities. Objective: Ensure that adequate fire and police services and facilities are available to meet the needs of both existing and new development in the city as well as service demands from outside Goletas boundaries. 1. Policy PF 3.2 states that the western portion of the city near Winchester Canyon is under-served and, as funding becomes available, SBCFD will construct a new fire station.
Policy PF 5: School Facilities. Objective: Ensure that adequate public school services and facility capacities are available to meet the long-term needs of both existing and new development in the city as well as service demands from outside Goletas boundaries. Policy PF 7: Coordinating Facilities and Services with Other Agencies. Objective: To ensure the appropriate provision of public facilities and buildings by all public agencies and related nonprofit organizations. Policy PF 8: General Standards for Public Facilities. Objective: To ensure compatible and aesthetically appropriate integration of public buildings and facilities into the citys built and natural environments at appropriate locations. Policy PF 9: Coordination of Facilities with Future Development. Objective: To ensure that land use decisions are based on the planned capacity of capital facilities and that such facilities are provided when they are needed to support new development. Policy PF 10: Financing Public Facilities. Objective: To use all available capital improvement revenues to finance facilities to meet the communitys needs.
Safety Element There are several policies within the Safety Element relevant to public facilities. These include:

Policy SE 7: Urban and Wildland Fire Hazards. Objective: To reduce the threat to life, structures, and the environment caused by urban and wildland fires. Policy SE 11: Emergency Preparedness. Objective: To attain a high level of emergency preparedness to limit damage and risks to public safety from natural and industrial hazards and to have effective and efficient emergency recovery procedures in place to minimize social, environmental, and economic disruption during the aftermath of an emergency.
City of Goleta Ordinances The Goleta Zoning ordinance was reviewed for specific information regarding public services; however, no specific ordinances were identified that are relevant to public facilities.
K.3
K.3.1

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in terms of environmental, regulatory and
July 21, 2011
K-5
permitting, and services in the sections below. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the City of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property as an urban land use or to resume active agricultural practices on the property. Service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. The evaluation of public facilities and services involved compiling reviewing the environmental conditions information and regulatory information defined above. This information was gathered from personal correspondence and document review for each public facility and service area. Existing deficiencies and potential future deficiencies were identified for each public facility or service based on the information reviewed. Then qualitative comparisons were made to the identified deficiencies under urban land use conditions or active agricultural conditions to determine if any existing or future constraints may occur for public facilities and services. K.3.2 Assumptions
The SBCSD provides adequate law enforcement services based on the fact that statistics for reported crimes were low in comparison with similar sized California cities (Goleta 2005). Any current deficiency in public services and/or facilities will likely not be reconciled in the near future based on the budgets of many local agencies and municipalities and on the existing conditions of these public facilities and/or services.
K.4
K.4.1
Evaluation
There are several opportunities and constraints associated with the property in regards to public facilities. These are summarized in Table K-2.
July 21, 2011
K-6
TABLE K-2: SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Existing Condition 1 Rating / Relevance to Future Property Use and Rating2 Urban Ag /
Existing Condition Service The fire stations serving the City have a total of 15 firefighters per shift, which gives a ratio of 1 firefighter for every 4,866 people in the area. According to NFPA standards, the minimum guideline is a firefighter-to-population ratio of 1 to 4,000.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The existing firefighting service ratios for the City are below the NFPA guidelines.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint A change in the land use designation to urban uses could potentially result in an increase in population, which would place an increased strain on fire services. A change to active agriculture would not result in an increase demand in fire services but fire services may still be deficient.
Law enforcement services for the City are provided by officers assigned to each of the Citys three beats and officers in the unincorporated portion of the County. The service is currently meeting the recommended ratio of officers per resident, with approximately 31 officers on staff.
The existing service standards for police for the City are currently met and are likely to be met in the future.
Police services are considered appropriately sized for the City, currently and in the future.
Enrollment within the school districts is not at capacity and is stable.
As vacant land, the property currently does not require school services.
A change in land use would likely not result in a need for additional school services. Furthermore, the aging population of the area would likely require less school services in the future. A change to active agriculture would not result in an increase in population; thus, no increase in student enrollment.
July 21, 2011
K-7
Existing Condition The Goleta Public Library has a deficit in the resources it provides to the public and will continue to have a deficit because additional library services are not projected for the future. Therefore, library services provided to the City are inadequate.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The existing and future library services do not meet the needs of the city.
Existing Condition 1 Rating /
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint An increase in population and would place further strain on a library that is inadequately serving the population. A change to active agriculture would not result in an increase in population thus additional use of libraries; however, libraries would continue to be deficient.
There is sufficient amount of passive parks and recreation in the City.
The passive parks and recreational opportunities meet the needs for the City.
An increase in population could use the existing passive recreational opportunities. A change to active agriculture would not result in an increase in population, thus no increase in the use of passive parks.
There is a shortage of active parks and recreation programs within the City. Lack of funding and budget issues will likely continue to prohibit the development of active parks in the City.
The existing and future active recreation opportunities do not meet the needs of the City.
Additional active recreation services are needed currently and in the future. A change to active agriculture would not result in an increase in population thus no increase in the use of active parks, but there would still be a deficiency in the City.
Table Notes 1 Existing Conditions Rating indicates how well the existing conditions support the resource area (e.g., aesthetics, agriculture, biology, etc.). The rating is defined in one of the following three ways: Positive (+) indicates an opportunity, or an issue which would not pose a constraint. Neutral (/) indicates an issue that is neutral and neither positive or negative. Negative (-) indicates a constraint that would be difficult to overcome. 2 The Urban column indicates the property would be converted to some type of urban use and the Ag column indicates the property would be converted to some type of active agricultural. The Future Property Use rating is the same as defined above (positive, neutral, or negative) and indicates how well an urban use or ag use would support the resource area given the identified opportunities or constraints.
July 21, 2011
K-8
K.4.2
Summary of Results Table K-3 summarizes the current and future deficiencies of various public services and shows whether the deficiencies present a challenge to urban development associated with a land use change. Discussion of this summary follows the table.
July 21, 2011
K-9
TABLE K-3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES RESULTS

Current Deficiency Police No Future Deficiency Not Likely Issues Summary Libraries Yes Likely The property does not currently generate a demand for police services because it is vacant land. Crime statistics are low; therefore, police services are considered adequate for the City and are expect to remain as such. The property does not currently generate a demand for fire services because it is vacant land; however, if a fire broke out on or adjacent to the property, fire service would respond. The fire stations serving the City have a total of 15 firefighters per shift, which gives a ratio of 1 firefighter for every 4,866 people in the area. According to NFPA standards, the absolute minimum standard is a firefighter-to-population ratio of 1 to 4,000; therefore, the SBCFD ratio is inadequate. The General Plan identifies the construction and operation of a new fire station to serve the western side of the City and to try and correct the existing service deficiency. The property does not currently generate a demand for library services because it is vacant land. The Goleta Public Library has a deficit in the resources it provides to the public and will continue to have a deficit because additional library services are not projected for the future. The property does not currently generate a need for schools because it is vacant land. Schools are not at capacity. School facilities are currently available to adequately serve the student population and will likely be able to serve future student populations because the population in Goleta and Santa Barbara County, in general, is becoming older and not experiencing an increase in school age children. The property does not currently generate a demand for parks because it is vacant land. There is a shortage of active parks and recreation programs within the City. Lack of funding and budget issues will likely continue to prohibit the development of active parks in the City. There is a sufficient amount of passive parks in the City.
Fire
Yes
Likely
Schools
No
Not Likely
Parks
Yes (active parks)
Yes (active parks)
July 21, 2011
K-10
Fire Services in the City of Goleta As discussed in Section K.1, Environmental Conditions, the SBCFD provides services to the City, but these services do not currently adequately serve the population per NFPA standards. The SBCFD is proposing to develop a new facility, Fire Station 10, in the western portion of the City. This area of the City is considered underserved and is one of the few areas in the City that does not fall within a 5-minute response time. General Plan Policy PF 3.3 asserts that the construction of Fire Station 10 shall be funded in part by revenues from an impact fee imposed on new development within the City and on development in nearby unincorporated areas. As discussed in Environmental Conditions, the fire services provided to the City of Goleta do not meet NFPA guidelines. Currently, the firefighter-to-population ratio is 1 to 4,866 people, and the NFPA guidelines assert that the absolute minimum standard should be a 1 to 4,000 firefighterto-population ratio. The development of Fire Station 10 or the addition of one firefighter at each of the three existing stations would ensure that the SBCFD meets firefighter-to-population ratio for NFPA standards (General Plan Report: Fire Services 2005). Any use of the property that would increase the population would place a greater strain on the already strained fire services. Implementation of General Plan Policy PF 3.3 would help address the costs of maintaining adequate levels of service, but the provision of fire services would be a negative constraint on urban development associated with a land use designation change because of the increased demand for services. In addition, fire services would also present a constraint to urban development associated with a land use designation change because of the propertys features, which are susceptible to fire hazards in much the same way that areas with steep slopes are, or as the high fire hazard severity zone adjacent to the northern border of the property. Any active agricultural uses on the property would not present a fire hazard because sensitive receptors (e.g. structures, people) would not be present. . Police Services in the City of Goleta The SBCPD provides adequate services to the City and, as a result, the City has crime rates that are lower than other similarly sized California cities. The General Plan has two main policies within Policy PF 3 that aim to maintain adequate levels of service. The first of these is Policy 3.8: Impact Fee for Police Facilities, which essentially requires that a development impact fee is provided to maintain service levels through proper funding. The second is Policy 3.9, which states that all development should be designed in such a way that streets and buildings reinforce secure, safe, and crime-free environments. With implementation of both of these policies, service levels should remain adequate because crime will be prevented through design measures of any new development within the City, and police services will be adequately funded by any development that would place an increased demand on police services. Nevertheless, the existing condition of the property does not require police services, while the demand for police services would increase if urban development occurred as a result of a land use designation change. Active agriculture would not strain the SBCSD services because a substantial increase in population would not occur with this type of land use. Schools and Libraries in the City of Goleta The GUSD and SBSD are adequately serving the existing population, and the facilities that serve the student population can accommodate increased student enrollment. Currently planning efforts are focused on classroom consolidation. Furthermore, the population in the Goleta area is aging, and, therefore, the need for school services may decline (SBCAG 2002).
July 21, 2011
The General Plan also presents the framework for implementing planning efforts that would ensure the accommodation of increased school services due to an increase in student population. General Plan Policy PF 5.1 asserts that the City should collaborate with the school districts in order to ensure that the quality of school services is maintained. This policy would apply to any urban development on the property given the inevitable increase in student population associated with such development. Also, General Plan Policy PF 5.2 states that application for large residential development projects shall be reviewed by the school districts and reviewed through environmental documents pursuant to CEQA. These policies would ensure that any urban development as a result of a land use designation change would be reviewed early in the planning process so that existing school service levels could be maintained. Active agricultural uses would not strain the school services because this type of use would not result in a substantial increase in school age children. As discussed in Section K.1, Environmental Conditions, there are shortcomings in City of Goleta Public Library resources and services. Generally the following applies to the existing and future library services:
The library is unable to adequately serve the existing population The Goleta Branch Library serves approximately 1,000 people, 3 days per week. The amount of square footage and amount of money budgeted for books is insufficient to be able to serve the surrounding community. Unless there is a substantial decline in population, the shortcomings in services provided by the Goleta Branch Library will continue into the future. (Gray pers. comm.)
General Plan Policy PF 2.1 states that the City should evaluate the adequacy and location of the current site and facility. Given the findings of the previously completed evaluations, as discussed in Section K.1, the Goleta Public Library does not have the resources available to provide adequate services to the current population. Any future urban development associated with a change in land use designation on the property would place additional strain on the Goleta Public Librarys already inadequate services, and this increased demand would be a negative constraint. Active agricultural uses would not place any strain on library services because active agricultural uses would not result in a substantial increase in the population. Parks and Recreation in the City of Goleta The parks within the City of Goleta are mainly open-space, passive recreational uses. There is a deficiency in active parks, and the City currently does not administer any recreational programs. This shortcoming has led the City to start identifying opportunity places within the City boundaries that could potentially serve as active parks. However, the number of opportunity places in the city large enough to host active recreational uses is minimal. Areas with enough space to accommodate active recreational uses, such as the property, are considered to be opportunity places for active recreational use. The property is one of the last vacant areas within the City of Goleta that is not already designated as open space or passive recreation. Any future urban development resulting from a change in land use designation could plan for the inclusion of active parks. This is an opportunity to address the Citys deficiency in active parks. Active
July 21, 2011
K-12
agricultural uses would not provide the opportunity to increase the amount of active park space within the City and the existing active park deficiency would remain. K.4.3 Additional Analysis Required and Questions
SBCFD, SBCSD, GUSD, SBHSD, and the Santa Barbara Public Library system would need to review and be a part of the planning process for urban development associated with a land use change. This public department participation in the planning process would help ensure that development impact fees and land uses consider the needs of the public service providers.
July 21, 2011
K-13
Appendix L Water Supply, Wastewater, and Utilities
Appendix L: Water Supply, Wastewater, and Utilities
WATER SUPPLY, WASTEWATER, AND UTILITIES
This section discusses the water supply, wastewater, and utilities (including solid waste and stormwater drainage) of the Bishop Ranch property (property) and the City of Goleta (City). This section describes the following:

historical information regarding water supply and the property; existing water supply, wastewater, and utility service capacities of the property and the City; regulatory setting for water supply, wastewater, and utility services; and constraints and opportunities associated with water supply, wastewater, and utility services; specifically, water supply availability for the renewed agricultural production on the property as well as identifying water availability needs, constraints, and opportunities.
This section also includes a discussion of surface water, stormwater, and groundwater constraints. This section uses information from Appendix B and Attachment 1 to Appendix B; the Goleta Water District, including the Water Supply Assessment for the Goleta General Plan, the Urban Water Management Plan, and direct correspondence; the Goleta Sanitation District/Goleta West Sanitation District Wastewater Generation Study prepared by Dudek (2006); the Goleta West Sanitation District Sewer Master Plan; and information from the California State Waste Stream Information Profiles.
L.1
The City is served by several districts with regards to water, wastewater, and solid waste. These districts, their characteristics, existing need and capacity, and future need and capacity are described below. The stormwater system is not served by a specific district, but rather a network that is maintained by various agencies. It is described below. L.1.1 Water
Goleta Water District The Goleta Water District (GWD) supplies drinking water to approximately 80,000 people within the South Coastal portion of Santa Barbara County (County). The western border of the service area is adjacent to El Capitan State Park, its northern border is along the foothills of the Santa Ynez Mountains and the Los Padres National Forest, the City of Santa Barbara is to the east and the Pacific Ocean is to the south. The service area is located in the Santa Ynez Watershed and encompasses approximately 29,000 acres. The service area includes the following major water users:

City of Goleta, University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB), and Unincorporated County of Santa Barbara. (GWD 2008)
July 21, 2011
L-1
The Southern Coastal Area of Santa Barbara County has substantial year-to-year variation in precipitation and evapotranspiration. Variation in precipitation affects runoff conditions, which directly affects the water supply from various sources (see below for discussion of water supply). Typically precipitation ranges from almost 0 inches to 5 inches throughout the year. In addition to the changes in the GWD service area population due to natural population growth, the service area is currently experiencing several major planning and demographic changing events, which relate to the water supply and demand of the area. These include:

the development and adoption of the Citys General Plan and its effect on local population and economic growth rates, the development and adoption of the Isla Vista Master Plan, the approval by the Regents of the update to the Long Range Development Plan for the University of California student and faculty populations, and recent increases in single-family residential development. (GWD 2010)
Facilities and Supply The water distribution system includes over 200 miles of pipelines of varying sizes. The water supply from the Cachuma Project and the State Water Project (SWP) is treated through the Corona Del Mar Water Treatment Plant. The plant has a treatment capacity of 24 million gallons per day (MGD). The GWD maintains eight reservoirs ranging in individual capacity from 0.3 million gallons to over 6 million gallons. The reservoirs have a combined capacity of approximately 20.2 million gallons. (GWD 2008.) There are three supply sources for the service area:

Cachuma Project SWP Annual Groundwater Right
The majority of the GWDs water supply comes from the Cachuma Project, which provides 9,322 acre-feet per year (AFY) (GWD 2010). This is 36.25 percent of the operational yield of the Cachuma Project, which is 25,714 AFY, based on a water shortage of up to 26 percent during dry years and taking into account requirements for downstream releases for fish (GWD 2010). The SWP total annual allotment is 7,450 AFY (GWD 2008). This is the amount in the SWP contract that lists the maximum amount of water an agency may request per year, and, therefore, GWD does not typically receive this amount of water (GWD 2008). The Central Coast Water Authority (CCWA) was formed to construct the necessary facilities to deliver SWP water to the area. The GWDs agreement with the CCWA is for 4,500 AFY of the SWP allocated water, which is conveyed to Cachuma Lake. This is considered GWDs basic SWP supply, and this amount was included in the Water Supply Assessment (WSA) prepared for the City of Goleta General Plan in 2008 (GWD 2008). Since the preparation of the WSA, GWD has provided additional clarification regarding the restrictions on this amount as it relates to the SAFE Water Supplies Ordinance (SAFE) in its 2010 response to comments on the UCSB 2010
July 21, 2011
L-2
Long Range Development Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The GWD service area residents passed the SAFE ordinance (see Regulatory and Permitting Section below for additional information) in 1991 (GWD 2008). This ordinance was amended in 1994 for long-term planning purposes and states that the GWD may not use more than 3,800 AFY of the SWP yield (GWD 2010). In 2010, the years allocation was limited based on water supply availability through the SWP and was at 20 percent (GWD 2010). Therefore, based on continuing uncertainty about SWP, the SWP allocation available to GWD ranges between 0 and 3,800 AFY of supply (GWD 2010). The annual groundwater right of GWD is 2,350 AFY (GWD 2010). This right was established by the 1989 settlement of the Wright Judgment, which adjudicated the production and storage rights for the Goleta Groundwater Basin (GGWB). This judgment also allows the GWD to store water in the basin for future use. Currently, the GWD has over 35,000 AFY of water stored (GWD 2005). The GGWB underlies the Goleta Coastal Plain, including the City of Goleta (GWD 2008). GWD currently has nine production wells in the basin, all of which are located in the deep aquifers of the Central Subbasin (See Appendices B, Agriculture, and I, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a description of the aquifers) (GWD 2008). Six of the wells have been rehabilitated, five of which are fully operational (GWD 2008). In the past, the groundwater basin was an important source of supply; however, since 1991, the GWD has met demand primarily through the Cachuma reservoir, SWP (since 1997), and recycled water (since 1995) (GWD 2008). Per the SAFE Ordinance, GWD must retain some of the groundwater supply in a drought buffer (GWD 2008). Groundwater may be pumped above the 2,350 AFY if groundwater is above the 1972 levels or if a SAFE-defined drought is declared (GWD 2010). Based on this information in the WSA (GWD 2008) and the UCSB comment letter(s) (2010) the existing water supply using the three sources described above ranges between 11,672 and 16,172 AFY. In December 2011 the GWD set the allocation for SAFE based on an estimated supply of 14,423 AF (which is within the 11,000 and 16,000 AF range). Currently, GWD is preparing the update to the Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). GWD released a Water Supply Management Plan in April of 2010 (GWD 2011)1. The Water Supply Management Plan identifies that the service area currently has a supply of approximately 16,472 AFY during average water conditions and approximately 14,434 during drought conditions. Water Demand The differing land uses and the population growth over time can provide context of the existing and future water demand in a service area. The service area of the GWD is comprised primarily of residential uses (e.g., single-family homes), institutional uses (e.g., UCSB), and agricultural uses. Approximately 5,080 acres of the service area is the City of Goleta, 629 acres is UCSB, 967 acres is the City of Santa Barbara (around the airport), and 22,759 acres is unincorporated areas of the County. Approximately 15,200 acres is urban or developed land, and 13,900 acres is rural or non-developed land. The service area is estimated to experience growth at 0.8 percent per year for the next 20 years based on estimates by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (GWD 2008).
At the time of the writing of this document the Water Supply Management Plan was not available. Subsequently it was released in April of 2011 and information has been incorporated herein. The information does not appreciably change the information contained herein. The UWMP has not been released. Once both of these plans are released the information contained herein can be updated again.
1
July 21, 2011
L-3
Evaluating past demand also provides context for the existing and future water demand in the service area. The district-wide sales between 2002 and 2007 ranged from 11,835 AFY (2005) to 15,554 (2007) (GWD 2008). The average demand over these years was 13,922 AFY (GWD 2008). GWD previously estimated the demand to be approximately 13,700 (GWD 2008). The Water Supply Management Plan (April 2011) does indicate demand for the service area under current conditions is approximately 14,600 AFY and under drought conditions is similar. Under the projected 2030 forecast, average conditions would demand approximately 16,683 AFY and drought conditions would demand approximately the same amount (GWD April 2011). Water Sufficiency Generally, water supply and water demand are compared to identify if there are any existing or future shortages or surpluses of water. It is estimated the GWD had a surplus of approximately 2,559 AFY in 2010 in a normal water year (Goleta 2006, Table 3.9-3). This surplus was determined by comparing the demand and supply from data presented in the 2006 WSA prepared for the Goleta General Plan. Additionally, it is estimated there would be a surplus of approximately 662 AFY available in 2030 in a normal water year (Goleta 2006 Table 3.9-3). The Water Supply Management Plan identifies that under current demand and supply conditions there would be a surplus of water in average conditions (approximately 1,872 AFY) and multiyear drought conditions and a deficit of water in single year drought conditions (GWD April 2011). The 2030 Forecast predicts that under average conditions there would be sufficient water, and under single year and multi-year drought conditions there would be a deficit of water (GWD April 2011). . The City and GWD have experienced water sufficiency problems over the years, as has the entire state of California. Table 15 in the 2005 UWMP summarizes the factors affecting the reliability of water supply. These factors stem from many different variables, including growth and long periods of drought. However, recently the events associated with endangered species in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta have exacerbated the issues associated with supply and reduced the reliability of the SWP water to purveyors. As the service area continues to grow, and large projects such as the UCSB Long Range Development Plan move forward, the demand within the service area will likely increase to meet the available supply of the GWD. It is reasonable to anticipate that there will not be significant or additional sources of supply discovered or used in the future of the service district and within California, even as the overall demand increases in California and in the City. Property Water Characteristics The property is currently vacant land and the existing water demand is very little. There is a 1inch meter installed that serves the property. In 2010 approximately 0.08 acre feet of water were used (GWD 2011). During the past five years the most water that was used on the property was in 2008, 2.28 acre feet. Otherwise the water demand has been approximately 1 acre foot or less. As discussed in Chapter 2, Setting, and Appendix B, Agriculture, the property does have 50 AFY associated with it based on the 1993 agreement between UEC and GWD. The WSA prepared for the General Plan did not include future development on the property (GWD 2008).
July 21, 2011
L-4
L.1.2
Wastewater
Goleta West Sanitary District (GWSD) GWSD handled wastewater disposal for about 33,000 people living in western Goleta, Isla Vista, and, by contract, the Embarcadero Municipal Improvement District. The GWSD service area boundary generally extends from the Airport west to the end of Hollister Avenue and from Cathedral Oaks Road to the coastline. GWSD maintains a network of conveyance pipes and pump stations. Much of the GWSD conveyance infrastructure is over 50 years of age. GWSD conveys its wastewater from the service area to the Goleta Sanitary District (GSD) treatment plant located adjacent to the City and Santa Barbara Municipal Airport on William Moffett Place (see below for more information). GWSD has an agreement with GSD for flow capacity ownerships at the GWSD treatment plant for 40.78 percent of the treatment plants capacity (Dudek 2006). The GWSD service area currently generates approximately 1.71 MGD of wastewater; well under the 40.78 percent it is allowed and thus has approximately 1.41 MGD in remaining capacity it could use for future development within the service area. Future wastewater generation of GWSD was calculated in 2006, during the General Plan Update, which accounted for changes to land use and zoning within the City because of the General Plan Update. These calculations are the most recent estimates of future wastewater generation in ten years and at General Plan Buildout. The estimate was calculated by looking at individual parcels in the City, making different assumptions about parcel densities, and applying the following generation rates for equivalent residential units (ERUs):

Residential: 1 ERU; the ERU is assigned a value of 184 gallons per day Commercial: 100 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of habitable building space Agriculture: 1 ERU; the ERU is assigned a value of 184 gallons per day Recreation: 1 ERU; the ERU is assigned a value of 184 gallons per day, if greater than 1 acre.
It is estimated that in ten years, the GWSD service area would have an additional 0.2 MGD of wastewater flows, for a total of 1.91 MGD of wastewater flows. This would result in a remaining capacity of 1.3 MGD. At buildout, it is estimated the GWSD would have anywhere between 0.40 MGD and 0.51 MGD of wastewater flows, for a total of 2.11 MGD and 2.22 MGD of wastewater flows. This would result in a remaining capacity of 1.01 MGD and 0.9 MGD. As discussed below, this is within the 40.78 percent GWSD is allowed per the wastewater treatment facility allocation. Goleta Sanitary District (GSD) The eastern portion of the City is served by GSD, which collects, treats, and disposes all wastewater. GSDs collection boundary covers approximately 9,282 acres and serves approximately 64,500 people. The boundary extends from the City of Santa Barbaras western boundary to La Patera Road in Goleta, and from the ocean to the residential areas north of Cathedral Oaks Road (see Figure 3-5 in Chapter 3, Environmental Characteristics). The GSD service area currently generates about 2.54 MGD of wastewater.
July 21, 2011
L-5
The GSD treatment plant treats not only GSD generated wastewater, but also treats the wastewater of GWSD and other wastewater generators. The treatment plant has a capacity of 9.7 MGD (based on average daily flow) but is currently limited to a permitted discharge of 7.64 MGD (RWQCB, Central Region 2010). Disposal of treated effluent is by ocean outfall offshore from Goleta Beach. The GSD treatment plant is regulated under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) as a point source Publicly Owned Treatment Works discharger. GSD has obtained a waiver from full secondary treatment under Section 301(h) of the federal Clean Water Act under its current NPDES permit. GSDs continued use of a waiver is subject to ongoing approval by the State Water Resources Control Board (RWQCB, Central Region) and the California Coastal Commission. However, the wastewater treatment plant will be upgraded to full secondary treatment in 2014 based on a Settlement Agreement entered into in 2005 between GSD and the Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Region (RWQCB, Central Region 2010). The settlement agreement provides for a 10-year conversion from the existing primary treatment and primary treatment blended with secondary treatment to full secondary treatment (RWQCB, Central Region 2010). GSD has agreements with four existing wastewater generators regarding flow capacity ownership of the treatment plant. The treatment plant currently serves a total of approximately 82,000 wastewater generators (RWQCB Central Region 2010). The flow capacity ownership allocation is described in Table L-1. TABLE L-1: ALLOCATION OF EXISTING TREATMENT PLANT PERMITTED DISCHARGE AND FACILITY CAPACITY
Approximate Volume Based on Exiting Permitted Discharge (MGD) 3.66 3.12 0.54 0.22 0.10 7.64 Approximate Volume Based on Facility Capacity (MGD) 4.65 3.96 0.69 0.28 0.14 9.72
Wastewater Generator GSD GWSD University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) Santa Barbara Municipal Airport (SBMA) Santa Barbara County (SBC) Total Source: Dudek 2006 in City 2006.
Percentage 47.87 40.78 7.09 2.84 1.42 100
Future wastewater generation of GSD was calculated in 2006 in conjunction with the GWSD wastewater generation. The estimate was calculated by looking at individual parcels in the City, making different assumptions about parcel densities, and applying the following generation rates for ERUs. To account for flexibility in planning GSD provided low flow and high flow ranges for each land use category.

Residential: 1 ERU; the ERU is assigned a value of 184 gallons per day (low estimate) or 220 gallons per day (high estimate) Commercial: 100 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of habitable building space Agriculture: 1 ERU; the ERU is assigned a value of 184 gallons per day (low estimate) or 220 gallons per day (high estimate)
July 21, 2011
L-6
Recreation: 1 ERU; the ERU is assigned a value of 184 gallons per day, if greater than 1 acre (low estimate, or 220 gallons per day (high estimate), if greater than 1 acre.
Based on this information, the future wastewater generation within the next ten years is anticipated to be between 0.26 and 0.31 MGD, or a total of 2.80 and 2.85 MGD. At buildout, it is estimated that the future wastewater generation would be between 0.57 and 1.51 MGD for a total of 3.11 and 4.05 MGD. City of Goleta The City currently does not own, operate, or maintain wastewater infrastructure. However, in February of 2009, the Goleta City Council submitted an application to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to detach from GWSD. Since that time, the application has been withdrawn by the City, as documented in the approved Santa Barbara LAFCO Minutes of Meeting on February 3, 2011. Property Wastewater Generation Currently, the property is outside the service area of GWSD. It has no existing wastewater infrastructure and the vacant ranch house has been served by a septic tank. Based on the historical use of the property as having laborer housing formerly located in the northern portions, there may be additional septic tanks on the property not associated with the vacant ranch house; however, this has not been confirmed, nor corroborated. L.1.3 Solid Waste
Solid waste collection services in the City are provided by Marborg Industries. All nonhazardous solid waste in the City and the surrounding South Coast area is handled at two local facilities: the South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station, and Tajiguas Landfill. Both sites are owned and operated by the Santa Barbara County Public Works Department, Resource Recovery and Waste Management Division. The South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station is a collection point where solid waste is collected and sorted. It handles approximately 550 tons per day of solid waste, and recycles approximately 200 tons per day from the County (County of Santa Barbara Public Works 2010). The Tajiguas Landfill accepts the solid waste from the transfer station that cannot be recycled. The Table L-2 summarizes relevant facts associated with this landfill. TABLE L-2: SUMMARY OF TAJIGUAS LANDFILL
Permitted Waste Total Estimated Capacity (cubic Waste Processed Capacity Used yards) Processed (cubic yards (cubic yards) 1 (Tons Per Day) per day) 1,500 1,080 23,3000,000 16,640,000 Source: County of Santa Barbara Public Works 2010 and CalRecycle 2010 1 It is assumed that 1 ton (2,000 pounds) is equal to 0.72 cubic yard. Remaining Estimated Capacity (cubic yards) 6,660,000 Closure Date
1/1/2023
If 350 tons per day of solid waste from the South Coast Recycling Center goes to the Tajiguas Landfill, that is approximately 127,750 tons per year. Over a period of 13 years (the amount of time the landfill will remain open) that is approximately 1,660,750 tons, or approximately
July 21, 2011
L-7
1,195,740 cubic yards. If the estimated capacity of Tajiguas is approximately 6,660,000 cubic yards, it is likely it can contain the approximately 1.2 million cubic yards generated by the South Coast Recycling Center. City of Goleta The annual per capita residential waste generation in Goleta is estimated to be 0.95 ton per person. If the average household size in Goleta of 2.72 persons, a household could generate 2.6 tons per year of solid waste, or 0.077 ton or 14 pounds per day. The City averages about 2,400 tons each month, which is approximately 8 percent of the solid waste that goes to Tajiguas (Goleta 2006). Property Solid Waste Generation The property currently does not generate solid waste, as it is vacant land. The property is located within the Allied Waste service area. L.1.4 Stormwater
Santa Barbara County Flood Control District The Santa Barbara County Flood Control District maintains certain creeks and channels located within the County and City. The Flood Control District's activities include channel maintenance, design and construction of capital improvements, review of new development, and a hydrologic data collection/flood warning system (County of Santa Barbara Public Works Water Resources Division 2010). According to the Santa Barbara Countywide Integrate Regional Water Management Plan (May 2007), the following flood control channels are located within the flood control district:

42 miles of closed conduits 22 miles of lined channels 50 miles of improved earth channels 150 miles of unimproved earth channels 34 retarding and recharge basins 31 debris basins
The Flood Control District historically conducts routine flood control maintenance in the Goleta Slough and the five creeks that drain into it (Atascadero, San Jose, San Pedro, Los Carneros, and Tecolotito). Currently, there are no capital improvements to existing storm facilities within the City planned for between 2011 and 2016 (County of Santa Barbara Public Works Water Resources Division 2010). City of Goleta The stormwater system in the City is composed of natural receiving waters such as Glenn Annie Creek, gutters, storm drains, and stormwater conveyance pipes. Stormwater is primarily conveyed via sheet flow over impervious surfaces (e.g., roads) into gutters, storm drains, and natural receiving waters. The stormwater volume is then conveyed via closed conduit
July 21, 2011
L-8
stormwater pipelines or receiving waters and channels to the coast and discharged into the Pacific Ocean. As discussed in Appendix I, Hydrology and Water Quality, there are about 3,357 acres of impervious surfaces in the City and 1,694 acres of pervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces generate more stormwater runoff than pervious surfaces. The majority of the City (approximately 1,896 acres) is designated as residential. The Flood Control District has estimates of runoff coefficients (peak rate of runoff in cubic feet per second) generated by rainfall intensity (inches per hour) and land use (residential) (Flood Control District 2011). Runoff generated by South Coast residential land uses range between 0.41 and 0.78 cubic feet per second for rain events generating between 1 and 4 inches per hour. Property Stormwater Generation The property currently generates stormwater runoff during precipitation events. It is composed of approximately 100 percent pervious surface (e.g., soil), and rain water would first percolate into the soil and any vegetation, prior to the soil being saturated, and prior to generating stormwater runoff, thus ultimately slowing the velocity of any stormwater runoff. The drainage features located on the property would collect any stormwater runoff generated during rain events. These drainage features generally discharge into Glenn Annie Creek. The quantity of stormwater currently generated is unknown.
L.2
L.2.1
Federal
Clean Water Act (CWA) The CWA is the primary Federal law that protects the quality of the Nations surface waters, including lakes, rivers, and coastal wetlands. It operates on the principle that all discharges into the Nations waters are unlawful unless specifically authorized by a permit; permit review is the CWAs primary regulatory tool. The CWA is applicable to stormwater discharge, as discussed below, through NPDES, and is applicable to publicly owned wastewater treatment works and the discharge of treated effluent into receiving waters. Federal Flood Insurance Program Congress, alarmed by increasing costs of disaster relief, passed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973. The intent of these acts is to reduce the need for large publicly funded flood control structures and disaster relief by restricting development on floodplains. Executive Order 11988 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) addresses floodplain issues related to public safety, conservation, and economics. It generally covers federal agencies constructing, permitting, or funding.
July 21, 2011
L-9
L.2.2
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act The Porter-Cologne Act, passed in 1969, articulates the Federal CWA (see Clean Water Act above). It established the SWRCB and divided the State into nine regions, each overseen by an RWQCB. The SWRCB is the primary state agency responsible for protecting the quality of the States surface and groundwater supplies, but much of its daily implementation authority is delegated to the nine RWQCBs. The Porter-Cologne Act also assigns responsibility for implementing CWA Sections 303(d), 401, and 402 to the SWRCB and RWQCBs. The RWQCBs oversee and regulate publicly owned wastewater treatment works and the discharge of treated effluent into receiving waters. Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives Beneficial uses define the resources, services, and qualities of the aquatic system that are the ultimate goals of protecting and achieving high water quality. Water quality objectives are designed to protect these beneficial uses. The RWQCB has set water quality objectives for all surface waters in the basin concerning ammonia, bacteria, biostimulatory substances, chemical constituents, color, dissolved oxygen, floating material, oil and grease, pH, pesticides, radioactivity, salinity, sediment, settleable material, suspended material, tastes and odors, temperature, toxicity, and turbidity. Also, specific objectives for concentrations of chemical constituents are applied to bodies of water based on their designated beneficial uses. This is applicable to publicly owned wastewater treatment works and the discharge of treated effluent into receiving waters. Urban Water Management Planning Act The California Urban Water Management Planning Act requires urban water suppliers to initiate planning strategies to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in their water service sufficient to meet the needs of the various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple dry water years. To do this, they must prepare an UWMP every five years. The intent of the UWMP is to present information about water supply, water usage, recycled water, and water use efficiency programs in a water districts service area. The UWMP also serves as a resource for planners and policy makers over a 25-year timeframe. GWD would be the water supplier, and, as such, the property would be subject to the GWDs UWMP. Senate Bill (SB) 610 SB 610 mandates that detailed water availability information, in the form of a water supply assessment as defined in the bill, be provided to city and county decision makers prior to approval of large development projects. SB 610 defines the criteria a project must meet in order to have a water supply assessment prepared; this criteria is defined by California Water Code Section 10912. A water supply assessment should include, in as much detail as possible, existing and future water supplies and demands over a 20-year timeline, water agreements or contracts, water demands of the proposed project, and an assessment to determine if the available supplies would be able to support the proposed project demands during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years. Additional information is required if the sources of water supply include groundwater (DWR 2003). An urban water management plan (UWMP) is identified in SB 610 as a fundamental source of information, which, if properly prepared and complete, may be used to satisfy most or all statutory requirements.
July 21, 2011
L-10
Assembly Bill 1327, Chapter 18: California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act The California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 required each jurisdiction to adopt an ordinance by September 1, 1994, requiring any development project for which an application for a building permit is submitted to provide an adequate storage area for collection and removal of recyclable materials. AB 1327 regulations govern the transfer, receipt, storage, and loading of recyclable materials. Assembly Bill 939: California Integrated Waste Management Act The State of California requires that all jurisdictions achieve compliance with AB 939, a state mandate that required jurisdictions to achieve 50 percent diversion of solid waste from landfills by 2000. AB 939 further required each city to conduct a Solid Waste Generation Study and to prepare an annual Source Reduction and Recycling Element to describe how it will reach its goals. AB 939 was designed to focus on source reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe landfilling and transformation activities. L.2.3 Local
Goleta Water District SAFE The SAFE Water Supplies Ordinance (SAFE) was enacted by voters in 1991 and amended in 1994 to protect against drought within the service area of GWD. SAFE requires that 1 percent of potable water supplies be used as a basis for allocating water to new or expanded service. Every year the GWD Board adopts the calendar year allocation. In December 2010 the Board adopted a 2011 calendar year allocation of 144.23 AF for new service, based on the estimated potable supplies of 14,423 AF. Currently, applications for new services are processed on a first come, first serve basis (GWD 2011). SAFE contains provisions that restrict new or additional potable water service connections to property owners during times of drought. However, GWD data shows that new service connections have not been significantly constrained by the requirements of SAFE. For example, out of a total of 146 AF available for allocation in 2010, 8.17 AF was actually allocated to new or expanded service. In addition, State laws requiring more water conservation would help the GWD serve the current customer base using less water, when compared to the past (GWD 2011). Water Code GWD currently charges a onetime new water supply charge if a user requires service from GWD. The one time new water supply charge is $32,614 per acre foot2 for new water allocated regardless of land use classification. If a land owner has an existing entitlement to water, the new water supply charge may not apply, depending on the specifics of the existing entitlement. For example, if there was historic water use or an agreement to use water associated with property, the new water supply charge may only apply to additional water needed beyond that which was historically used or agreed upon. The water use charge (i.e., rate) for irrigation water
In 2011 the GWD Board increased the cost of a onetime hook up fee for uses from $26,240 per acre foot to $32,614.
July 21, 2011
L-11
is $1.00 per hundred cubic feet, which is $435.60 per acre foot. The meter charge for a 10-inch meter is $3,500.72 per month (2010 rates). Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District The Flood Control District for Santa Barbara County provides and promotes flood protection. The Flood Control District has authority to review and approve proposed improvements located along certain creeks and channels that it maintains within City limits. City of Goleta Public Facilities Element The subjects addressed in the Public Facilities Element are an integral part of the Citys overall planning strategy and a basic consideration in setting growth and development policy. This element emphasizes the importance of providing responsive, efficient, and cost-effective community services. It acknowledges the vital role that public facilities play in shaping community life. Essential features of the element are policies that guide the financing of public facilities, the planning of public facilities, the coordination of public facilities with the Land Use Plan, and the coordination of the development of public facilities with other agencies. The following guiding principles and goals provide the foundation for the Public Facilities Element.

Policy PF 2: Other Facilities of the City of Goleta; provide the full range of municipal public facilities to meet the needs of the Goleta community. Policy PF 4: Water and Sewer Facilities; ensure that adequate water supply and distribution facilities and sewage collection facilities and treatment capacity are available to meet the cumulative needs of both existing users and new development in the city as well as outside Goletas boundaries. Policy PF 6: Utilities; ensure that adequate utility services and facility capacities are available to meet the needs of both existing and new development in the city as well as service demands from outside Goletas boundaries. Policy PF 7: Coordinating Facilities and Services with Other Agencies; to ensure the appropriate provision of public facilities and buildings by all public agencies and related nonprofit organizations. Policy PF 9: Coordination of Facilities with Future Development; to ensure that land use decisions are based on the planned capacity of capital facilities and that such facilities are provided when they are needed to support new development.
Land Use Element The policies of this element are designed to balance the various concerns and needs of the City and its residents and will guide future changes to fit the desired character of Goleta. The following policy pertains to utilities.
Policy LU 11: Nonresidential Growth Management; to manage the timing of future growth based on maintenance of service levels and quality of life.
July 21, 2011
L-12
L.3
L.3.1

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in terms of environmental, regulatory and permitting, and services in the sections below. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the City of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property either as urban land use fashion or to resume active agricultural practices on the property. Service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. The evaluation of water supply, wastewater, and utilities compares demand and supply of the various services under current conditions and possible future conditions within the service areas. Where available, data from Section L.1, Environmental Conditions, above are used for this comparison. Otherwise, a general comparison is made for the current vacant condition, urban development use scenario, and active agriculture scenario within the context of known existing constraints within the different service areas. L.3.2 Assumptions
The analysis of water supply, wastewater, and utilities includes the following assumptions:
The 50 AF of water associated with the property could be used for future urban uses associated with a change in land use designation or active agriculture; but this 50 AF would likely not supply the entire property with sufficient water to meet demands under either a future urban use associated with a change in land use designation or active agricultural uses. The allocation of existing treatment plant permitted discharge and facility capacity of the GSD treatment plant will remain as described in Table L-1 throughout General Plan Buildout. If the City does resurrect its proposal to detach from GWSD at any time in the future, it is assumed they would be allocated the acceptable portion of GWSDs 40.78 percentage of the wastewater treatment facility. The conversion of secondary treatment will occur at the treatment plant by 2014, and the NPDES permit would be updated to allow the treatment of an average of 9.72 MGD, which is the facility capacity. The wastewater treatment plant will continue to meet NPDES permit requirements to support the beneficial uses of the Pacific Ocean, to which it discharges. The Flood Control District has estimates of runoff coefficients (peak rate of runoff in cubic feet per second) generated by rainfall intensity (inches per hour) and land use (urban, agriculture, etc.) (Flood Control District 2011).
July 21, 2011
L-13
a. Runoff generated by South Coast agricultural land uses ranges between 0.33 and 0.74 cubic feet per second for rain events generating between 1 and 4 inches per hour. b. Specifically, runoff generated by South Coast residential land uses ranges between 0.41 and 0.78 cubic feet per second.
L.4.
L.4.1
Evaluation
There are several opportunities and constraints associated with the property in regards to water supply, wastewater, and utilities. These are summarized in the Table L-3.
July 21, 2011
L-14
TABLE L-3: SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY, WASTEWATER, AND UTILITIES CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Relevance to Future Property Use and 2 Rating Urban Ag /
Existing Condition Environmental The property consists primarily of pervious surfaces.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint Pervious surfaces typically generate limited volumes of stormwater runoff because precipitation is able to percolate into the ground.
Existing Conditions Rating1 +
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future change to urban uses as a result of a land use designation change to urban uses could generate substantially more stormwater runoff, which would be required to be contained either by existing flood control channels/creeks or would require the modification of existing flood control channels or creeks. Specifically, runoff generated by South Coast residential land uses ranges between 0.41 and 0.78 cubic feet per second. The high end of the range of runoff generated by South Coast agriculture is less than that generated by urban uses (0.33 and 0.74 cubic feet per second); however, active agriculture would generate more runoff than existing conditions.
Regulatory and Permitting SAFE requirements apply to the GWD service area.
The property has a negligible demand for water.
The existing GSD wastewater treatment facility will be upgraded and allowed to operate at its permitted NPDES capacity of 9.72 The GWD is currently updating their current UWMP, per the UWMP Act. SB 610 requires the preparation of a water supply assessment if a project meets certain criteria.
Future change to urban uses as a result of a land use designation change or to active agricultural uses would increase the demand for potable water over what the property currently demands. This change in demand would be subject to SAFE and would be assessed on a first come first serve basis. The SAFE requirements could limit a change in land use or prevent full development of the property. The permitted capacity would allow GSWD to accommodate additional wastewater flows generated by future urban uses as a result of a land use designation change. Active agricultural uses would likely not result in the generation of wastewater. Changes in the UWMPs quantification of existing and future water supplies and demand in the GWD service area could restrict the future use of the property and future delivery of water to the property. Any future urban uses as a result of a land use designation change may require the preparation of a WSA if it meets SB 610 criteria; the WSA must identify any deficiencies in water supply and propose remedies for them.
The property has a negligible demand for water. The property has a negligible demand for water.
July 21, 2011
L-15
Existing Condition
Existing Conditions Rating1
Goleta Ordinance 15.10 Floodplain Management 100year floodplain. Service The property currently does not demand potable water service. The property currently has 50 AFY associated with it.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint SB 610 would likely not apply to active agricultural uses because they would not meet the definition of a project in the water code. See Appendix I, Hydrology and Water Quality
Relevance to Future Property Use and 2 Rating Urban Ag
The property must use water from the GWD.
Same as above.
The property does not receive wastewater service.
Future change to urban uses as a result of a land use designation change or active agricultural use would increase the demand for potable water over what the property currently demands. Future change to urban uses as a result of a land use designation change or active agricultural uses would increase the demand for potable water over what the property currently demands. The change in land use would likely demand more water than currently associated with the property (50 AF); thus, additional water would have to be purchased from GWD. Additionally, this would result in a decrease in GWD existing and projected future water supply. This could result in an inadequate supply of water for the property and for the entire GWD service area. Future change to urban uses as a result of a land use designation change would result in an increasing demand for wastewater service, which would result in a substantial change in the current wastewater generation of the property; however, based on the permitted capacity of the wastewater treatment facility and its existing capacity, it is likely the increase in wastewater could be accommodated.
July 21, 2011
L-16
Existing Condition The property does not generate solid waste.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint The Tajiguas Landfill now has a closure date of 2023 and a remaining capacity of 6,660,000 cubic yards.
Existing Conditions Rating1 +
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future change to urban uses as a result of a land use designation change would result in an increase in solid waste generation which would require disposal at the Tajiguas Landfill. However, any change to urban land use would result in an increase in solid waste generation, which for the next 13 years would be disposed at the Tajiguas Landfill. It is estimated the Tajiguas landfill would be able to accommodate the solid waste generated by the urban land use during construction and operation. It is likely that active agriculture use would not generate solid waste. Urban land uses would likely result in the need for additional stormwater capacity to handle the velocity and volume generated because of the substantial impervious surfaces added to the existing property. Active agriculture would likely result in a change of the velocity and volume of stormwater flows generated, but they likely would not need additional stormwater infrastructure.
Relevance to Future Property Use and 2 Rating Urban Ag / +
The property has two drainage features and is adjacent to two offsite creeks.
The two drainage features and offsite creeks act as the current stormwater and flood control management for the property.
July 21, 2011
L-17
L.4.2
Currently, the existing vacant land either generates very little demand or does not generate any demand for potable water, wastewater service, solid waste service, and stormwater or flood management. Any change to the use of this property, whether urban development as a result of a land use change or active agricultural, would result in increased demand for water supply. However, it is likely that active agriculture uses would not result in an increase demand for wastewater, solid waste, or stormwater/flood control management because, typically, active agriculture is not generally a use that demands these types of utilities. Below is a summary of the various utilities and issues associated with them. Water Supply As identified in Section L.1, Environmental Conditions, the current and future water demand information for the GWD service area is being re-evaluated in the UWMP. But, the results of the 2011 Water Supply analysis show that under current demand and supply conditions there would be a surplus of water in average conditions and multi-year drought conditions and a deficit of water in single year drought conditions (GWD April 2011). The 2030 Forecast predicts that under average conditions there would be sufficient water and under single year and multi-year drought conditions there would be a deficit of water (GWD April 2011).Without a defined project, it is difficult to quantify the actual water demand. However, some general demand information can be provided to frame the discussion of urban development associated with a land use designation change and active agricultural uses. The SB 610 Guidebook prepared by the Department of Water Resources identifies that a singlefamily dwelling unit in the state of California uses anywhere from 0.3 to 0.5 AFY.3 The GWD estimates that a single-family home in its service area uses approximately 0.29 AFY. Currently, there are 50 AFY of potable water associated with the property. Any future urban uses associated with a land use designation change that demand water beyond that 50 AFY would be required to obtain all potable water from the GWD. It is likely, based on the water code, that GWD would credit the 50 AFY associated with the property and would only charge the new hookup fee for the difference between the 50 AFY and the actual needed amount. Furthermore, if urban development did take place, compliance with SB 610 and SAFE would be required. Active agriculture is a primary water user in the state of California. Typically, the water demand for row crops and orchards is about 2 AFY. Irrigated grain requires approximately 1 AFY. Depending on the number of acres that could be in production (as discussed in Appendix B, Agriculture), the property could demand between 480 AFY (to irrigate the full 240 acres in row crops or orchards) and 200 AFY (to irrigate approximately 200 acres of suitable soils with grains) of potable water. If active agricultural uses were developed on the property requiring more than 50 AFY, potable water from GWD would be required. It is likely, based on the water code, that GWD would credit the 50 AFY associated with the property and would only charge the new hookup fee for the difference between the 50 AFY and the actual needed amount. Additionally, compliance with SAFE would be required. SB 610 would not apply because active agricultural uses would generally not be considered a project under CEQA and would not meet the project-defining criteria of SB 610.
3
The actual demand depends on the location and climate in California.
July 21, 2011
L-18
The surplus of 662 AFY at General Plan buildout will be confirmed through the work GWD is doing to update their various plans. However, even if the surplus does remain, the use of the property as either active agricultural or urban would require substantial amounts of water over the current property conditions. Either potential use would result in the demand for more water from a service area that is facing growth, development, and chronic water supply problems. Therefore, the demand for potable water from GWD, based on the availability, for the property is determined to be a constraint. Wastewater Agricultural uses generally do not generate significant demand for wastewater services, and there would be existing and future service capacity in the GWSD service area. A septic tank is currently on site. If needed, and depending on the tanks condition, it is likely active agricultural uses could be accommodated by the septic tank. The property is not currently in the GWSD service area and would require annexation into the service area to provide wastewater service. Urban land uses do demand wastewater service and would generate wastewater. The 2006 Land Use Survey/Wastewater Generation Projections Study 2006 Update did calculate wastewater generation by some type of urban use located on the property. Under current NPDES capacity (existing permitted discharge of 7.64) urban development on the property combined with other development (Isla Vista Master Plan) would result in a negative capacity for GWSD of 0.21 MGD. However, it is assumed the wastewater treatment plant is upgrading to secondary treatment and will be able to treat at its full permitted capacity (9.72 MGD). Under these conditions, the 2006 report identified a 0.63 MGD excess in GWSDs allocated capacity at the wastewater treatment plant. Since GWSD has excess capacity between 1.09 and 0.9 MGD even after build out conditions of the General Plan, it is likely urban development on the property resulting from a land use designation change could use this excess capacity and remain within the overall 40.78 percent allocated to GWSD. Solid Waste As discussed in Section L.2, Environmental Conditions, the Tajiguas landfill serves the City and would serve the property should it generate solid waste. The Tajiguas landfill is expected to close in January of 2023 and has approximately 13 years left in its life. Much of the trash generated by the City and surrounding South Coast area is taken to this landfill via the South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station. Although there are certainly other parts of Santa Barbara County that use this landfill, it would receive approximately 1.2 million cubic yards from the South Coast Recycling and Transfer Station over the next 13 years (using trash generation numbers from 2010). Although this is an estimate and the South Coast area is likely to have moderate growth over the next 13 years, assuming 10 percent growth would increase the trash by 120,000 million cubic yards. Active agricultural uses generally do not generate significant amounts of solid waste that are disposed of in landfills. Typically tree prunings are stacked and burned and crops that have outlived production are disked and returned to the property. Therefore, it is assumed that active agriculture would not result in significant amounts of solid waste.
July 21, 2011
L-19
Although it is unknown what type of urban use could occur on the property under a land use designation change, it is unlikely it would exceed the capacity of the existing landfill by the time the landfill closes based on the information disclosed above. Stormwater and Flood Control Management The City is primarily composed of impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, parking lots, homes). Currently, the 240 acre property is pervious (e.g., vacant land) and contains approximately 14 percent of the total pervious surfaces in the City (approximately 1,694 acres). However, it does generate some stormwater runoff. It is unknown what the existing stormwater capacity of the receiving waters is or the amount of stormwater generated currently by the property. The existing drainage of the property would be altered if urban development occurred under a change in land use designation. This is because the impervious surfaces typical of urban development generally result in the generation of substantial volumes and velocities of stormwater runoff. Additional volume exceeding the existing capacity of the two drainage features and offsite creeks can result in flooding, and the high velocities at which stormwater enters these receiving waters can cause erosion and siltation. Furthermore, the runoff could degrade the water quality of the offsite receiving waters through either erosion or the addition of urban pollutants (e.g., heavy metals from parking lots, pesticides, and fertilizers from landscaping) as discussed in Appendix I Hydrology and Water Quality. Finally, urban development would result in an increase in impervious surfaces in the City. Active agricultural uses would keep the land in a pervious state and would likely result in less runoff when compared to urban development. Depending on the rainfall intensity, it is estimated that an active agricultural use would generate between 0.33 and 0.74 cubic feet per second. The stormwater generated by the property flows into the drainage features, as well as into the offsite Los Carneros and Glen Annie Creeks. It is likely the stormwater generated under active agriculture could be similar to the existing site, depending on the type of active agricultural use, and that stormwater infrastructure would not be needed. However, active agricultural uses could exacerbate existing receiving water quality issues, similar to that of urban development (see Appendix I for a description of Glen Annie Creek and Los Carneros). L.4.3 Additional Analysis Required or Questions
Dudek (2006) evaluated draft zoning and the Land Use Element of the General Plan for their calculations for 10-year and buildout wastewater generation. Although the wastewater generation projections for planning purposes for the GWSD service area could be accurate, it is recommended the assumptions and calculations of the 2006 document be reviewed based on the final zoning/General Plan Land Use Element, and a comparison, if necessary, be made to evaluate any possible differences. Clarification of the applicants claim that there is enough wastewater capacity under current NPDES conditions in the wastewater treatment works under the City/County + Bonus Density + Bishop Ranch + IVMP would be helpful. As identified in the Power Point presentation for the community meetings, there is 1.41 MGD of GWSD Remaining Capacity after all development, but the remaining capacity is actually the amount currently allowed to be treated under NPDES conditions (1.71 MGD) minus the total allowable capacity of GWSD (3.12). Under the City/County + Bonus Density + Bishop Ranch + IVMP condition it appears the GWSD has a
July 21, 2011
L-20
negative capacity of 0.21 MGD (page 21 of 2006 Land Use Survey/Wastewater Generation Projections Study 2006 Update). The annual per capita residential solid waste generation estimate should be updated for a more accurate discussion and understanding of solid waste generation. Drainage studies and a drainage master plan may be required for an urban land use of the property. Information contained in these studies/plans would help the Flood Control District understand and accommodate the stormwater runoff generated by the property and the effects on the surrounding receiving waters. It would allow the quantification of the existing stormwater capacity of the receiving waters and provide an estimate of future flows based on rainfall intensity and the type of land use cover. The Flood Control District may be required to modify the offsite Los Carneros and Glen Annie Creeks in order to accommodate additional volumes and velocities from urban development on the property.
July 21, 2011
L-21
Appendix M Transportation and Circulation
Appendix M: Transportation and Circulation
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This section discusses the existing and future traffic conditions on roadways and at intersections that could potentially be affected by traffic generated by land use changes on the Bishop Ranch Property (property). This section describes the following:

existing roadway system, public transit service, and nonmotorized transportation in the vicinity of the property; existing and future level of service (LOS) on roadways and at intersections that could potentially be affected by traffic generated under either use scenario; regulatory setting for transportation and circulation; the implications of an extension of Calle Real Road; the general implications of the property relative to the transportation-related Capital Improvement Projects (CIPs) and the need for additional CIP projects (such as freeway interchange improvements, intersection projects, and freeway over-crossing projects); and constraints and opportunities associated with transportation and circulation.
This section uses the Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/CLUP), and traffic studies conducted for developments in the vicinity to discuss transportation and circulation considerations within Bishop Ranch property and adjacent to Bishop Ranch.
M.1
Existing Conditions
The property is bounded by U.S. Highway 101 (US-101) to the south, Cathedral Oaks Road to the north, Glen Annie Road and adjoining abandoned agricultural property to the west, and an adjoining active agricultural property west of Los Carneros Road to the east. The study area for the transportation analysis includes the surrounding roadways, public transit service, and nonmotorized transportation that could potentially be affected. M.1.1 Roadway System
Regional Highway Regional access to the property is provided by US-101 via interchanges at Glen Annie Road and at Los Carneros Road. The rights-of-way for these routes are controlled and managed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). US-101 is classified as freeway for its entire length in Goleta. The average annual daily traffic (AADT) along US-101 between Glen Annie Road and Los Carneros Road is 55,000 vehicles per day (Caltrans 2009). City Street System Local access to the property includes three east-west arterial roadways that generally parallel the US-101 corridor: Hollister Avenue to the south of the freeway, and Calle Real and Cathedral Oaks Road to the north of the freeway. North-south arterials that provide major access to the property include Storke-Glen Annie Road and Los Carneros Road. Calle Real, which runs east
July 21, 2011
M-1
west between US-101 and Cathedral Oaks Road, does not run between Storke-Glen Annie Road and Los Carneros Road. Table M-1 lists the functional classifications, number of lanes, and existing average daily traffic (ADT) of local access roads in the property vicinity. The existing ADTs are based on ADTs from the General Plan EIR (Goleta 2006) and a recent traffic study (Associated Transportation Engineers 2010) conducted for the Cortona Apartments Project near the property. Functional classification refers to the different types of functions served by roadways that comprise a complete system. The classification of a roadway depends upon the types of trips that occur on it, the basic purpose for which it was designed, and the relative level of traffic volume it carries. Higher classes (e.g. freeways and arterials) provide a higher degree of mobility with higher volumes at higher speeds and have limited access to adjacent land uses. Lower classes (e.g. local roads) provide access to adjacent land and are not intended to serve through traffic, carrying lower volumes at lower speeds. The definitions of higher and lower volumes and speeds will vary between different geographic areas and will depend on local standards. TABLE M-1: EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND LOS ON ARTERIAL ROADWAYS
Roadway Classification Major Arterial Major Arterial Major Arterial Minor Arterial Major Arterial Major Arterial Major Arterial Major Arterial Number of Lanes 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 ADT Threshold for LOS1 C 14,300 14,300 14,300 30,100 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 2005(a) ADT 9,200 9,700 8,000 9,100 8,500 40,000 12,200 20,800 Under Threshold Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No2 Yes Yes ADT 33,800 24,200 2009(b) Under Threshold Yes Yes
Segment Location Cathedral Oaks Road east of Los Carneros Road Cathedral Oaks Road west of Glen Annie Road Calle Real east of Los Carneros Road Calle Real west of Glen Annie Road Glen Annie Road north of US-101 Interchange Storke Road south of US 101 Interchange Los Carneros Road north of US-101 Interchange Los Carneros Road south of US-101 Interchange
1 2
Level of Service. Segment with ADT that exceeds threshold is considered to exceed the adopted City standard of LOS C. Source: (a) City of Goleta 2006; (b) Associated Transportation Engineers 2010
Existing Level of Service Level of Service Methodology LOS is a qualitative indication of the level of delay and congestion experienced by motorists using a roadway. LOS is designated by the letters A through F, with LOS A representing the best conditions and LOS F representing the worst (high delay and congestion). The approaches used to analyze stop-controlled intersections, signalized intersections, and roadway segments are described as follows.
July 21, 2011
M-2
Stop-Controlled Intersections The methodology for analysis of stop-controlled intersections is the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2000). This method calculates an average total delay per vehicle on each stop-controlled leg of the intersection. Table M-2 presents the average delay criteria used to determine the level of service at stop-controlled intersections by the Highway Capacity Manual method. TABLE M-2: LOS CRITERIA FOR STOP-CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
LOS A B C D E F Average Control Delay (second/vehicle) 10 >10 and 15 >15 and 25 >25 and 35 >35 and 50 >50
Signalized Intersections The methodology used to determine signalized intersection LOS was the Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) method. The ICU method calculates an intersections LOS by taking the sum of each pair of intersection critical movements (movements that compete for the same space within the intersection) and dividing that value by the intersections capacity. Each critical movements volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) is then summed and a 10 percent lost-time adjustment is added to yield a peak-hour V/C. Table M-3 presents the V/C criteria used to determine LOS at signalized intersections using the ICU method. TABLE M-3: LOS CRITERIA FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
LOS A B C D E F V/C 0.60 0.610.70 0.710.80 0.800.90 0.911.00 1.00
Roadway Segments The methodology used to determine the LOS for roadway segments is based on ADT. Future ADT volumes on City roadway segments were estimated by applying model-derived 20052030 peak-hour growth factors to existing ADT traffic count measured on City roadway segments. For roadways outside the Citys jurisdiction where traffic counts were unavailable or exact traffic count locations were not known, daily traffic volumes were estimated by assuming a 10 percent PM peak hourto-ADT relationship. Table M-4 summarizes the LOS C threshold ADTs for major and minor arterials, based upon their classification and width. The roadway classifications, design capacities, and ADT thresholds are based upon standards established by the City of Goleta. ADT thresholds were developed for each of the analysis segments under the future
July 21, 2011
M-3
analysis scenarios, based on the roadway characteristics. The projected ADT was calculated for each analysis segment. If the projected ADT exceeded the ADT threshold for LOS C, a significant impact was identified.
TABLE M-4: ROADWAY SEGMENT LOS THRESHOLDS
Functional Street Classification Major Arterial Minor Arterial ADT Design Capacity 2 Lanes 17,900 15,700 4 Lanes 42,480 37,680 4+ Lanes 58,750 NA LOS C ADT Threshold 2 Lanes 14,300 12,500 4 Lanes 34,000 30,100 4+ Lanes 47,000 NA
Level-of-Service Standard LOS standards are used to evaluate the transportation impacts of long-term growth. In order to monitor roadway operations, cities and counties adopt standards by which the minimum acceptable roadway operating conditions are determined. The City of Goleta has adopted a standard of LOS C, which is applied citywide to major arterials, minor arterials, collector roadways, and signalized intersections. The Citys LOS standard is more stringent than the Countys regional Congestion Management Program (CMP) standard of LOS D, which applies to City intersections designated as part of the CMP system. GP/CLUP policy subsection 4.2 also lists a modified LOS standard for specific intersections at planned capacity. Any intersection or arterial link that is developed to the maximum permitted number of lanes (see Policy TE 3 and Policy subsection TE 6.5) shall be considered to be at planned capacity, and the forecasted LOS V/C with all planned transportation improvements shall be the applicable LOS standard. As of 2005, the Storke-Hollister intersection was the only intersection in the city at planned capacity, with the applicable standard defined as LOS D, with a V/C threshold of 0.89. Existing Roadway Level of Service Table M-1 lists LOS of analysis roadway segments under existing conditions. The table shows that Storke Road south of US 101 was operating below the City of Goletas standard of LOS C in the General Plan EIR; however, the Cortona Apartments Project traffic study indicated that the Storke Road segment (north of Hollister Avenue) is operating within the standard. Existing Intersection Level of Service Traffic operations in urban areas are generally controlled by operations of intersections. Ten intersections analyzed around the property are shown in Figure M-1. Table M-5 lists the existing intersection LOS from the General Plan EIR (Goleta 2006) and the Cortona Apartments Project traffic study (Transportation Engineers 2010). The table shows that all intersections were operating within standards during the PM peak hour. Intersection LOS during the AM peak hour was not analyzed for the General Plan EIR.
July 21, 2011
M-4
ro Creek San Ped
Ve ga sC La s
reek
eek
Tecolote C
C re e k
El Encanto Creek
An Glen
reek eros C
r nie C
Fairview Ave
Cathedral Oaks Rd
ree k
rn Los Ca
nyon
d Ca
Ke llo
gg
Av e
Patterson Ave
Ellw oo
Ln
atera La P
Ma ria
2,400
Cathedral Oaks Rd
eR nni nA Gle
9 !
Los Carneros Lake 15 ! 16 ! 17 !

101

101
Cal le R
eal
Ellwood Pier Hollister Ave 6 !
C Los
20 !
d 18 ro s R a rn e
te Hollis
Fairview Ave
ll C Be
n yo an
Cr
k ee
Calle Real
Union Pacific RR
11 ! 12 !
r Ave
Hollister Ave
J San Old
ose
ek C re
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Traffic\FigM_1_Existing_Intersections.ai SM (07-19-11)

Rd
Devereux Creek
Storke Rd
Goleta Slough
s r
217
Me sa R
El Colegio Rd
Goleta Pier Devereux Slough
Isla Vista UCSB
Sa nJ
Phe lps
os e
Cr
ee k
Pacific Ocean
Campus Lagoon Coal Oil Pt
0 1,200 Feet
Goleta Pt Amended by Reso. 09-59, 11/17/09
Legend
Street Classification
Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Streets and Roads Local Streets and Roads
Key Intersections
Other Features
UCSB Lands City of Goleta City of Santa Barbara Coastal Zone
Note: Intersection numbers correspond to Table M-5, which provides data for each intersection.
! Major Intersections
Creeks Schools
Figure M-1 FUNCTIONAL STREET CLASSIFICATION AND ANALYSIS INTERSECTION
Ign aci
nt nA Sa
14 !
oC
ree
TABLE M-5: EXISTING INTERSECTION LOS

Intersection 1 ID 6 9 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20
1 2
2005(a) LOS Standard D C C C C C C C C C Intersection Location Hollister Avenue/ Storke Road Cathedral Oaks Road/ Glen Annie Road Glen Annie Road/Calle Real/US-101 NB Ramp Storke Road/ US-101 SB Ramp Cathedral Oaks Road/ Los Carneros Road Los Carneros Road/ Calle Real Road Los Carneros Road/ US-101 NB Ramp Los Carneros Road/ US-101 SB Ramp Los Carneros Road/ Calle Koral Road Los Carneros Road/ Hollister Avenue Traffic Control Signal Signal Signal Signal Unsignalized Unsignalized Signal Signal Signal Signal V/C, or Delay (s)2 0.77 0.62 0.65 0.51 19.8s 18.8s 0.56 0.71 0.70 0.69 LOS C B B A C C A C B B
2009(b) V/C 0.74 0.69 0.73 0.53 0.78 0.71 0.67 LOS C B C A C C B
To be consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element, same ID is assigned to each study intersection. Data are expressed as volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratios for signalized intersections and as seconds of delay (s) for unsignalized intersections. Source: (a) Goleta 2006; (b) Associated Transportation Engineers 2010
M.1.2
Public Transit
The Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) provides public bus transit services in Goleta and the South Coast area. The district encompasses the communities of Santa Barbara, Goleta, Carpinteria, Montecito, Summerland, and Isla Vista. In the vicinity of the property, service is mostly provided along the State/Hollister corridor. MTD Line 10 runs along Cathedral Oaks Road between La Cumbre and Camino Real Marketplace during the weekdays. M.1.3 Passenger Rail Service
Passenger rail service in Goleta is provided by Amtrak and State-supported service in a corridor extending from San Diego to San Luis Obispo. These services use the UPRR tracks, which are parallel and adjacent to US 101. The Amtrak Station is located at S. La Patera Lane, one mile east of the property. Goleta is directly served by the Pacific Surfliner route, which offers five trains a day in each direction between Paso Robles and San Diego. M.1.4 Nonmotorized Transportation
Nonmotorized modes of transportation include all transportation with a power source other than a motor. In the City of Goleta, the main nonmotorized modes are walking and bicycling. The Citys bike network is classified into the following three categories of facilities:
Class 1 Bike PathAn exclusive path completely separate from traffic.
July 21, 2011
M-5
Class 2 Bike LaneA lane in city streets exclusively for bicycles. Class 3 Bike RouteCity streets designated as bike routes, on which bicycles share the road with vehicular traffic.
Within the vicinity of the property, Cathedral Oaks Road, Calle Real, Hollister Avenue, StorkeGlen Annie Road, and Los Carneros Road are all classified as a Class 2 bike lane.
M.2
Future Conditions
Future conditions presented in this section reflects the cumulative conditions that take into account traffic expected to occur from the GP/CLUP land use plan and other regional growth, regardless of the development that occurs within the City of Goleta. This provides for a more realistic projection of traffic under future conditions. If land use under the GP/CLUP were analyzed without taking into account the cumulative effect of other regional traffic growth, the overall traffic projected under future conditions could be underestimated. The future conditions also include proposed major street and highway transportation improvements that identified in General Plan EIR (Goleta 2006) to increase road capacity and maintain the Citys LOS standards. M.2.1 Planned Transportation Improvements
Major street and highway improvements proposed to mitigate the effects of traffic growth as a result of the General Plans land use and the regional growth are shown in Figure M-2 (same as GP Figure 7-3). Table M-6 summarizes these roadway and intersection improvements in the vicinity of the property. The source of these improvements is the existing Goleta Transportation Improvement Plan (GTIP), developed by the County when Goleta was unincorporated, and several new improvements being considered by the City for possible GTIP incorporation. Potential sources of funding for proposed GTIP projects include City impact fees, Redevelopment Agency (RDA) funds, state and federal funds, and other funding sources that can include, but not limited to, Measure D funds, traffic mitigation funds from other jurisdictions, and City general funds. However, it should be noted that the City cannot use general fund money, such as Measure D funds, to pay for the costs attributed to future development. It should also be noted that if the RDA funds are removed per the current state budget proposal, these planned street and highway improvement projects may not be started or completed.
July 21, 2011
M-6
Ve ga sC La s
eek
ro Creek San Ped
Fairview Ave
re e
reek
Tecolote C
reek eros C
r nie C
n
Cathedral Oaks Rd
El Encanto Creek
rn Los Ca
nyon
n n
n tera L La Pa
d Ca
Patterson A ve
nie R d Glen An
Ellw oo
Ma ria
Cathedral Oaks Rd

101
Cal le R
eal
ll C Be
y an
on
Cr
k ee
n
11
C Los
15 ! (
Los Carneros Lake
28 ! (
Calle Real
! (
51
Fairview Ave

101
42 ! ( 43 ! (
! (
17 8 " )
Union Paci
fic RR
s r
217
Ellwood Pier
d ro s R a rn e
30 ! (
ve ter A Hollis
ose
1 6
Hollister Ave
12
3 ! ( 4 ! ( 6 ! ( 20 ! (
3 eek
Cr
36 ! 37 (! (
9
45
! (
Hollister Ave
J San Old
2
ee k
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\Traffic\FigM_3_Goleta_CIP.ai SM (07-19-11)
Rd
Devereux Creek
Storke Rd
13
7
Me sa R
El Colegio Rd
Goleta Slough
UCSB
Devereux Slough
Goleta Pier
Isla Vista UCSB
Sa nJ
Phe lps
os e
Cr
14
Pacific Ocean
Campus Lagoon Coal Oil Pt Goleta Pt Amended by Reso. 09-59, 11/17/09
0 1,200 Feet 2,400
Legend
Transportation Improvements
Planned New Roadway Link Planned Reconstruction New Freeway Crossing Santa Barbara City Boundary Road Capacity Improvements Freeway Widening
Intersection Improvements
Other Features
# ! Improve Intersection LOS (
Transportation Improvement Identification Numbers City of Goleta
UCSB Lands Coastal Zone Creeks
" Reconstruction )
Schools
Note: Transportation improvement identification numers are described in Table M-6 Major Planned Street and Highway Improvement Projects.
Figure M-3 CITY OF GOLETA CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Ign aci
nt nA Sa
! (
14
oC
ree
26 ! (
Ke llog gA ve
C re e
An Glen
TABLE M-6: MAJOR PLANNED STREET AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

Map No. (GP Figure 7-3) Highway 11 Improvement Location GTIP Status Potential Improvement Not Programmed 2
Description Provides for widening US-101 to 6 lanes between Fairview Avenue and Glen Annie Road. Reconstruction Los Carneros Bridge Over the Union Pacific Railroad Tracks. Widen from 2 to 4 lanes Widen, and/or lane reconfiguration (e.g. right turn auxiliary lanes) -2 Add NB left turn lane and WB left turn lane New signal Add NB right turn -2
US-101 Widening, Fairview Avenue and Glen Annie Road Roadway Segments 8 Los Carneros Road, south of US-101 12 Storke Road, south of US101 14 Los Carneros, south of Hollister Intersections 6 Hollister Avenue/Storke Road 14 Cathedral Oaks Road/Los Carneros Road Los Carneros Road/Calle 15 Real 17 Los Carneros Road/US-101 SB-Ramp 20 Los Carneros Road/Hollister Avenue
1
Proposed GTIP Proposed GTIP
Proposed GTIP Existing GTIP Existing GTIP 2
In order to accommodate the Patterson Avenue improvements, coordination with the County will be needed to implement modifications at the Patterson/Calle Real intersection. 2 GTIP status or improvement descriptions were not specified in the General Plan EIR. Source: Goleta 2006
M.2.2
Future Level of Service
Table M-7 lists the analysis segments and their LOS with the recommended transportation improvements. The table shows that ADT on all analysis segments are expected to operate within LOS C under future conditions with recommended improvements in place. TABLE M-7: FUTURE PROJECTED LOS ON ARTERIAL ROADWAYS WITH RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
2030 Planned Land Use with Recommended Transportation Improvements Model ADT 10,200 11,500 11,900 11,900
Segment Location Cathedral Oaks Road east of Los Carneros Road Cathedral Oaks Road west of Glen Annie Road Calle Real east of Los Carneros Road Calle Real west of Glen Annie Road
Roadway Classification Major Arterial Major Arterial Major Arterial Minor Arterial
Number of Lanes 2 2 2 4
ADT Threshold for LOS C 14,300 14,300 14,300 30,100
Under Threshold Yes Yes Yes Yes
July 21, 2011
M-7
Segment Location Glen Annie Road north of US-101 Interchange Storke Road south of US-101 1 Interchange Los Carneros Road north of US101 Interchange Los Carneros Road south of US101 Interchange
Lane capacity improvement location. Source: Goleta 2006
1
Roadway Classification Major Arterial Major Arterial Major Arterial Major Arterial
Number of Lanes 4 4 4 4
ADT Threshold for LOS C 34,000 47,000 34,000 34,000
2030 Planned Land Use with Recommended Transportation Improvements Model ADT 10,900 45,700 14,900 24,700
Under Threshold Yes Yes Yes Yes
Table M-8 summarizes PM peak-hour intersection LOS projections with the recommended transportation improvements. Analysis shows that the recommended improvements would result in acceptable LOS levels at all intersections, except at Storke Road/US-101 SB Ramp. At the intersection, the General Plan projected an LOS A with a V/C of 0.55, which is not consistent with traffic studied completed for the area. Therefore, LOS value from the Cortona Apartments Project traffic study (Associated Transportation Engineers 2010) are used and presented in Table M-8. Future LOS at the Storke Road/US-101 SB Ramp is projected to exceed the LOS standard under the cumulative condition. At the Hollister Avenue/Storke Road intersection, the applicable standard is defined as LOS D, with a V/C threshold of 0.89. TABLE M-8: PROJECTED FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS WITH RECOMMENDED TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS
2030 Planned Land Use with Recommended Transportation Improvements LOS Standard D C C C C C C C C C Intersection Location Hollister Avenue/ Storke Road Cathedral Oaks Road/ Glen Annie Road Glen Annie Road/Calle Real/US-101 NB Ramp Storke Road/ US-101 SB Ramp Cathedral Oaks Road/ Los Carneros Road Los Carneros Road/ Calle Real Road Los Carneros Road/ US-101 NB Ramp Los Carneros Road/ US-101 SB Ramp Los Carneros Road/ Calle Koral Road Los Carneros Road/ Traffic 1 Control Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal Signal V/C, or Delay (s)2 0.89 0.66 0.72 0.89 0.64 0.65 0.60 0.56 0.73 0.78 LOS D B C D3 B B A A C C
Intersection ID 6 9 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20
July 21, 2011
M-8
Intersection ID
1 2
2030 Planned Land Use with Recommended Transportation Improvements LOS Standard Intersection Location Hollister Avenue Traffic 1 Control V/C, or 2 Delay (s) LOS
Traffic control in this table reflects recommended transportation network. Data are expressed as V/C ratios for signalized intersections and as seconds of delay (s) for unsignalized intersections. 3 LOS contained in the General Plan is not consistent with traffic studies completed for the intersection. LOS value shown here is from the Cortona Apartments Project traffic study (Associated Transportation Engineers 2010). Source: City of Goleta 2006; Associated Transportation Engineers 2010
M.3
No federal or State regulations applicable to transportation are applied to the property. Local transportation regulations that can apply to the property are described below. M.1.3 Local
City of Goleta General Plan The Transportation Element, also known in State law as the Circulation Element, guides the continued development and improvement of the transportation system to support land uses planned in the Land Use Element. This element contains goals and policies to improve overall circulation in Goleta and ensure that future development is supported by appropriate transportation facilities. The GP/CLUP Transportation Element includes the following policies related to transportation:
Policy TE 3: Streets and Highways Plan and Standards. Objective: To provide a street network, including appropriate provisions for bicycles and pedestrians, that is adequate to support the mobility needs of city residents and businesses. Policy TE 4: Target Level of Service Standards. Objectives: To maintain an adequate LOS on the city street system, including at intersections, to provide for the mobility needs of the community. To avoid further degradation of service levels at intersections where existing service levels do not meet target standards. 1. TE 4.1: General Level of Service Standard. [GP] A traffic LOS standard C shall apply citywide to major arterials, minor arterials, and collector roadways and signalized and unsignalized intersections, except as provided in TE 4.2. The standard shall apply to daily traffic volumes and both AM and PM peak hours for intersections, and to average daily traffic volumes (ADT) for roadway segments. Table 7-3 provides descriptions of the LOS categories. 2. TE 4.2: Modified Level of Service Standard for Specific Intersections at Planning Capacity. [GP] Any intersection or arterial link that is developed to the maximum permitted number of lanes (see Policy TE 3 and TE 6.5) shall be considered to be at planned capacity, and the forecasted volume to capacity ratio with all planned transportation improvements, as shown in Table 7-1, shall be
July 21, 2011
M-9
applicable LOS standard. As of 2005, the Storke-Hollister intersection was the only intersection in the city at planned capacity, and the applicable volume to capacity standard is 0.89.
Policy TE 5: Planned Street and Road Improvements. Objectives: To identify and describe the major future improvements to the street and highway system that will be needed to accommodate the forecasted future traffic volumes, based upon the Land Use Plan, at acceptable levels of service. Policy TE 9: Parking. Objectives: To ensure that an adequate amount of parking is provided to accommodate the needs of existing, new, and expanded development, with convenient accessibility and attention to good design. To assure that on- and off-street parking is responsive to the varying and unique needs of individual commercial areas and residential neighborhoods. Policy TE 12: Transportation Systems Management. Objective: To establish operational controls that will manage the street network in a manner that will efficiently and safely utilize the existing limited capacity consistent with protection of the surrounding neighborhood. Policy TE 13: Mitigating Traffic Impacts of Development. Objective: To ensure that new development is supported by adequate capacities in transportation systems, including city streets and roads, without reducing the quality of services to existing residents, commuters, and other users of the city street system.
M.4
M.4.1

Methodology
The property is evaluated for opportunities and constraints in the supplemental review using the environmental setting and known conditions of the property and the City of Goleta. These opportunities and constraints are summarized in the following sections in terms of environmental, regulatory and permitting, and services. Environmental constraints or opportunities are based on physical environmental conditions of the property itself, of the surrounding land uses, or of the City of Goleta. Regulatory and permitting constraints are based on existing regulations or permits required to develop the property either as urban land use or to resume active agricultural practices on the property. Service constraints are generally related to a specific service provided to the property by a service provider such as the City or a public utility. Roadway ADT and V/C analysis between current conditions and future conditions as it relates to transportation and circulation is qualitatively analyzed and evaluated. It generally includes the following steps:
Identify the existing capacity and demand of the transportation and circulation within the study area. The existing carrying capacity is the additional traffic volume a project can add to a roadway to maintain the acceptable traffic operation under the existing road configurations. For the intersections, the carrying capacity is the additional V/C or trips a project can add to an intersection to meet the Citys LOS significance thresholds
July 21, 2011
M-10
described in the following section. The existing demand is the existing roadway traffic volumes and LOS.
Identify the future capacity and demand of the transportation and circulation based on future needs and future demands of the study area. The future carrying capacity is the additional traffic volume a project can add to a roadway to maintain the acceptable traffic operation with the programmed and planned roadway improvements in the adopted General Plan. For the intersections, the carrying capacity is the additional V/C a project can add to an intersection to meet the Citys LOS significance thresholds described in the following section. The future demand is the projected cumulative traffic volumes and LOS that reflect the adopted General Plan land use and regional traffic growth.
For traffic impact analysis, the City has established threshold criteria to standardize traffic impact assessments. The criteria are used to determine whether traffic generated by a project will cause a significant effect to the transportation system and whether road projects are needed to improve the transportation system. It should be noted that the following criteria are guidelines for the majority of potential impacts. The list of criteria is not intended to be all-inclusive because the potential for impact may vary depending upon the environmental setting and the nature of a project. a. The addition of a projects traffic to an intersection increases the V/C by the value provided in Table M-9, or adds at least 5, 10, or 15 trips to intersections operating at LOS F, E, and D, respectively. TABLE M-9: CITY OF GOLETA LOS SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
LOS (including a project)1 A B C D E F
1
Increase in V/C Greater Than 0.20 0.15 0.10 Or the addition of: 15 trips 10 trips 5 trips
The adopted standard for City roadways and intersections is LOS C; with the exception of the intersection of Hollister Avenue/Storke Road, which has been built to its planned capacity, and thus under GP/CLUP policy subsection TE 4.2 has a standard of LOS D.
b. Project access to a major road or arterial road would require a driveway that would create an unsafe situation or 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, roadside 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) that will become potential safety problems with the addition of project or cumulative traffic. Exceedance of the roadways designated
July 21, 2011
M-11
Transportation Element Capacity may indicate the potential for the occurrence of the above impacts. d. Project traffic would utilize a substantial portion of an intersections capacity where the intersection is currently operating at acceptable LOS (A through C) but with cumulative traffic would degrade to or approach LOS D (V/C 0.80) or lower. Substantial is defined as a minimum change of 0.03 V/C for intersections that would operate from 0.80 to 0.85 V/C and a change of 0.02 V/C for intersections that would operate from 0.86 to 0.90 V/C, and 0.01 V/C for intersections operating at anything lower. M.4.2 Assumptions
If urban development occurred as a result of a land use designation change, property access, on-site circulation, and onsite parking would be designed according to the City ordinance and design standards. Active agricultural uses would generate the majority of trips during off-peak hours.
M.5
M.5.1
Evaluation
There are several different opportunities and constraints associated with the property associated with transportation and circulation. These are summarized in Table M-10 below.
July 21, 2011
M-12
TABLE M-10: SUMMARY OF TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES

Existing Conditions 1 Rating + Relevance to Future Property Use and Rating2 Urban Ag /
Existing Condition Environmental Roadway and 10 intersections within the property vicinity are operating within the Citys LOS standards.
Resource Opportunity or Constraint These roadways and intersections could accommodate additional traffic.
Future Property Use Opportunity or Constraint Future change to urban use could result in increased traffic on roadway system and could potentially degrade the operation of roadways and intersections. Active agricultural uses would generally have a limited volume of traffic and not increase traffic during peak hours such that a degradation of roadways and intersections would occur. Future change to urban land use could increase the demand and utilization of existing bus services. Future change to urban land use could increase the demand and utilization of existing rail services. Future change to urban land use could increase the demand and utilization of existing sidewalks and bike lanes in the property vicinity. Change to the property could result in increased traffic on the roadway system and could potentially cause the following roadways and intersections to exceed LOS standards: Storke Road south of US 101 Interchange (roadway) Cathedral Oaks Road/Los Carneros Road (intersection)
MTD Bus Line 10 runs along Cathedral Oaks Road between La Cumbre and Camino Real Marketplace during the weekdays. The Amtrak Station is located at S La Patera Lane, one mile east of the property. The Pacific Surfliner route offers five trains a day in each direction between Paso Robles and San Diego. Cathedral Oaks Road, Calle Real, Hollister Avenue, StorkeGlen Annie Road, and Los Carneros Road are all classified as a Class II bike lane. Regulatory and Permitting General Plan Policy TE 4 establishes the LOS standards for roadways and intersections. The policies maintain an adequate LOS on the city street system, including at intersections, to provide for the mobility needs of the community; and to avoid further degradation of service levels at roadways and intersections where existing service levels do not meet target standards.
There are two bus stops adjacent to property at Glen Annie Road and Los Carneros Road. There are public transit opportunities within the vicinity of the property. There are bike lanes in all directions from the property.
Roadway and intersections within the property vicinity are operating within the Citys LOS standards.
July 21, 2011
M-13
Existing Condition
Los Carneros Road/Calle Real

(intersection)
Los Carneros Road/US 101 SB

Same as above Same as above + Ramp (intersection) Change to the property could result in increased traffic on the roadway system and could potentially cause the following intersections to exceed LOS standards for cumulative effects: Hollister Avenue/Storke Road Storke Road/US-101 SB Ramp Los Carneros Road/Hollister Avenue N/A /
Service There are no service constraints for Transportation.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table Notes 1 Existing Conditions Rating indicates how well the existing conditions support the resource area (e.g., aesthetics, agriculture, biology, etc.). The rating is defined in one of the following three ways: Positive (+) indicates an opportunity, or an issue that would not pose a constraint. Neutral (/) indicates an issue that is neutral and neither positive or negative. Negative (-) indicates a major constraint that would be difficult to overcome. 2 The urban column indicates the property would be converted to some type of urban use and the Ag column indicates the property would be converted to some type of active agricultural. The Future Property Use rating is the same as defined above (positive, neutral, or negative) and indicates how well an urban use or ag use would support the resource area given the identified opportunities or constraints.
July 21, 2011
M-14
M.5.2
Roadway Average Daily Traffic and Volume-to-Capacity Analysis For roadways, the City defines the maximum daily traffic volumes a roadway can accommodate to maintain the LOS C standard. The ADT threshold is calculated based on a roadway segments number of lanes and road functional classification (Tables M-4). The allowable ADT that a project can add to a roadway without causing a significant traffic impact is the difference between ADT threshold and the baseline ADT. Table M-11 lists the allowable ADT for each study segment under both existing and future cumulative conditions. TABLE M-11: ALLOWABLE INCREASE IN ROADWAY ADT
Existing Condition Number of Lanes 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 ADT Threshold for LOS C 14,300 14,300 14,300 30,100 34,000 34,000 34,000 34,000 Baseline ADT 9,200 9,700 8,000 9,100 8,500
(a)
General Plan Buildout ADT Threshold for LOS C 14,300 14,300 14,300 30,100 34,000 47,000(c) 34,000 34,000 Baseline ADT 10,200 11,500 11,900 11,900 10,900 45,700 14,900 24,700 Allowable Increase in ADT 4,100 2,800 2,400 18,200 23,100 1,300 19,100 9,300
Segment Location Cathedral Oaks Road east of Los Carneros Road Cathedral Oaks Road west of Glen Annie Road Calle Real east of Los Carneros Road Calle Real west of Glen Annie Road Glen Annie Road north of US-101 Interchange Storke Road south of US101 Interchange Los Carneros Road north of US-101 Interchange Los Carneros Road south of US-101 Interchange
Allowable Increase in ADT 5,100 4,600 6,300 2,1000 25,500 200 21,800 9,800
(a)
(a)
(a)
(a)
33,800
(b)
12,200(a) 24,200
(b)
Source: (a) City of Goleta 2006; (b) Associated Transportation Engineers 2010 (c) Lane capacity improvement location.
For intersections, the City defines the increase in V/C that is allowable by a project without causing a significant traffic impact. When a project distribute more traffic to an intersection, the increase in V/C is greater. However, the allowable increase in V/C varies between LOS. When the LOS is better (A or B), the allowance is higher; when the LOS is worse (D or E), the allowance is lower and is defined by trips (Table M-9). Table M-12 lists the estimated allowable increase in V/C or trips under both existing and future cumulative conditions. Figures M-3 and M-4 identify the location of these intersections under both existing and future cumulative conditions.
July 21, 2011
M-15
TABLE M-12: ALLOWABLE INCREASE IN V/C

Existing Condition Intersection 1 ID 6 9 11 12 14 15 LOS Standard D C C C C C V/C, or 2 Delay (s) 0.77 0.62 0.69
(a)
General Plan Buildout V/C, or Delay (s)2 0.89(a) 0.66(a) 0.72(a) 0.89(b) 0.64(a) 0.65
(a)
Intersection Location Hollister Avenue/ Storke Road Cathedral Oaks Road/ Glen Annie Road Glen Annie Road/Calle Real/US-101 NB Ramp Storke Road/ US-101 SB Ramp Cathedral Oaks Road/ Los Carneros Road Los Carneros Road/ Calle Real Road Los Carneros Road/ US-101 NB Ramp Los Carneros Road/ US-101 SB Ramp Los Carneros Road/ Calle Koral Road Los Carneros Road/ Hollister Avenue
LOS C B B C3 C C
Allowable Increase in V/C or Trips 0.10 0.15 0.15 0.10 -4 -4
LOS D B C D3 B B A (Assume B with change to property) A C C
Allowable Increase in V/C or Trips 0.02 0.15 0.10 0.02 0.15 0.15
(a)
(b)
0.73(b) 19.8s(a) 18.8s

(a)
16
0.56(a)
0.20
0.60(a)
0.15
17 18 20
1 2
C C C
0.78 0.71 0.69
(b)
C B B
0.10 0.15 0.15
0.56(a) 0.73(a) 0.78(a)
0.20 0.10 0.10
(b)
(a)
To be consistent with the General Plan Transportation Element, the same ID is assigned to each study intersection. Data are expressed as V/C for signalized intersections and as seconds of delay (s) for unsignalized intersections. 3 LOS contained in the General Plan is not consistent with traffic studies completed for the intersection. LOS value shown here is from the Cortona Apartments traffic study (Associated Transportation Engineers 2010). 4 Not to exceed LOS standard. Source: (a) Goleta 2006; (b) Associated Transportation Engineers 2010
As described above, the ICU method was used to determine V/C and LOS of a signalized intersection. The ICU method calculates an intersections LOS by taking the sum of each pair of intersection critical movements (movements that compete for the same space within the intersection) and dividing that value by the sum of each critical movement capacity. Each critical movements V/C is then summed and a 10 percent lost-time adjustment is added to yield a peak-hour V/C. Therefore, the capacity of an intersection cannot be simply calculated from a V/C and an intersection volume. It depends on the combination of traffic volumes on critical movements associated with a specific project. As such, at this time without a specific project the allowable increase in trips at each intersection cannot be identified through the V/C increase shown in Table M-12. Urban Land Use Changing the property from existing use to urban land use would cause a substantial increase of traffic volumes on roadways and intersections adjacent to the property. As shown in Table M1, Storke Road south of the US 101 Interchange is currently approaching the capacity. It could exceed the roadway capacity with the additional trips generated by the property. As shown in
July 21, 2011
M-16
14
Ca
no mi
ntu Ve
ros
o
Ca se ta
Ca
no mi
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Lo
sC arn
Los Carneros Lake
ero
e ek Cr
15 Calle Re
al
en Gl An R nie d
Gl
16
en
An
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\traffic\figm_3_current_traffic_los.mxd SM (07-19-11)
De lN or te
12
ilia Cast
n Dr
18
y Drivewa
in Cam
500 Feet
1,000
20
Legend Property Street Classification Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Streets and Roads Local Streets and Roads Current Key Intersections Major Intersections Intersections Currently at LOS Standard
NOTE: Intersection numbers correspond to Table M-5, which provides data for each intersection.
Figure M-3 CURRENT INTERSECTION LOS
SOURCE: City of Goleta; ESRI
Vi s
e ni
re ek
17
Dr
11
n Unio
Pacif
ic RR
VIA L
ui sa
14
Ca
no mi
ntu Ve
ros
o
Ca se ta
Ca
no mi
Cathedral Oaks Rd
Lo
sC arn
Los Carneros Lake
ero
e ek Cr
15 Calle Re
al
en Gl An R nie d
Gl
16
en
An
k:\irvine\gis\projects\city_of_goleta\00650_10\mapdoc\traffic\figm_4_future_traffic_los.mxd SM (07-19-11)
De lN or te
12
ilia Cast
n Dr
18
y Drivewa
in Cam
500 Feet
1,000
20
Legend Property Street Classification Major Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Streets and Roads Local Streets and Roads Future Key Intersections Major Intersections Intersections at LOS Standard Intersections Exceeding the LOS Standard
NOTE: Intersection numbers correspond to the table M-8, which provides data for each intersection.
Figure M-4 FUTURE INTERSECTION LOS
SOURCE: City of Goleta; ESRI
Vi s
e ni
re ek
17
RR
Dr
cific n Pa Unio
VIA L
11
ui sa
Tables M-5, the following intersections are either unsignalized or approaching the LOS standards. With the additional trips generated by the property, the impact at these locations may be significant, according to the significance criteria shown in Table M-9. Improvements might be required to mitigate the impacts on Storke Road south of the US 101 Interchange and at these intersections:

Cathedral Oaks Road/Los Carneros Road Los Carneros Road/Calle Real Los Carneros Road/US-101 SB Ramp
The proposed GTIP, shown in Table M-6, includes the planned roadway and intersection improvements on Storke Road south of the US 101 Interchange and at the three aforementioned intersections. As shown in Table M-7, under the cumulative conditions, with the implementation of these improvements, roadways within the study area will most likely be operating within the standard. However, as shown in Table M-8, the cumulative intersection impacts might occur at the following intersections because their V/C and LOS are either exceeding or approaching the standards. Intersection improvements may be required to mitigate cumulative impacts occurring at these locations:

Hollister Avenue/Storke Road Storke Road/US-101 SB Ramp Los Carneros Road/Hollister Avenue
A degradation in the surrounding roadways may not result if changes to the property result in roadway ADT that falls at or below the allowable ADT for existing conditions and future cumulative conditions identified in Table M-11. A degradation in the surrounding roadways may not result if changes to the property result in V/C or trips that are at or below the allowable increase in V/C or trips identified for the existing conditions and cumulative conditions in Table M-12. Agriculture Land Use Changing the property from existing use to agriculture land use would not be expected to cause a substantial increase of traffic volumes on roadways and intersections adjacent to the property. As shown in Tables M-1 and M-5, roadways and intersections are operating within the LOS standard; therefore, the additional trips generated by the property are not anticipated to cause significant traffic impacts at these locations. As shown in Tables M-7 and M-8, under the cumulative conditions, roadways and intersections would be operating within the LOS standard. The additional trips generated by the property are not anticipated to cause cumulative traffic impacts at these locations. Calle Real Extension The General Plan does not include any future extension of Calle Real from its current terminus at Los Carneros Road to Glen Annie Road. The General Plan traffic analysis shows that the planned roadway network, including the freeway, would operate acceptably without an additional east-west connection between the residential neighborhoods east of Los Carneros Road and west of Glen Annie Road.
July 21, 2011
M-17
It is not feasible to design Calle Real to be continuous roadway from Glen Annie Road to Los Carneros Road due to location of the existing street segments. The existing western portion of Calle Real connects to Glen Annie Road opposite the US-101 NB Ramps. Caltrans requires a minimum spacing of 410 feet between ramp and local road intersections. Any extension of Calle Real would therefore be offset from the existing segment. (Penfield & Smith 2007) However, if it is feasible to realign the western portion of Calle Real to provide minimum spacing between US-101 NB Ramps and Calle Real on Los Carneros Road, the extension of Calle Real between Glen Annie Road and Los Carneros Road could provide better circulation and street systems within and around the property. This would also increase the cut-through traffic from US-101 and Cathedral Oaks Road, which could result in increased traffic volumes on Calle Real and at the Los Carneros Road intersection. Therefore, traffic-calming features should be considered for the new road to prevent such cut-through traffic. M.5.3 Additional Analysis Required and Questions
Changing the property from existing use to urban land use could potentially cause significant traffic impacts on roadways and intersections adjacent to the property. To identify the impact levels and the required roadway improvements, a traffic impact study is necessary to quantify project-generated trips, traffic volumes, and intersection V/C, delays, and LOS. Additional analyses required for a traffic impact study include:

LOS analysis for the existing conditions and the cumulative conditions; Trip generation, assignment, and distribution; Traffic volume projections for the existing+project conditions and the cumulative+project conditions; LOS analysis for the existing+project conditions and the cumulative+project conditions; Comparing LOS result to LOS standards and significance criteria; Identifying roadway and intersection deficiencies and evaluating transportation improvements; and Evaluating parking, project access, on-site circulation, and nonmotorized transportation.
July 21, 2011
M-18
Attachment 1 Bishop Ranch Agricultural Analysis
t:z:~~
~~w
~,~;~, SAG E
~ AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS

Offices in Santa Barbara Mammoth Lakes
BISHOP RANCH
I
r:
AGRICULTURAL ANALYSIS
i
Prepared for: ICF International 1 Ada, Suite 100, Irvne, CA 92618 Attention: Mr. Charles Smith, Vice President
Prepared by: SAGE Associates, October 2010
1396 Danielson Road, Santo Barbaro, California 93108 . P.O. Box 50806, Sonto Barbaro, California 93150
805 969-0557 FAX 805 969.5003 sage~slcom.com
Printed on recycled paper
INTRODUCTION
The City of Goleta has requested a supplemental review of the Bishop Ranch
General Plan Amendment/Development Agreement application. Applicant
supplied information regarding Agricultural Resources shall be reviewed and verified regarding historic agricultural uses of the Bishop Ranch and nearby environs including a general assessment of the agricultural viabilty of the ranch
and why it is in a fallow condition.
The supplemental review is intended to provide a body of information and

considerations that wil guide the preparation of a staff report and
recommendations to the City CounciL.
This Agricultural Analysis is based on a September 27,2010 site field assessment

Santa Barbara Agricultural Commissioner' Office land use planng staff, the rCF
of existing land use conditions with City of Goleta, and Bishop Ranch
representatives; interviews with the City of Goleta planng staff, the County of
International representatives, and a local rancher who has faring experience on similar soils and is a Santa Barbara County Far Bureau Director; review of prior studies of the ranch and regional area; and review of published soil and crop information.
This Agricultural Analysis utilizes the County of Santa Barbara Planning & Development Department Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual revised October 2002 with Replacement pages July 2003, for agrcultural resource
viabilty that has also been utilized by the City of Goleta (Chase, pers. comm.
2010).
During the site field assessment, the following 12 photos were taken that show the existing land use conditions of the Bishop Ranch and adjacent land uses. The
location of the photos and the ranch are shown on Figure 1 - Photo Location
Map. The ranch is currently not used for agriculture. Mowing of the grassland areas is evident in the photos. The photos focus on the areas mapped by the applicant's biological consultant as non-native grassland that were historically
utilized for orchard and other crop production (LFR, 2008). These areas contain
Capabilty Class I and II prime soils, and Capabilty Class II nonprime soils
according to the USDA Soil Survey (1981). The photos also show neighboring
agrcutual uses and Cathedral Oaks Road and US Highway 101.
The following sections includes a synopsis of prior studies pertinent to the Bishop Ranch and regional land uses; the agricultural analysis; conclusions;
references including listing the report preparer, the persons/ organizations
consulted, and a bibliography.
r.
,,'.~,-f~,~_:
::,.. '.
ii,".,
vg\t:j ~VA~
I, ~,"'" ',,~ ,
;'11
1 "",,~,' I,l~..:,,"~"\,,',
'1' ,i'
. ',:)_,i,-!:,
'.'~
I'i, i';i'~','~
Figure 1: PHOTO LOCATION MAP
-tJ
Direction of Photo
/k;?4AGRICUlTURAL CONSULTAt~TS
SAG E
BISHOP RANCH AGRICULTURAL ANALYSIS PHOTOS
PHOTO 1: Bishop Ranch MeC Class III soil non-native grassland with neighboring avocado trees on right rooking south. 9/27/10.
r-
_"A r;p A ~~nrintpt;
II
..'
. -!'...t\:(-'.j'~.....,a,):...~
.. "!
"~~'" ,
.,
;i' -=1"_ . _\o~.... ." , l'~_:,:~~'
.. """
-~
.--~.
II
r
::~-
..~ .....'
.. ..: '=-.
.. ...
i.
~~
..,
_-::~;,t ..:~ PHOTO 3: Bishop Ranch DaC Class II prime soil non-native grassrand.
Lower slope neighbor lemons to northwest on DaC soiL. 9/27/10.
--I
PHOTO 4: Bishop Ranch DaC Class II prime soil foreground and MeC Crass III soil rnidground non-native grassland looking southeast. 9/27/10.
.c;A r:F. A c:,;nr;ntp,;
BISHOP RANCH AGRICUL TURAL ANALYSIS PHOTOS
~ .~-'",-
I~
",-- ~
~~~"_.L ..~.~i/~;it.. - ~ ,,/~~ .~', '.,-Ail '~: ~ ,~.; ..r" c ' :~.": .~ ~"" a ~"'.~ , m ~".... . -.,' , ~. . ''';'.'' A'''..'J ~ ~"c1' ,~ . ...,~
. I~ ....p- .. ,1,",. ''3 ,.' ~ E,il . . -~::-'." :..'" .., .... _ ~-. .il'"-.i~.. ii- -" . p,.. -.;
J' ':i."" .i: .. ~.;~. ~. -i:.. . .. 'r.~ , _ ~.s ~...\.- ,"- "'.....ii. .~';..~ _. .- ..
.. ~~, ~ ..,;......~Il.. . . '

"
..
,.' '.. ",' . ...... Q~".:jjl.,!~~~~.W'.:; .-:..,,1! rooking southwest. 9/27/10. - -,

PHOTO 5: Bishop Ranch DaC Class II pnme soil non-native grassland
I
. . ~. n ..'t ,':.!o.. _~. ~..~. " ...i:-p 't.. ~~. '. .;._";'jl
'. '1 ' ~. iF ~..,~,.~ .', . a'f,'i::N,i~ ,,~~~,~~ , ;.~
..~. ~~;:..._:. --~r.r :.~'~ ~ -. ~-r: ~'." ~: ~~ :~~ ~ - 'I,.... ..:"- _~:--~. ~ - _~ """::'~' '! ~-r. ~!.__A. :~:;/-
,.'. .~... ...-~, " . .;.~t ~'..~-'. .~~... .., ,..~.. - ~ ,..
. _~.,:.."-"""~'-~~.' .:"' _. "~',... '.. d'~.' .... . ~ "":.~"1';~~'~ .
.~..:.l3_ _-_... _ -.. ',' ..', "" 1..-. _._i:
"., '. ;#~..- '!~-.. ~ . .,~ ~...~ .. . 'i .. r'. .
;J......~ r/........ .. ~ . ~.. n. ~ ... .. ~. -I: ,- ..(:. . ~, ~ ~ "f. .. ~".
.':.~ ~':._'" . ~'ii,..'" ",=cit ' ',"".... ;
PHOTO 6: Bishop Ranch MeD2 Crass iv soil foreground slope, AaC Class II pnme soil midground non-native grassrand, US 101 to southeast
9/27/10.
~ .~
. 'f,:ll' ',~' .,. , _,;', ~"'" ~~~~'d. ",' .. ~,. ~.r . #i . l- '~ ~'~ . Pr' Jl,. ..'.. II.t""ifi.:t, .. . p'.... ". tst.: 'e. ....A--_ \ ,- .. -~ '~ ~ Ii .._, ..'
. ~. _ ,.~~.',....- "' .1).' ...,~"~. .. ,. . "... d -+ _. Ii
,A r;F A ~~nrifltp~
At
. ,
!
~, ,P,...'." ,.... :. ' ,:;, ,.~?c " .: ~ . ...;Jr", ."..., 'f" u~' .;1'1-, . . ;1". ""'~. . '. II ~ .1.
.J.",-... 'Ii: -il'"" i~"'_a.lo~ _.. ....'i/;r~.W..:l..~C.'f~J::". ".. ~.~~).:..a; PHOTO 7: Bishop Ranch GcA Class I prime soil non-native grassland
!I.
t, "'" ~, ..," '",_' ,,,:;, lii- -.'.r'~ ~) ," ~..", .,., j'"
i "4 " . .~.. #. . 'ft., ". '':..r'_. ~~ "J
~" '"., ~ ~
~
~.. ..\ '0,.,1" . "

N
-,
~,
..
i " . 'f' .: " t. .'. I:. f"4,i: .;. j' .f
~~~-=~-to north. 9/27/10.
,~A r:F A :r:nrintpc:
..I
- -..' - .-- _.
----+---~-- ._-".-. -.- ~ .--'--' . -_..-..
-- .. _.--.- -
'. .".._-.' '.' .-, .-. - --~.,
1.,
f--?--n
r ,-.- ,., ,- - '-,- .-,'
~':.~ -,
-. ".~,!---~:;....:---,,-
PHOTO 10: Bishop Ranch MeC Class III soir non-native grassland to
south. 9/27/10.
.~Ar;F. Ac:cuir;nfpc:
- . ..' - .. .. . ra ~a ~;;.. lIa;, ~ . lS ..;~__._

b ~ II 1i:lE"R _ .i!~., .~ ".:.:
.. ..'
r'~~ .r;- "" .... . il ~ 'r~ . i. -~"~QrvIi"i= . .~ ~ ~

,.
' ..,
.'L
rt"" .-," iJ'/ .' lJ .iP" .. .. ~ ,, i.~,.. II .. di
=-'%'1_ iL""_"2,.",~.:..A._'; '.., '~ ~);' ;'~. 'L'" '" II - ..:'" Il ~':.. l:: ':. ~ ::',-, ...' . L '_ '":'
north.
, ;. ~ t:" II ""~. ll:..-~ ,- . .. ~' ,~.. _. ,r, ,,'-- , ,"", II, ii ,,, . ir '~""'i' '... "'" ,,", ~ R~-J
:~.. 'l:;i a '" ,~,;; ."" ;i ,." ",.~ !i.., ,, 1: '
PHOTO 11: Bishop Ranch MeC Class III soir non-native grassland to
9/27/10.
."
~ '.
a,~.. .:
:'i~
-..,...
~
.....,
..
_A~F A~r;f1rntpt:
PRIOR STUDIES
Applicant-provided prior studies of the Bishop Ranch, and studies by the City of Goleta, and County of Santa Barbara are also included below, The comments in bold type includes our assessment of these studies.
Bishop Ranch 2000 LLC Hydrologic Analysis, Hoover, Tune 21. 2010:
Evaluates the feasibility of developing a water supply well suitable for irrgation
on the 240-acre parceL. On the basis of our investigation of historic water wells
located on and near the subject site, and our knowledge of the geologic conditions beneath the site, we conclude that a viable agricultural water supply
is not available from water wells driled on this property. During the 1970's
irrigation water from on offsite water well south of the site was used for
permanent pasture, which was determined to be uneconomic.
Information presented appears to be consistent with the conclusion that no onsite irrgation water wells would provide adequate irrgation water.
Bishop Ranch Water Issue Memo 1/27 (10:
This memo states that a 7/15/08 City of Goleta staff report was inaccurate in that
Bishop Ranch 2000, LLC never held a 100 AF water entitlement.
Conclusion appears to be a regal opinion as part of a court case exhibit.
Santa Barbara County Agrcultural Production Report for 2009:
rn 2009, agrculture continues to be the County's major producing industr with

a 9.1 percent increase from 2008. Vegetable crops were produced on 65,775 acres, fruit and nut crops on 39,963 acres, nursery products on 1,693 acres, field crops
on 600,727 acres (of which 584,125 acres are rangeland), seed crops on 2,199
acres, and 37,694 head of cattle. Goleta Valley crop and livestock production would be included in the above Santa Barbara County totals. Walnuts are listed
as a miscellaneous crop with no acreage given, lemons were produced on 1,448 acres with average yield of 17.8 tons per acre, and avocados were produced on
7,520 acres with average yield of 3.1 tons per acre.
Santa Barbara County is a major agricultural commodity producer in the State

of California of which the Goleta Valley is a contrbutor.
Hoffman, Vance and Worthngton, Inc" March 24,2009:

Farming of the 240-acre Lower Bishop Ranch would not be feasible due to
topography, and/ or soil, or is not served with water. The cost of water is a
crtical issue affecting the feasibilty of farng the Lower Bishop Ranch.
Approximately 170 acres of the ranch are classifed as Farmland of Local Importance (inaccurate) and approximately 70 acres are classified as Other Land
attempts at catte grazing, citrs trees, and Chrstmas trees were abandoned. The property was never used for dryland farming of cereal grains, Sudan, or any varety of beans, or permanent pasture.
(accurate). The property was acquired by the present owners in 1957 and
The lack of an existing irrigation water supply precludes irrigated crop production. The Important Farmlands designation was valid for crop
production some time in the past. There were no specific reasons given for
crop abandonment. Topography and soirs may not preclude crop production as evidenced by regional agricultural uses on similar soils and topography. Prior
to the 1960's the ranch was covered by orchard crops.
Ag Land Services, August 27, 2008:
The 240-acre Lower Bishop Ranch is not viable for agncultural use for a varety of reasons. Analyzed the water system for the 2,700 acres of the ranch north of Cathedral Oak Road and the 240 acres south of the road. Determined that the ranch's water could sustain plantings totaling 500 acres. Results of the study favored the ranch north of the road where the 500 acres were planted,
Goleta Water Distrct costs for lemons or avocados is $52,000 per acre, plus water
costs of $870 per acre (subsidized cost) which is three times higher than the
upper ranch water costs.
Water availabilty is an important factor for irrigated crop viabilty on the ranch and the potential supply must be verified by the City and the Goleta
Water Distrct.
LFR Inc.. January, 2008:
Describes sensitive species and habitat survey for the approximately 240-acre Bishop Ranch. Details historic agricultural uses of the ranch and focuses on historic aerial photos to determine past agricultural endeavors,
1929 - orchards cover the southwestern corner of the site.
1938 - most of the upland portons of the site have been planted in orchards,
1943 - extensive orchards and water containment facilities on the east portion of
the site.
1953 -large portions of the orchards in the center and west portions of the site have been removed with no farng evident of those areas.
1961 - current ownership most of the orchards have been replaced by fields
except in the southwestern corner of the site.
1967 and 1975 - similar to today with large non-native fields,
10
Non-native grasslands comprise about 203 acres (84%) of the site.
Habitat types and acreages including non-native grassland were included in the study with adequate descriptions and historic agriculturar uses of the ranch. The 1954 photo stin shows extensive orchard areas. The 1961 photo appears to show windrows of a hay crop in the north-central portion of the
site.
Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan FErR 2006: (Note: ICF International representatives reviewed the City of Goleta GP / CLUP Supplemental EIR July
2009 and found no changes to the 2006 agrcultural analysis).
Agricultural land comprises about 409 acres of land within the City of Goleta,
Truck fars, row crops, greenhouses, avocados, lemons, and nursery crops make
up the bulk of the uses on the agrcultual
lands.
There are no Wiliamson Act lands within the City of Goleta. The l1.6-acre
Fairview Gardens in the City of Goleta is in a conservation easement and is used
for crop production.
The 290.6-acre Bishop Ranch is one of the City's primary agricultural resource areas. The ranch consists of thee parcels, The western parcel is about 25 acres
owned separately and was used for lemons and avocados. The central parcel is
about 240 acres owned by University Exchange Corporation and is not under crop production. The east parcel is about 22 acres under separate ownership and
was used for avocados.
The 240-acres of Bishop Ranch were used historically for grazing, walnuts, fruit and row crops. The land is classified by the State of Californa Department of Conservation rmportant Farmlands Mapping Program as Farmland of Local Importance (includes all dryland farming areas and permanent pasture). Prime Farmland and Farland of Statewide Importance are located to the north across Cathedral Oaks Road; Prime Farmland is located to the east; and Prime Farmland, Farland of Statewide Importance and Other Land are located to the west. No Wiliamson Act contracts border the ranch.
The 240 acres are designated in the General Plan as Existing Agriculture and the proposed land use designation is Agrcultue.
The City of Goleta considers the Bishop Ranch an important agricultural

parcel within the City.
CH2MHILL Goleta Valley Agrcultural Viabilty Analysis for the Goleta Valley
Chamber of Commerce 2006:
The UEC owns the 238,8-acre Bishop Ranch parceL. This parcel has not been
substantially cultivated or irrgated for the past 37 years and has not been used for pasture for at least 16 years, Catte were grazed from 1985 to 1990. Ten acres
of citrs were planted on the norteast corner of the propert and abandoned.
11
Five acre of strawberres and 10 acres of Chrstmas trees also failed. New Water
Supply connection charges of $52,480 per acre would apply to the ranch.
Current ownership chooses not to farm the Bishop Ranch parcel but chooses to delve into the urban development possibilties.
Report On the Agricultural Study For Bishop Ranch, Nelson, 2006:
Property has not been cultivated or irrgated for past 37 years or grazed for the
past 16 years, Land has been fallow therefore should not be classified as
Farmlands of Local Importance based on historical use of 20 to 30 years ago. To
qualify as prime land the land must have been irrgated during the past four
years.
Soils classified by the USDA Soil Survey as marginally to poorly suited for deep rooted crops such as lemons, Avocados are limited by high hazard of root rot.
Field crops could be grown but acreage is smalL
Only irrigation water available is that available from the Goleta Water Distrct , rrrigation water is not assured because the supply would go first to urban users in times of drought. A lemon planting, which is the only crop that could be considered for the property, would require 2 acre foot of water per acre and therefore be subject to a $50,950 per acre initial charge for servce plus a
(GWD)
monthly meter charge of $503 for a 10 inch meter, plus $872 per acre yearly water cost if water was available from GWD.
Water availabilty is an important factor for irrigated crop production on the ranch. Regionally, the same Soil Series are used successfully for lemons and avocados. Nursery and truck (row) crops could also be grown on the ranch
with irrigation water. Soil and water management are important crop
production factors to be considered on the ranch,
Santa Barbara County Planng & Development Goleta Valley Urban Agrculture
2002:
The purpose of ths report was to provide the public and decision-makers with
the history and status of Goleta Valley urban agriculture as an aid to plaiung
the future of Goleta Valley's urban farms, In 2002, there was over 1,000 acres of
agricultural land left in urban Goleta, Crops grown include avocados,

cherimoyas, lemons, vegetables, flowers, nursery, and strawberres.
Bishop Ranch was described as 287 acres with the 240 acres owned by the
University Exchange Corporation that was not being fared at the time of the report, Ths area was previously utilized for orchards and row crops. Zoning was Agriculture - r, 40-acre minimum parcel size. Lemons and/ or avocados were being fared on the north, east, and west of the parceL
Santa Barbara County recognized the agricultural importance of the Bishop

Ranch with a past crop history of orchards and row crops.
12
AGRICULTUL ANALYSIS
Specifically, the County of Santa Barbara Plannng & Development Department
Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual revised October 2002 with
Replacement pages July 2003, for agricultural resources was utilized in the
agrcultural viabilty analysis and states the following:
(Note: The City of Goleta also utilizes ths methodology adopted in 2003, which has been applied to the Bishop Ranch Agricultural Analysis, The agricultural
threshold analysis relates to physical environmental resources rather than

economics.) This is not a CEQA-initiated analysis, but the analysis does utilize the agricultural resource viabilty methodology utilized by the County and City.
"The weighted point system is utilized to assign relative values to particular

characteristics of a site's agricultural productivity (e.g, soil type, water supply, etc.), Where the points from the following formula total 60 or more, the following types of projects wil be considered to have a potentially signifcant impact:
"A division of land (including Parcel and Tract Maps, etc,), which is currently considered viable but would result in parcels which would not be considered
viable using the weighting system, " "A Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, or other discretionary act which
would result in the conversion from agricultural use of a parcel qualifing as

viable using the weighting system,"
"Discretionary projects which may result in substantial disruption of

surrounding agricultural operations ".
"If a potentially significant impact is identifed using these criteria, further more
detailed, site-specifc evaluation of agricultural impacts is completed in an EIR. This analysis should focus upon factors and criteria, but not the points, in the weighting
system of these guidelines, and any other relevant factors such as the history of
agricultural use on the site, land use trends, etc, Final determination of the project's level of impact will be based on this analysis ",
"As a general guideline, an agricultural parcel of land should be considered viable if it is of suffcient size and capability to support an agricultural enterprise independent of any other parcel, To qualif as agriculturally viable, the area of land in question need only be
of sufficient size and/or productive capability to be economically attractive to an

agricultural
lessee, This productivity standard should take into consideration the cultural
practices and leasehold production units in the area, as well as soil type and water availability, For dry land farming and grazing operations the production or carrying
capacity should be based upon normal rainfall years only, not periods of drought or heavy rainfall. It should be noted that the Santa Barbara County Cattlemen's Association has
stated that an appropriate threshold for impacts to grazing land in the County is the
displacement or division of land capable of sustaining between 25 to 30 animal units per
year, This "threshold" utilizes a carrying capacity threshold similar to the weighting
system below, Because of this, on grazing projects, detailed information of the number of
13
animal units supportable on a particular parcel should also be considered in the project's
environmental document,"
The Santa Barbara County Planng & Development Thresholds of Significance
factors for agricultural resource viabilty are utilized in the following analysis
(Ialics),
"The Agricultural Threshold is weighted toward physical environmental resources rather
than economics, This emphasis is in keeping with CEQA's emphasis on physical

environmental impacts and not social or economic impacts (State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15131) Given high land values in the County and the subdivision and turnover lands in some areas of the County, agricultural production on some lands of agricultural
may be economically marginal, Because of these factors, economics is considered

primarily a planning issue and wil not be addressed in environmental documents ",
land value is divided into nine components which "The city determination of agricultural are weighted according to their estimated resource value, These nine areas are:
- Parcel Size - Adjacent Land Uses - Water Availability
- Comprehensive Plan designation
- Existing Land Use

- Soil Classifcation
- Agricultural Suitability
- Combined Farming Operations
- Agricultural Preserve Potential
The following criteria as defined by the County (Ialics) for the above nine factors
is included below and is summarized on Table 2 - at the end of the agrcultural analysis.
Existing 240-acre Bishop Ranch:

1. Parcel Size
Large parcel size is, in general, an important indicator of potential agricultural suitability and productivity, However, because of the wide variability in the value of various agricultural products, suitable and productive parcel sizes also vary. Similar parcels may be viable for high value crops, while signifcant acreage is necessary for
viable grazing operations.
Project Parcel Size
Points Assigned
a.
b,
c,
less than 5 acres
0-3
5 acres to less than 10 acres

4-6
7-8
d.
9-10
14
e.
11-12
f
g,
13-14
15
1000 acres or greater
Analysis:
The Bishop Ranch is approximately 240 acres in size, which would receive 11 points for Parcel Size. Of the 240 acres, about 203 acres are disturbed non-
native grassland that was used for historic orchard production and are
currently mowed.
2. Soil Classification
Points in this category are based primarily upon soil capability classes from the U.S. Soil Conservation Services Soil Surveys,
The Soil Conservation Service ha defined eight soil capability classes, Classes I and II are
considered to be prime agricultural soils because they impose few limitations on

agricultural production, and almost all crops can be grown successfully on these soils, More limited agricultural soils are grouped into Classes II and iv either because fewer crops can be grown on these soils, special conservation and production measures are required, or both these conditions exist, Classes V, Vi, and VII include soils that are suited primarily for rangeland. (Class V is not found in the County) Finally, soils and landforms that are unsuited for agricultural use are placed in Class VIII.
Where a variety of soil types are present on a site, weight should depend upon extent of useable prime/non-prime acreage, As appropriate, points may be assigned according to approximate percentages of site area containing various soil classifcations,
Application of points within the ranges should be based on area and site-specifc
considerations, For grazing land, the SCS survey should be checked for opinion on soil suitability, and site vegetation should be inspected for forage value, Sites with soils,
which can produce good forage should be assigned higher points within the range,
Similarly, sites with soils classifed as non-prime, but which can support specialized high cash crops (e.g. strawberries, avocados, and specialty crops) should be assigned higher
points within the ranges.
In addition, initial studies should note whenever a site contains large, contiguous areas of prime soil, as this may constitute a separate signifcant impact,
Soil Classification
a,
b.
Points Assigned
Class I (prime)
14-15
11-13
Class II (prime)
15
c,
Class II
8-10
6-7
1-5 1-5 1-5
0
d.
e,
Class iv
Class V
f
g,
/i,
Class Vi
Class VII
Class VII
Analysis:
The Bishop Ranch Soil Agncultural Charactenstics are summanzed on Table 1 based on the U S Department of Agnculture Soil Survey information with soil locations shown on Figure 2. The ranch contains approximately 12.3 acres of Class I soil, 55 acres of Class II soils, 126.6 acres of Class III soils, 28.4 acres of Class iv soils, 11.2 acres of Class Vi soils, and 5.5 acres of Crass VIII soils. The 67.3 acres (28%) of the ranch's Class i and II soils are considered by the USDA NRCS to be prime agricultural soils either irrigated or nonirngated. Most of the ranch soils are used regionally for the agnculturar production of lemons, avocados, row crops, and rangeland.
The USDA (1981) Soil Survey further describes management by capabilty

units that is applicable to the following soils found on the Bishop Ranch:
Class i - Aqueda and Goleta soils are suited to all crops adapted to the area and require only minimum conservation practices such as cover crops and
irngation water management.
water management, contour tillage, and cover crop utilization to reduce

erosion.
Class II - Aqueda soils are suited to all crops adapted to the area and require
Class II - Diablo soils are used for range, lemons, and avocados but are poorly suited for avocados due to severe root rot. (lemons are grown on this soil on similar sropes north of the Bishop Ranch) Cultivation and water management are necessary because the soil is more difficult to work if too wet or too dry. Cover crops are necessary to reduce erosion hazard with minimum tillage.
and row crops. A Claypan restricts subsurface drainage, which requires irngation water management so as not to overirngate and to reduce root rot hazard. Cover crops are importnt to reduce erosion hazard with minimum tilage.
Taking a percentage total of the soils types as compared to the overall ranch
acreage results in 10.1 total points for Soil Classification.
Class III and iV - Milpitas-Positas soils are used for range, lemons, avocados,
16
TABLE 1: BISHOP RANCH SOIL AGRICULTURAL CHARAcrERISTICS
MAP
RANCH ACRES
SOIL
NAME
TEXTE
AVAILABLE
FARMING
PRE
0' NONPIUME SOILS
SYM.
%
AVERAGE CAPABILITY SLOPE CLASS

YIELDS! ACRE
RANGE SITE
ORYMATfR
FORAGE
CONSTRNT
REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL USAGE

SITE AG USAGE
aod
Irrgated Non-Irrgated
poundsacr
NRCS NRCS
L.:mdorm
Avocados Lemons average
SOIL EROSION HAZARD! SURFACE RUNOFF
pounds
NRCS NELSON NRCS NRCS
t~'~:~l d:ln' it
0002% valleys
NRCS
NRCS
NRCS
per slope in an average year NRCS

NRCS/Field
NRCS/Field
small acrage
1,450
Field
NRCS
Il iil~ ; ...r; ~i~. ~ ; ri" ;\' .. 3 !: 1' ~m M ~ ~ . 1Ii:l;:1n .. . i:p'~ n '1 ~ ~ n n Il.:, ~ .~. = \..:~~"iE!::~:~:..~~:lij:i;:ti"i: l'hl: ; ! i: ti ; tii:~ ., i. ~ !l
0.2.acrs
6.5 tons
20 tons
AaA
Aqueda
!l .; ~ !J., ,: ,"
none
silty day loam
Oayey
slight! slow
suitable for all crps
Prie
A.C
2 to 9%
Agueda
6.1 acrs
6.5 tons
Gayey
1,450
none
suilable for
none
Prme
all crps
silty day loam

valleys
20 tons
II II
moderate! medium
DaC
Diablo
2109% terraces
48.9 acrs
day
5 tons
1,.50
15 tons
II II slight, medium
aayey
severe rot rot
range, lemons, avocados
none
Pr.
range, lemons,
DaD
9 to 15%
Di",blo
11 acrs
clay
5 tons
1,350
12.5 tons
aayey
moderate! medium
severe root rot
none
Nonprie
Lrck crps
low hils
II II
12.1 acrs
-.
7 Ions
1,150
22.5 tons
G..
Ot02% valleys
Loamy
Goleta
fine sandy loam
slight! medium
none
suitable for all crps
none
Prme
GU
NA VIII
0
Gullied Land
5.s acrs
001
0
variable
assigned
variable gullies
high! rapid
riparian area
unsuitable
none
Nonprime
M.C
2 to 9%
Milpitas.
115.6 acrs
6 tons
15 tons
daypan
675
medium
moderate
severe rool rot,
none
Nonprie
daypan
range, lemons, avocados, row crops
Positas
terraces
fine sandy loam
II II
28.4 acrs
6 tons
MeD2
9 to 15%
Milpitaterraces
Hnesandy
IV IV
daypln
575
severe root rot,

daypan, erosion
none
Nonprime
Positas
loam
15 ton
high! rapid
M.E2
15 to 30%
MilpHasPosilas
fine sandy loam

terraces
VI VI
11.2 acrs
6 tons
15 tons
aaypan
475
veryhighf
very rapid
severe rot rot,
none
daypan, erosion

2009 Average
SB County
Average Year
Nonprime
Carring Capacity
Crp Report
-19 AU!Year
Avos 3.1 tons Lemons 17.8 tons

239 acres
per acre
on 239 acres
EN
Sources: U. S. Department of Agrculture Soil Survey of Santa Barbara County, California South Coastal Part, 1981, California Department of Conseroation I1nportant Farmlands Map Santa Barbara County, 2002;
AU = 1,000 pounds of Tanyanimal.
SAGE Ais~i"te;'
UC Cooperative Extension, 20Q3; Nelson, 2006; SB County Crop Report, 2009; and SAGE Assocites field assessments 2010. See Fiwre 2 Soil Types for soil locations.
00
Legend
loam (0-2% slopas)
L=~"l Ahl'2 Ayer clay

loam (2-9% slopes)
egA Concopcloii nne a/may
L_! AC Aquanls (1111 areas)
~
Ltl CiiC2 Cciicapcln fine sandy _
loam 15-30% slopes)
I'--'j
(SO-50% slopes) BE Beaches
:i/I.
EaA Elder sandy learn (0-2% slopts) EnS Elder sandy karn
SaD2 san Andrlis.TIBrle

complex (9-15% stopes)
0mer Features
Ii
(2-9% slopes) GU Gulled Lands
GIlA Golale loam (0-2% slopes) Me Malz loamy sand

MeC Mllpllos-Posllas fine sandy ioam (2-9% slcpas)
.. ra
im
_ Goe GOllllo fio si.y
GcA Golca nna S!Ydy Ioiim (0-2% ilop6S)
SaE2 San Artroas.Tierra

complex (15-30% slopes) SaF2 Siii\ Andfeas.Tlarra camplns (30.50% slopes)
M902 Mllpllas-Posllas fino sandy loam (B-15% slopas) i XA Xerortheii\s
c: Existing Agrlculturii Silas SOIL TYPES

Goleia Cily Boundary
Figure 2:
Coastal Zone Boundary
Fu\uro Service
f.':2J AD AqulIpl (noaded)

(2-9% sloes)
r-_ i AaA Aouedii sily clay loam _ SkC2 Smella Val1alil smy clay! "'1 os)
DaE2 Diabl cloy
0
(9-15% slopas)
BgA Botalla silly clliy klain
(0.2% slopes)
CgE2 CfCpclOl ilo sMdy _ ED E~~~_~os~~Sbmple: -
DoC Diabl clay 0

DaD DIablo clay _
(0-2% slop IMm (2-9% slopes) l::l AaC Agundn sliyciayloiim_ Cii Camarilo I)ll (2.0% slopes) sandy loam _ AIlE2 Ayer clay Cb Camarillo Vartant
N'/,
Area Bouary
LfF4 MaF2 Mllplias.posllas (lne sandy
MoE2 Mllplias Posllas line sandy (cui and ILI efllllS) ioam (15-30% sIQpos) P,1I C-= ZaE2 Zaoo day (15-30% slopos)
FINAL EIR Schools
GENERAL PLAN/COASTAL LAND USE PLAN

September 2006
(15.30%slopes)
.._"riesan~I~~__._..____,_..~~(opes) _.__~.__.___ioiim (2-9% iI~~_--~~i~SIOPO~______.~_~_,"__,____,,____.,____._______._
0 0
~_.._-,------_.
"~
(jot
3. Water Availability
Availability of water of suitable quantity and quality is a critical component of

agricultural suitability and productivity, Assignments of points within the ranges should take into account suitability of water resources for the tye of agriculture practiced (i.e, crops or grazing).
Water Availability
a,
Points Assigned
Land has an adequate Water Supply from on/offite sources suitable for crops or grazing,
12-15
b.
Land has water, but may be marginal in quantity or quality suitable for crops or grazing.
Land does not have developed water supply but an
8-11
c,
adequate supply is potentially available,

d.
Land does not have developed water and potential
3-7
0-2
sources are of poor quality/quantity,
Analysis:
Based on the Prior Studies, the ranch currently does not have a suitable supply
of crop irrigation water. However, a potentiar agricultural supply may be available from the Goleta Water District based on the above threshold
definitions. Therefore, we may have a range of Water Availabilty points from 7 points to 0 points. The rand does not have deveroped water but an adequate supply is potentially available from the Goleta Water Distrct, or the land does not have deveroped water and potentiar sources are of poor quantity. Poor quantity may rerate to a lack of the abilty to acquire a new hook up service in the quantities necessary for crop production (estimated at about two acre-feet per acre per year for orchard, row, and nursery crops). A request for information letter from the City of Goleta to the Goleta Water District is in process and will hopefully answer the water availability question.
4. Agricultural Suitabilty
The assessment of suitability should account for the approximate frequency and intensity of frosts and other climate factors in applying points within the ranges. Parcels which are relatively frost free and may accommodate multiple croppings may be considered more
suitable than those which can support only a single crop or limited crop tyes due to
climatic factors,
Agricultural Suitability
Crops
Points Assigned
19
a,
Highly suitable for irrigated grain, truck and field, orchard or vineyard crops.
8-10
b,
Highly suitable for irrigated ornamentals, pasture, alfalfa, or dry farming,

Moderately suitable for irrigated crops, orc1urd, ornamentals or dry farming,
6-8
c,
4-5
1-3
d,
Low suitability for irrigated crops, orchard, ornamentals or dry farming,

Unsuitable for crop production because of soil capabilities, environmental constraints, etc,
e,
Grazing
f
g,
h,
i.
Highly suitable for pasture or range.

Moderately suitable for pasture or range.
6-10
3-5
1-2
o
Low suitability for pasture or range,

Unsuitable for pasture or range.
Analysis:
The ranch is considered to be highly suitable for irrigated truck crops,

ornamentals, nursery, and orchard crops with 10 points assigned. This
assessment is based on the County and City planning evaluations for the ranch
and the Goleta Valley area, soils, topography, regional crop production, and
the favorable climate for crop production. Over 200 acres of disturbed nonnative grassland that is suItabre for cropland wourd be available for production and has been used in the past for orchards.
We do not consider the soils or the topography to be a suitabilty constraint since productive crops are grown on similar soils and topography in the region. Management of severe root rot clay rich soils and drainage has been successful in other areas by using root rot resistance root stock, fumigation, mulching, cover crops, soil ripping, soil mounding, and management of
irrgation water. Climate enhances the cropland suitabilty.
A comparison of USDA-estimated yields per acre for ranch soil types with
average 2009 Santa Barbara County Crop Report yields show that avocado
production yields should be higher than county averages and lemon
production yields should be higher on some soils and lower on others (Table
1).
20
For further perspective, Mr. Paul Van Leer, a Santa Barbara County Farm
Bureau Director, and the Las Varas Ranch Manager was contacted to ascertain the general Farm Bureau policy on soil resource protection and his personal
expenence on growing crops on similar USDA Soil Series as found on the

Bishop Ranch. His avocados and lemon crops grown on the Diablo and
Milpitas-Positas are doing very welI with special management techniques

such as npping, mounding, and irngation management. He also felt, as a Farm Bureau Director, that the Bishop Ranch soils are a valuabre agricultural resource. We have prepared a Rangeland Assessment study for Santa Barbara
County Planning & Development on the Las Varas Ranch and are quite
familar with the soil agricultural characteristics for that ranch.
Site-specific soir tests for the various soil series would be a part of any agriculturar development on the Bishop Ranch. Multiple soil tests four feet in
depth with a soil chemistr and strcture anarysis would be able to determine
site specific crop suitabilty and necessary management techniques as

applicabre for each soil type.
Without irrigation water, the ranch has a rower suitabilty for dry farming
because coorer summer coastal areas typically produce lower quality dryland hay and grain crops and dryland beans are grown more in the north county so
5 points are assigned.
For grazing operations the production or carrying capacity should be based upon normal rainfall years only, not periods of drought or heavy rainfall. It
should be noted that the Santa Barbara County Cattlemen's Association has
stated that an appropriate threshold for impacts to grazing rand in the County is the displacement or division of land capable of sustaining between 25 to 30 animal units per year.
We evaluated the carring capacity of the 240 acres of the ranch, which is
suitable for cattle grazing, however, the totar carring capacity based on an average forage production year equated to 19 animal units per year, which is
below the above significance threshold of a carrying capacity of 25 to 30 animal units per year. Therefore, based on carrng capacity, the ranch is not a viable agricultural resource and 0 points are assigned for grazing.
5. Existing and Historic Land Use
Current or previous use of a property for agriculture can provide a practical measure of its suitability for agriculture, while urban development generally indicates a lack of
suitability,
Existing and Historic Land Use

a.
b,
Points Assigned
In active agricultural production.
5 5
In maintained range/pasture,
21
c, Unmaintained, but productive within last ten years. 3-5

d, Vacant land: fallow or never planted with range of suitabilities
of agricultural potentiaL. 1-3
e. Substantial urban or agricultural industrial development onsite, 0
Analysis:
The ranch is currently vacant rand or fallow, however, the rand was used prior to 10 years ago for orchards and cattle grazing, which is assigned 3 points.
Historic agricultural land uses of the ranch are documented in the LFR (2008)
supplied historic aerial photographs. Walnuts were a primary crop in the Goleta Valley prior to the 1960's and were repraced in many areas by other
orchard crops such as lemons and avocados or were removed for urban uses. Subsequent Bishop Ranch ownership chose to not continue the growing of orchard crops. Remnant walnut trees are still found along the ranch entr road.
6. Comprehensive Plan Designation
The County general plan land use maps designate property for long-range uses,
Agricultural and open space designations generally provide an indicator of agricultural suitability, However, some older land use designations provide for smaller agricultural parcel sizes than are suitable or viable for sustaining agriculture today, Designations
applied more recently by the County as part of community plan updates establish agricultural designations with more realistic parcel sizes. This should be taken into
account in assessing suitability with this factor,
Comprehensive Plan Designation
Points Assigned
a.
b.
c,
A-II
A-I
5
4
MA
Existing public/private open space or rec.
Proposed public open space or rec,
3-4 3-4
3-4 3-4
d,
e.
f
g,
h,
Open lands
Rural Residential 40-100 acres
Residential Ranchette 5-20 acres
3-4
2
22
I,
Residential 5 acres or less
o
o
J'
Commercial, Industria/' Community Facility
Analysis:
The ranch is currently designated A-I agricuIture, which is assigned 4 points.

7. Adacent Land Uses (existing)
Adjacent land uses can play an important role in the continuing suitability and productivity of a property for agricultural uses, In general, being surrounded by
agricultural or open space is conducive to continued agricultural use, while
encroachment of urban uses may be problematic. However, applying points within the ranges should be based on specifc circumstances and uses, recognizing that some urban uses are more compatible with agricultural, (e.g, industrial, public facilities), while others conflict (e,g, residential), In addition, the existence or ability to create buffers between incompatible uses should be considered in assessing agricultural suitability with this
factor, The adequacy of agricultural support in the vicinity may be another factor
affecting agricultural suitability,

Adjacent Land Uses
a.
Points Assigned
Surrounded by agricultural operations or open space in a region with adequate support uses. Surrounded by agricultural operations or open space in a region without adequate agricultural support uses,
9-10
b.
7-8
c.
Partially surrounded by agriculture/open space with some urban uses adjacent, in a region with adequate agricultural support uses. Partially surrounded by agriculture/open space with some urban uses adjacent, in a region without adequate agricultural support uses.
Immediately surrounded by urban uses, no buffers.
7-8
d.
3-6
0-2
e,
Analysis:
The ranch has agricuIturar uses to the north of Cathedral Oaks Road, to the west across the Los Cameros Creek riparian buffer, and to the east that consist of orchard land uses. To the south is US 101 with urban uses further to the south. The US 101 acts as a buffer between the ranch and the urban uses to the south of the freeway. Sturdy exclusionary fencing and locked gates separate the ranch from outside access. Based on the adjacent land uses, the creek and
23
freeway buffers, and the agricultural support facilties used by existing regional operations, 10 points are assigned.
8. Agricultural Preserve Potential
Qualifing for agricultural preserve designation under State Wiliamson Act agreement for prime and non-prime preserves entails meeting criteria for soil type, parcel size (individually or jointly with adjacent parcel(s)), and/or productivity/value on return.
Agricultural preserves have constiuted one of the most successful means of sustaining
and preserving land in agriculture in California.

Agricultural Preserve Potential
Points Assigned
a,
Can qualif for prime agricultural preserve by itself

or is in a preserve,
5-7
2-4
b,
Can qualif for non-prime agricultural preserve by itself
c, Can qualif for prime agricultural preserve with adjacent parcels. 3-4
d,
Can qualif for non-prime agricultural preserve with adjacent

parcels,
1-3
e,
Cannot qualif,
Analysis:
Based on the ranch's size, the potential irogated crop productivity, the 67 acres of prime soils, and the adjacent crop productivity, the ranch shourd qualify as an agricultural preserve so 7 points are assigned. Without irogation water, the
ranch may still qualify as a non
prime preserve due to its size being greater
than the 100-acre nonprime minimum so 3 points are assigned for this
scenario.
9. Combined Farming Operation (Combined farming operation refers to more than one separate parcelinanaged as a single agricultural operation)
This section is designed to award bonus points to parcels, which provide a component of a
combined farming operation. The reason these points are assigned as a bonus is to address cumulative impacts and to recognize the importance of combined farming operations in Santa Barbara County.
Bonus Points for Combined Farming Operations
a,
Points Applied
Provides a signifcant component of a combined farming operation.
24
b,
c,
Provides an important component of a combined farming operation,

Provides a small component of a combined farming operation,
No combined operation,
3
1
d,
Analysis:
The ranch could be farmed in combination with the 3,000+ acre Upper Bishop
Ranch as was done historicalIy, with the only impediment being the
movement of farm equipment across Cathedral Oaks Road. However, there is currently no combined operation so 0 points are assigned.
25
Important Fannlands Mapping Program

land resources is included in the Initial Study under Land Use-e: Wil the proposal result in any effect (potentially signifcant adverse effect) upon any unique or other farmland of State or Local Importance? The State Important
"A second question on agricultural
Farmlands Map is used in answering this question, The map is also considered in
applying points under the 'Agricultural Suitability' category.
Analysis:
In the applicant-provided Prior Studies, there are questions raised about the accuracy of the 170 acres that are designed as Farmland of Local Importance since the land has been fallow for a number of years. The remaining 70 acres of land is mapped as Other Land and consisted of a reservoir area that has since been refilled with earth.
Perhaps these designations require updating on future maps because of the fallow nature of the ranch. However, it is important to note that the ranch did
production. If irrgated in the future, much of the ranch could qualify as prime farmland based on soils and potential crop tyes that are suitable for the area.
qualify as Farmland of Local Importance at some time for past crop
In 1989, the California Department of Conservation identified a soil candidate listing for Prime Farmland and Farmrand of Statewide Importance in Santa Barbara County. The Prime Farmland soirs that are found on the ranch include
AaA, AaC, DaC, and GcA totaling 67.3 acres. The Farmrand of Statewide
Importance soils that are found on the ranch include DaD and MeC totaling
126.6 acres. Therefore, soil quality indicates that both Prime Farmland soils and Farmland of Statewide Importance soils totaling 193.9 acres are found on the ranch. In order for these soils to be considered as Prime Farmand or as
Farmand of Statewide Importance, per the Important Farmlands Mapping Program definitions, the soils must be irrgated.
26
CONCLUSIONS
The agricultural suitability-viability for the two scenarios was determined by
assessing the various ranch's agricultural suitability characteristics and
completing the county's and city's weighted point system where 60 or more points qualifies as being agrculturally viable per the above criteria. Total points per Agricultural Threshold Factor are summarized in Table 2. Water availability
is calculated for one scenaro where irrgation water is available from the Goleta
Water Distrct, and the other scenario where irrgation water is not available.
In the water available scenario, the total points assigned are 62.1 whereby:
The weighted point system is utilized to assign relative values to particular characteristics of a site's agrcultural productivity (e.g, soil type, water supply, etc.). Where the points from the above analysis total 60 or more, the following
types of projects will be considered to have a potentially significant impact:
A division of land (including Parcel and Tract Maps, etc.), which is

currently considered viable but would result in parcels, which would not be considered viable using the weighting system. A Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit, or other discretionary act
which would result in the conversion from agricultural use of a parcel

qualifying as viable using the weighting system,
In the no water available scenaro, the total points assigned are 45.1 whereby the point totals are below 60, therefore, based on agrcultural resources there would be no significant impact,
The question as to why the ranch is vacant or fallow has been one asked by the City for some time. The simple answer is that the landowner has chosen not to continue agrculture on the Lower Bishop Ranch and has focused efforts there on urban development, with agricultural uses continuing on the Upper Bishop Ranch. There was also a major trend in the conversion of walnut orchards to
other crop uses as well as urban uses during the current ownership since 1957,
The ranch in the 1940's contained extensive orchards that probably consisted of walnuts. County changes in orchard crop production trends are summarzed in the following crop reports where walnuts have virtually disappeared from the County (including the Bishop Ranch) while avocados have increased and lemons have decreased,
1945 - walnuts 3,500 acres; lemons 9,000 acres; avocados 300 acres.
1965 - walnuts 1,700 acres; lemons 5,500 acres; avocados 2,200 acres.
1985 - walnuts 780 acres; lemons 1,800 acres; avocados 7,400 acres.
2005 - walnuts miscellaneous with no acreage; lemons 1,700 acres; avocados
8,500 acres.
27
TABLE 2: BISHOP RANCH AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE SUMMARY
Agrcultural Threshold Points BISHOP RANCH BISHOP RANCH

:::: ::::::::::::: su~:~:~a~o~:::::::::::::::::::: PO';bie:~:~: :~~~;~~~i::::::: Af~Er~~:::::::::::::::::: J::::::::::::::::
PARCEL SIZE
-:5 acn'S
Ot03
5 acr to -:10 acr

10 acres to -:40 acres
40 acres to -:100 acr

100 acr to QO acres
4t06 7t08 9tol0

11 to 12 13 to 14
15 11
11
50 acr to ,;1,00 acr

1,00 acr or greater
SOIL CLASSIFICA TlON
Oass I (prime soil
Oas II (prie soil)
14 to 15 11 to 13
0,.
3
0,.
3
5,3
OasIT OaslV
0=
Stol0 6t07
1 t05
5,3 0.8
0,.
0.2
0
VI
0.2
0 10.1
Gass VII
lt05
o
OassVI
Tota Soil Points
WATER
10.1
AVAILABILITY
12 to 15
Land has an adequate onl off site water supply for crps. Land ha water, but may be marinal quantI quality for crops.
Land doe not have water but supply is potentially available. Lad doe not have water I supply is potentially por.
Stoll
3 t07 Ot02
7 o
AGRlCULTURAL SUITABILITY
Ci
Highly suitable for irgated crps.
Higly suitable for irrgated crps or dr faring.
Stol0 6t08
10
Low-Moderate suitabilty for irrgated crps or dry faing.
lto5
o o 5 5 o
Unsuitable for crop producton.
Unsuitable for pasture or range. EXSTING AND HISTORICAL LAND USE
In actve agrcutual proucton.

In maintaned pasture! rage.
Unmaitaned, but prouctve in last 10 year.

Vacant land or never
3t05
planted.
lt03
o 4
9to 10
Substatial development onsite.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION A-I Agrculture ADJACET LAND USES
4
10
Surunded by agrcutural opeations or open space in a

region with adequate suppo us. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE POTENTL
10
Ca qualify for prime prerv by itself or is in an agrcultual prerve.

Ca qualify for nonprme presrve by itslf. COMBINED FARING OPERATION Provides a small, importt, or significant component
of a combined fannng operation.
5t07 2t04
7
2 o o
lt05
TOTAL POINTS
62.1
45.1
60 or greater is considered a potentially significant

agrcultual resource
Source: County of Santa Barbara Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines ManUll1, Yrsed October 2002 with Replacement Pages July 2003.
SAGE Associates
28
Ranch owners chose to concentrate their agricultural efforts on the Upper Bishop Ranch north of Cathedral Oaks Road and not on the 240 acres of the Lower Bishop Ranch south of Cathedral Oak Road, which is now fallow.
A more complex answer would involve the availabilty of water for irrigated crops on the Lower Bishop Ranch and the soil suitability to grow those crops, Advancement in irrigation and farming technology and regional farmer know
how would probably support the fact that the soils are suitable for a combination
of orchard and row crop production. However, the availability of irrgation

water is the deciding factor regarding irrgated agrcultural viability of the ranch that only the Goleta Water Distrct can answer,
Hopefully, the information provided in ths Agricultural Analysis wil help to
guide the City in their Bishop Ranch project application process.
29
REFERENCES
Report Preparer
Orn Sage, Ph.D Geological Sciences (emphasis sedimentology); Principal Sage

Associates; Californa Board of Forestr Registered Certfied Rangeland Manager #64; Society of Agronomy Certfied Erosion and Sedimentation Control Specialist #692.
Persons/Organizations Consulted
MarshalL, Ken - Dudek, Bishop Ranch representative
McOlelan, Urban - Bishop Ranch representative,
Monk Richard - Legal Counsel Bishop Ranch representative

Smith, Charles - rCF International, Vice President
Smith, Joana - City of Goleta, Assistant City Attorney
Stark, Stephane - County of Santa Barbara Agricultural Commissioner's Office,
Land Use Planer
Van Leer, Paul - Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau Director and Las Varas
Ranch Manager
Wells, Ane - City of Goleta, Advance Plannng Manager

Wulbrant, Chip - University Exchange Corporation representative
Bibliography
Bishop Ranch Water rssue Memo, Januar 27,2010,
Californa Department of Conservation, 1989, Soil Candidate Listing for Prime

Farland and Farland of Statewide rmportance: Santa Barbara County,
Californa Department of Conservation, 2002, Important Farmlands Map Santa

Barbara County: rmportant Farlands Mapping Program.
CH2MHil, 2006, Goleta Valley Agricultural Viabilty Analysis: Prepared for

Goleta Valley Chamber of Commerce.
Hoffman, Vance and Worthngton, Inc" March 24, 2009, Exhbit 21 Bishop Ranch
Letter: Ventura, CA.
30
Hoover, Michael F., June 21, 2010, Hydrologic Analysis Bishop Ranch 2000, LLC Site: Goleta Californa,
LFR Inc., January 2008, Bishop Ranch Goleta, California Sensitive Species and Habitat Survey: Santa Mara, Californa.
Nelson, Darrell H., June 16, 2006, Report On the Agricultural Study For Bishop Ranch City of Goleta, Californa.
Santa Barbara County, 1945, Crop Report: Agrcultural Commissioner's Office,
Santa Barbara County, 1965, Crop Report: Agrcultural Commissioner's Offce.

Santa Barbara County, 1985, Crop Report: Agrcultural Commissioner's Office. Santa Barbara County, 2005, Crop Report: Agrcultural Commissioner's Office. Santa Barbara County, 2009, Crop Report: Agrcultural Commissioner's Office,
Santa Barbara County, 2009, Crop Report: Agricultural Commissioner's Office,
Santa Barbara County, August 2002, Goleta Valley Urban Agriculture: Plannng
& Development.
United States Department of Agriculture, 1981, Soil Survey of Santa Barbara County, Californa South Coastal Par: Soil Conservation Servce.
United States Departent of Agrculture, 1989, Soil Candidate Listing for Prime
Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance Santa Barbara County:

California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
University of Californa Cooperative Extension, 2003, Californa Guidelines for
Residual Dry Matter (RDM) Management on Coastal and Foothil Annual

Rangelands: Publication 8092,
31
Attachment 2 The EDR Radius MapTM Report with GeoCheck
Bishop Ranch 96 Glenn Annie Rd Goleta, CA 93117 Inquiry Number: 2883529.1s October 01, 2010
The EDR Radius Map Report with GeoCheck
440 Wheelers Farms Road Milford, CT 06461 Toll Free: 800.352.0050 www.edrnet.com
FORM-NULL-KEN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
Executive Summary Overview Map Detail Map Map Findings Summary Map Findings Orphan Summary Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking
PAGE
ES1 2 3 4 7 137 GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum Physical Setting Source Summary Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map Physical Setting Source Map Physical Setting Source Map Findings Physical Setting Source Records Searched A-1 A-2 A-5 A-16 A-18 A-145
Thank you for your business. Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050 with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice. Copyright 2010 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission. EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners. TC2883529.1s Page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR). The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPAs Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION ADDRESS
96 GLENN ANNIE RD GOLETA, CA 93117

COORDINATES
Latitude (North): Longitude (West): Universal Tranverse Mercator: UTM X (Meters): UTM Y (Meters): Elevation:
34.438800 - 34 26 19.7 119.863500 - 119 51 48.6 Zone 11 236883.7 3814335.2 90 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: Most Recent Revision: West Map: Most Recent Revision:
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
34119-D7 GOLETA, CA 1988 34119-D8 DOS PUEBLOS CANYON, CA 1988
The target property was identified in the following records. For more information on this property see page 7 of the attached EDR Radius Map report:
Site T.B. BISHOP COL, CORONA DEL MA 96 GLEN ANNIE RD GOLETA, CA 93116 Database(s) EPA ID N/A
HIST UST
BISHOP RANCH 96 GLEN ANNIE RD GOLETA, CA 93177
HIST CORTESE LUST

Status: Completed - Case Closed
N/A
TC2883529.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDRs search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list NPL Proposed NPL NPL LIENS National Priority List Proposed National Priority List Sites Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list Delisted NPL Federal CERCLIS list CERCLIS FEDERAL FACILITY Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System Federal Facility Site Information listing National Priority List Deletions
Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-CESQG RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries US ENG CONTROLS US INST CONTROL Federal ERNS list ERNS Emergency Response Notification System Engineering Controls Sites List Sites with Institutional Controls
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL RESPONSE State Response Sites
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists SWF/LF Solid Waste Information System
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal registered storage tank lists UST AST INDIAN UST Active UST Facilities Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Facilities Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites INDIAN VCP VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing Voluntary Cleanup Program Properties
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites DEBRIS REGION 9 ODI WMUDS/SWAT SWRCY HAULERS INDIAN ODI Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations Open Dump Inventory Waste Management Unit Database Recycler Database Registered Waste Tire Haulers Listing Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites US CDL HIST Cal-Sites SCH Toxic Pits CDL US HIST CDL Clandestine Drug Labs Historical Calsites Database School Property Evaluation Program Toxic Pits Cleanup Act Sites Clandestine Drug Labs National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks CA FID UST Local Land Records LIENS 2 LUCIS LIENS DEED CERCLA Lien Information Land Use Control Information System Environmental Liens Listing Deed Restriction Listing Facility Inventory Database
Records of Emergency Release Reports HMIRS CHMIRS LDS MCS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System California Hazardous Material Incident Report System Land Disposal Sites Listing Military Cleanup Sites Listing
Other Ascertainable Records DOT OPS DOD FUDS Incident and Accident Data Department of Defense Sites Formerly Used Defense Sites
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CONSENT ROD UMTRA MINES TRIS TSCA FTTS HIST FTTS SSTS ICIS PADS MLTS RADINFO FINDS RAATS CA BOND EXP. PLAN CA WDS NPDES Cortese WIP HAZNET EMI INDIAN RESERV SCRD DRYCLEANERS PROC MWMP COAL ASH DOE COAL ASH EPA HWT FINANCIAL ASSURANCE PCB TRANSFORMER
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees Records Of Decision Uranium Mill Tailings Sites Mines Master Index File Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System Toxic Substances Control Act FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing Section 7 Tracking Systems Integrated Compliance Information System PCB Activity Database System Material Licensing Tracking System Radiation Information Database Facility Index System/Facility Registry System RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System Bond Expenditure Plan Waste Discharge System NPDES Permits Listing "Cortese" Hazardous Waste & Substances Sites List Well Investigation Program Case List Facility and Manifest Data Emissions Inventory Data Indian Reservations State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing Certified Processors Database Medical Waste Management Program Listing Sleam-Electric Plan Operation Data Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List Registered Hazardous Waste Transporter Database Financial Assurance Information Listing PCB Transformer Registration Database
EDR Proprietary Records Manufactured Gas Plants EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants EDR Historical Auto Stations EDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations EDR Historical Cleaners EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases. Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property. Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed data on individual sites can be reviewed. Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases. Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site List CERC-NFRAP: Archived sites are sites that have been removed and archived from the inventory of CERCLIS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPAs knowledge, assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list this site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time. This decision does not necessarily mean that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that, based upon available information, the location is not judged to be a potential NPL site. A review of the CERC-NFRAP list, as provided by EDR, and dated 06/23/2009 has revealed that there are 2 CERC-NFRAP sites within approximately 0.75 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
RAYTHEON DELCO ELECTRONICS CORP
Address ________
Direction / Distance ___________________
Map ID _____
H21 I25
Page _____
58 80
75 COROMAR DR B1B2B3B5 S 1/2 - 1 (0.516 mi.) 6767 HOLLISTER AVE SSE 1/2 - 1 (0.616 mi.)
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list CORRACTS: CORRACTS is a list of handlers with RCRA Corrective Action Activity. This report shows which nationally-defined corrective action core events have occurred for every handler that has had corrective action activity. A review of the CORRACTS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 03/25/2010 has revealed that there are 3 CORRACTS sites within approximately 1.25 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
RAYTHEON DELCO ELECTRONICS CORP RAYTHEON
Address ________
Map ID _____
H21 I25 L35
Page _____
58 80 114
75 COROMAR DR B1B2B3B5 S 1/2 - 1 (0.516 mi.) 6767 HOLLISTER AVE SSE 1/2 - 1 (0.616 mi.) 6380 HOLLISTER AVENUE ESE 1 - 2 (1.055 mi.)
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list RCRA-TSDF: RCRAInfo is EPAs comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Transporters are individuals or entities that move hazardous waste from the generator offsite to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste. A review of the RCRA-TSDF list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/17/2010 has revealed that there are 2 RCRA-TSDF sites within approximately 0.75 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
RAYTHEON DELCO ELECTRONICS CORP
Address ________
Map ID _____
H21 I25
Page _____
58 80
75 COROMAR DR B1B2B3B5 S 1/2 - 1 (0.516 mi.) 6767 HOLLISTER AVE SSE 1/2 - 1 (0.616 mi.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Federal RCRA generators list RCRA-LQG: RCRAInfo is EPAs comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Large quantity generators (LQGs) generate over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month. A review of the RCRA-LQG list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/17/2010 has revealed that there is 1 RCRA-LQG site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
DUPONT DISPLAYS
Address ________
6780 CORTONA DRIVE

S 1/4 - 1/2 (0.455 mi.)
Map ID _____
E13
Page _____
32
RCRA-SQG: RCRAInfo is EPAs comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month. A review of the RCRA-SQG list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/17/2010 has revealed that there are 6 RCRA-SQG sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
RAYTHEON SYSTEMS CO RAYTHEON COMPANY MOSELEY ASSOCIATES INC ENGINEERING RESEARCH CTR RENCO CORP TRACOR AVIATION
Address ________
44 CASTILLIAN DR B8 93 CASTILLIAN DRIVE 111 CASTILIAN DR 6740 CORTONA 26 COROMAR DR 165 CASTILIAN DR

S 1/4 - 1/2 (0.346 mi.) SSE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.386 mi.) SSE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.431 mi.) S 1/4 - 1/2 (0.450 mi.) S 1/4 - 1/2 (0.474 mi.) SSE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.500 mi.)
Map ID _____
B5 C8 C9 D11 D16 18
Page _____
14 22 24 27 39 50
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS ENVIROSTOR: The Department of Toxic Substances Controls (DTSCs) Site Mitigation and Brownfields Reuse Programs (SMBRPs) EnviroStor database identifes sites that have known contamination or sites for which there may be reasons to investigate further. The database includes the following site types: Federal Superfund sites (National Priorities List (NPL)); State Response, including Military Facilities and State Superfund; Voluntary Cleanup; and School sites. EnviroStor provides similar information to the information that was available in CalSites, and provides additional site information, including, but not limited to, identification of formerly-contaminated properties that have been released for reuse, properties where environmental deed restrictions have been recorded to prevent inappropriate land uses, and risk characterization information that is used to assess potential impacts to public health and the environment at contaminated sites. A review of the ENVIROSTOR list, as provided by EDR, and dated 08/18/2010 has revealed that there are 8 ENVIROSTOR sites within approximately 1.25 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
SANTA BARBARA RESEARCH CENTER Status: Refer: RCRA MOSELEY ASSOCIATES, INC Status: No Further Action
Address ________
44 CASTILIAN DR 111 CASTILIAN DRIVE

S 1/4 - 1/2 (0.346 mi.) SSE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.431 mi.)
Map ID _____
B4 C10
Page _____
11 25
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Lower Elevation ____________________

DUPONT DISPLAYS RAYTHEON Status: Active DELCO DEFENSE SYSTEMS OPERATIO Status: Active ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS DIVISI Status: Refer: RWQCB ROBIN HILL EL ENCANTO HEIGHTS APARTMENTS Status: No Further Action
Address ________
Map ID _____
E14 H21 I27 L34 36 38
Page _____
38 58 94 109 129 135
6780 CORTONA DRIVE S 1/4 - 1/2 (0.455 mi.) 75 COROMAR DR B1B2B3B5 S 1/2 - 1 (0.516 mi.) 6767 HOLLISTER AVE 6380 HOLLISTER AVE 75 ROBIN HILL RD 7388 CALLE REAL SSE 1/2 - 1 (0.616 mi.) ESE 1 - 2 (1.055 mi.) ESE 1 - 2 (1.110 mi.) WSW 1 - 2 (1.240 mi.)
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incident Reports contain an inventory of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System. A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 07/23/2010 has revealed that there are 10 LUST sites within approximately 0.75 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
EXXONMOBIL OIL #11-ETG EXXONMOBIL OIL CORPORATION #10 Status: Open - Site Assessment Status: Completed - Case Closed JEWELL PROPERTY Status: Completed - Case Closed DELCO INC Status: Completed - Case Closed CHEVRON STATION 92580 Status: Open - Site Assessment CHEVRON SS #9-2580 Status: Completed - Case Closed CHEVRON STATION #9-2580 SERVICE STATION 5241 Status: Open - Remediation TOSCO - 76 STATION #5241 UNOCAL SS#5241 Status: Completed - Case Closed
Address ________
49 GLEN ANNIE ROAD 49 GLEN ANNIE RD

WSW 1/2 - 1 (0.504 mi.) WSW 1/2 - 1 (0.504 mi.)
Map ID _____
G19 G20
Page _____
52 53
7020 CALLE REAL 6767 HOLLISTER AVE 6895 HOLLISTER AVE 6895 HOLLISTER AVE 6895 HOLLISTER 6930 HOLLISTER AVE 6930 HOLLISTER AVE 6930 HOLLISTER AVE
WSW 1/2 - 1 (0.578 mi.) SSE 1/2 - 1 (0.616 mi.) SSW 1/2 - 1 (0.685 mi.) SSW 1/2 - 1 (0.685 mi.) SSW 1/2 - 1 (0.685 mi.) SW 1/2 - 1 (0.708 mi.) SW 1/2 - 1 (0.708 mi.) SW 1/2 - 1 (0.708 mi.)
24 I26 J28 J29 J30 K31 K32 K33
78 92 100 103 104 105 107 109
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SLIC: SLIC Region comes from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. A review of the SLIC list, as provided by EDR, and dated 07/23/2010 has revealed that there are 4 SLIC sites within approximately 0.75 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
RENCO CORP Facility Status: Open - Remediation
Address ________
26 COROMAR DR

S 1/4 - 1/2 (0.474 mi.)
Map ID _____
D16 H21 H22 23
Page _____
39 58 76 77
RAYTHEON 75 COROMAR DR B1B2B3B5 S 1/2 - 1 (0.516 mi.) Facility Status: Open - Assessment & Interim Remedial Action NEXXUS PROPERTIES 82 COROMAR DRIVE Facility Status: Open - Verification Monitoring JOSLYN ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS CORP Facility Status: Open - Remediation 6868 CORTONA DR. S 1/2 - 1 (0.537 mi.) SSW 1/2 - 1 (0.571 mi.)
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Lists of Registered Storage Tanks HIST UST: Historical UST Registered Database. A review of the HIST UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/15/1990 has revealed that there are 3 HIST UST sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
INTERNATIONAL TRANSDUCER CORP. RTR SANTA BARBARA RESEARCH CENTER
Address ________
93 CASTILIAN DR HOLLISTER AVE. 6800 CORTONA DR

SSE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.386 mi.) SSW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.462 mi.) SSW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.490 mi.)
Map ID _____
C7 F15 F17
Page _____
20 39 43
SWEEPS UST: Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System. This underground storage tank listing was updated and maintained by a company contacted by the SWRCB in the early 1990s. The listing is no longer updated or maintained. The local agency is the contact for more information on a site on the SWEEPS list. A review of the SWEEPS UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 06/01/1994 has revealed that there is 1 SWEEPS UST site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
SANTA BARBARA RESEARCH CENTER
Address ________
44 CASTILIAN DR

S 1/4 - 1/2 (0.346 mi.)
Map ID _____
B4
Page _____
11
Other Ascertainable Records RCRA-NonGen: RCRAInfo is EPAs comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
dispose of hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non-Generators do not presently generate hazardous waste. A review of the RCRA-NonGen list, as provided by EDR, and dated 02/17/2010 has revealed that there are 2 RCRA-NonGen sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
FERRO THICK FILM SYST SANTA BARBARA RESEARCH CENTER
Address ________
27 CASTILIAN DR 6800 CORTONA DR

SSW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.374 mi.) SSW 1/4 - 1/2 (0.490 mi.)
Map ID _____
6 F17
Page _____
19 43
Notify 65: Notify 65 records contain facility notifications about any release that could impact drinking water and thereby expose the public to a potential health risk. The data come from the State Water Resources Control Boards Proposition 65 database. A review of the Notify 65 list, as provided by EDR, and dated 10/21/1993 has revealed that there are 2 Notify 65 sites within approximately 1.25 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
RAYTHEON ROBIN HILL ROAD/HOLLISTER AVE.
Address ________
Map ID _____
H21 37
Page _____
58 135
75 COROMAR DR B1B2B3B5 S 1/2 - 1 (0.516 mi.) ESE 1 - 2 (1.141 mi.)
DRYCLEANERS: A list of drycleaner related facilities that have EPA ID numbers. These are facilities with certain SIC codes: power laundries, family and commercial; garment pressing and cleaners agents; linen supply; coin-operated laundries and cleaning; drycleaning plants except rugs; carpet and upholster cleaning; industrial launderers; laundry and garment services. A review of the DRYCLEANERS list, as provided by EDR, and dated 09/15/2010 has revealed that there are 2 DRYCLEANERS sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
HENDRY TELEPHONE PRODUCTS HENDRYS TELEPHONE
Address ________
55 CASTILIAN DR 6740 CORTONA DR

S 1/4 - 1/2 (0.337 mi.) S 1/4 - 1/2 (0.450 mi.)
Map ID _____
B3 D12
Page _____
9 30
HWP: Detailed information on permitted hazardous waste facilities and corrective action ("cleanups") tracked in EnviroStor. A review of the HWP list, as provided by EDR, and dated 08/09/2010 has revealed that there are 3 HWP sites within approximately 1.25 miles of the target property. Lower Elevation ____________________
RAYTHEON DELCO ELECTRONICS CORP ELECTROMAGNETIC SYSTEMS DIVISI
Address ________
Map ID _____
H21 I25 L34
Page _____
58 80 109
75 COROMAR DR B1B2B3B5 S 1/2 - 1 (0.516 mi.) 6767 HOLLISTER AVE SSE 1/2 - 1 (0.616 mi.) 6380 HOLLISTER AVE ESE 1 - 2 (1.055 mi.)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped: Site Name ____________ EQUILON ENTERPRISES GAVIOTA STORAGE TANK WATER DISCHAR RAYTHEON VISION SYSTEMS PARKS LAND & CATTLE CO INC SAN GOLETA CITY PAVEMENT REHABILITATIO NICKS PLACE ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE/GAVIOTA BOOS ARCO O&G-DOS PUEBLOS/BEACHFRONT TA ALL AMERICAN PIPELINE CO. LA SALLE RANCH/NEW CUYAMA OFF EQUILON ENTERPRISES LLC NICKS PLACE LAS CRUCES RANCH DOS PUEBLOS PRODUCTION FACILIT O. HOVE RANCH EL CAPITAN STATE BEACH ARCO BP CHEVRON PIPE LINE COMPANY ARCO BP CHEVRON PIPE LINE COMPANY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO SO CAL GAS CO VENOCO ELLWOOD ODORA SCGC VENECO ELLWOOD ODORANT METERI CALTRANS DIST 5/CONSTR/EA05-0P1504 ROBISON PREZIOSO INC HAPPY HARRYS LLC EL CAPITAN SB 1X DOS PUEBLOS RANCH PANGLCO GAVIOTA PAPCO GTC EXXON - SYU PROJECT LAS FLORES CANYON Database(s) ____________ FINDS,EMI,NPDES,HAZNET NPDES NPDES NPDES NPDES SWEEPS UST SWEEPS UST SWEEPS UST SWEEPS UST CDL HAZNET,CHMIRS HIST UST HIST UST HIST UST,EMI HIST UST AST HAZNET HAZNET HAZNET HAZNET HAZNET RCRA-NLR,HAZNET RCRA-NLR,HAZNET HAZNET HAZNET HAZNET HAZNET HAZNET RCRA-SQG,FINDS RCRA-LQG EMI EMI EMI
EDR Inc.
EDR Inc.

Bishop Ranch Property Study Master 072111 JMC

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Bishop Ranch Property Study Master 072111 JMC

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

BISHOPRANCHPROPERTYSTUDY

PREPAREDFOR: CityofGoleta Planning&EnvironmentalServicesDepartment 130CremonaDrive,SuiteB Goleta,CA93117 8059617500

PREPAREDBY: ICFInternational 1Ada,Suite100 Irvine,CA92618 Contact:CharlesSmith 9493336600

Bishop Ranch Property Study (Case No. 10-052)

Bishop Ranch Property Study (Case No. 10-052)

July 21, 2011

Bishop Ranch Property Study (Case No. 10-052)

2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5

3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6

July 21, 2011

Bishop Ranch Property Study (Case No. 10-052)

3-1 3-2 3-3 3-4 4-1

July 21, 2011

Bishop Ranch Property Study (Case No. 10-052)

acre-feet per year

EDR EIR LAFCO UEC US-101 USBR

July 21, 2011