[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
Co6stal Zone information Centel SANTA BABBARA COUNTY COASTAL PLAN COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER ,HT 9, .C2 S3 1980 -ANUARY 1980 OVL SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COASTAL PLAN JANUARY 19.810 This plan was prepared with financial assistance from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the provisions of the Fed- eral.Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. Planning Department 123 E Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA 93101 'COUNTY OF.SANTA BARBARA Board of_Supervisors David Yager, First District Robert E. Kallman, Second District William B. Wallace, Third District Robert Hedlund, Fourth District Harrell Fletcher, Fifth District Planning Commission Joan Wells, First District Ted H. Gates, Second District Jo Anne Yokota, Third District Art Hibbits, Fourth District Darwin E. Sainz, Fifth District Planning Department Britt A. Johnson, Planning Director Project Staff Kirvil Skinnarland, Project Director Ruth Ann Collins Paul M. Rells Susan Van Atta Gene Bazan Gregg Kantor Kimberly Schizas. Support Staff Dorothy Capes Don Krueger Jose Manzo Photography All photographs 1978 Ron Morgan Front Cover Drawing Lencho Auchstetter ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We wish to extend our gratef'ul appreciation to the many individuals and organizations who contributed their time and expertise to the develop- ment of this plan. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Chapter 1: The Coastal Act 1.1 History 1.2 Goals, Priorities,and Policies 2. 1.13 Implementation 41 Chapter 2: The Local Coastal Program (LCP) 2.1 The Coastal Zone in Santa Barbara County 6 .2.2 The LCP Planning Process 7 2.3 The Land Use Plan 9 2.4 The Land Use Plan Maps 11 Chapter 3: The Resource Protection and bevelopment Policies 3.1 Introduction 12 3.2 Development 14 3.3 Hazards 3.4 Visual Resources 33 3.5 Housing 38 3.6 Industrial and Energy Development 46 3.7 Coastal Access and Recreation 76 3.8 Agriculture 100 3.9 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas 113 3.10 Archaeological and Historica:l,Resources 139 3.11 Air Quality 143 Chapter 4: The Planning Areas, 4.1 -Introduction 145 4.2 Carpinteria Valley 146 4.13 Summerland 171 4.4 Montecito 179 4.5 Goleta 187 4.6 Gaviota Coast 206 4.7 North Coast 217 4.8 The Channel Islands 226 Page Appendix A Definitions @A-1 Appendix B m-lahd Use Classification Definitions B-1 Appendix C - References C-1 Appendix D Service System Data, D-1 Appendix E Buildout Projections E-1 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE MATTER OF APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING) SUBMITTAL OF A PROPOSED LAND USE PLAN FOR ) THE UNINCORPORATED COASTAL ZONE OF SANTA ) RESOLUTION NO. 80-12 BARBARA COUNTY PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA.) COASTAL ACT OF 1976 WITH REFERENCE TO THE FOLLOWING: A. The County of Santa Barbara has prepared a land use plan including,text and maps for its coastal zone in accordance with the California.Coastal Act of 1976 (Pub. Res. C.� 30000 and following). B. After numerous public workshops and meetings and duly advertised public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, the land use plan was considered and acted upon by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. C. The land use plan is intended to implement at the.local level the provisions of the Coastal Act of 1976. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED as follows: 1. The above recitations are true and correct., 2. This Board hereby adopts pursuant to Government Code 65303(k) the local coastal element, the land use plan of the Local Coastal Program (LCP),consisting of a text and land use (7) and resource (14) maps and certifies that it is the intention of the,Board to carry out the provisions of this land use plan. 3. The Board hereby directs the LCP staff to submit this land use plan to the Sout h Central Regional Coastal Commission and the California Coastal Commission for review and certification and authorizes Kirvil Skinnarland, LCP Project Director, to represent the County at all meetings.and hearings in reference to this land use plan. Passed and adopted this 7th day of January 1980 by the Board of Supe@visors, County of Santa Barbara, State of California, by the following vote: AYES : David M. Yager,,Robert E. Kallman, Williarn B. Wallace, Robert L. Hedlund and Harrell. Fletcher NOES: None ABS ENT: None ATTEST: AU fz X Lll@ Chairman, B6ard 'of Superv-1sors- HOWARD C. MENZEL County Clerk-Recorder APPRO VED AS TO FORM: By,,@ GEORGE P. KADING puty CleR&!@ B C "*r y Deputy County Counsel CHAPTER -1: THE COASTAL ACT -1.1 HISTORY Historicall y, land use in the California coastal zone has been regu- lated by local.governments under the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law. This enabling legislationmandates local governments to prepare.general plans and zoning to ensure orderly.physical growth and development within their jurisdictions as Well as the protection of public health, safety, and welfare. Traditional local control over regulation of land use in thecoastal zone was substantially modified with the passage of The California Coastal Zone Conservation Act (Proposition 20) by the voters of California on November 7, 1972. The forces leading to the passage of this landmark initiative were complex. The key factor, however, was the visible deteri- oration of the coastal environment due to increasing development pressures from a growing population. Under Proposition 20, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission and six Regional Coastal Commissions were created and given a dual mandate of preparing a statewide "comprehensive .enforceable plan for the orderly, long-range conservation and management of the coast" and regulating development while this plan was being prepared. From 1973 to 1975, the Coastal Commissions, both regional and state, held literally hundreds of hearings on the evolving plan. The California Coastal Plan was submitted to the legislature on December 1, 1975. During the 1976 legislative session, several coastal bills'were introduced, all. ,modifying to some extent the Coastal Plan. By the summer of 1976, SB 1277,1 the California Coastal Actemerged fro m both houses as the basis of California's Coastal Zone Management Program. SB 1277 was amended by a trailer bill, AB 2948, which was,itself amended by AB 400. On January 1, 1977, the.Coastal Act and,other legislationcame into effect, establishing a permanentcoastal management program for California. 1.2 G.OALS, PRIORITIES, AND. POLICIE8 In enacting'the Coastal Act, the legislature established the following goals for futur'e activity in the coastal zone: (a). Protect, maintain and, where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zo Ine environment and its natural and man-made resources. (b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of the state. (c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners. .(d) Assure priority for coastal-dependent development over other development on thecoast. (e) Encourage state and local initiatives and cooperation in prepar- ing procedures to implement coordinated planning and development for mutually beneficial uses, including educational uses, in the coastal zone. The heart of the Coastal Act is found in Chapter3, the Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies. These pol.icies.constitute the standards that local plans must meet in order to be certified by the state as well as-the yardstick for evaluating proposed developments within the coastal zone. Topics covered by coastal policies include: beach access, low and moderate income housing, recreation, marine environment, environ- mentally sensitive habitat areas, agricul,ture, visual resources, and coastal dependent energy andAndustrial development, In essence, these policies are the rules for future growth a.nd development in the coastal zone. The Act also attempts to establish a framework for resolving conflicts among competing uses for limited coastal lands. The policies which spell out priority uses constitute this framework. The Coastal Act places as its highest priority the preservation and protection of natural resources including environmentally sensitive habitat areas (i.e., wetlands, dunes), and prime agricultural lands. In the case of habitat.areas, only uses dependent on these resources are allowed within such areas. For agricul- tural land, the intent of the Act is to keep the maximum amount of prime land in production. On lands not'suited for agricultural use, coastal dependent development (i.e., development that requires a site on or adjacent to the sea to be able to function at all) has the highest priority. Public recreational uses have priority on coastal sites which, are not habitat areas, and noti.needed for coastal dependent uses.-For sites -2- that are not reserved for habitat preservation, agriculture, coastal dependent uses, or public recreation, private development is permitted. However, visitor-serving commercial recreation has priority over private residential, general, industrial and.general commercial development., These priorities must be reflected in the,lahd use plans prepared by local, goverments. 1.3 IMPLEMENTATION, Each of the 15 counties and 53 cities along the California coast is requ.ired bythe Coastal Act to Prepare.a Local Coastal Program (LCP). The LCP consists of "a local government's land use'plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and implementing actions which, when taken together, meet the requirements of, and implement the provisions and policies of (the Coastal Act) at the local level." (30108.6) The land use plan means the 11relevant.portions of a local government's general plan, or local coastal element, which are sufficiently detailed to indicate the kinds, location, and intensity,of land uses, the app.1-icable resource protection and development policies and, where necessary, a listing of implementing actions." (30108.5) The zoning ordinances and distict maps are the legal tools for implementing the land use plan. The Coastal Act also requires each LCP to "contain a specific.public access component to assure that maximum access to the coast and public recreation Areas is provide'd." (30500(a)) In addition, the local land use plans are required to consider uses.of more than local importance. (30501(c)) As noted in the LCP Regulations,* such uses generally include: (1) state and federal parks and recreation areas and other recreational facilities of regional or statewide significance; (2)-military and national defense installations; (3) major energy facilities; (4) state and federal highways and other transportation facilities (e.g., railroads and airports) or public works facilities (e.g., water supply or sewer systems) serving larger-than-local needs; ('5) general cargo ports and commercial fishing facilities,@ (6) state colleges and universities; and (7) uses of larger-than-local importance, such as coastal agriculture, fisheries, wildlife habitats, or uses that maximize public access to the.coast, such as accessways, visitor-serving developments, as general.ly referenced in the findings, declarations, and policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976.. The land use plans and zoning, after receiving local review and approval, must be submitted to the.Regional and State Coastal Commissions. The Commissions must make the finding that the land use plan is consistent. .with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Act. The zoning and implementing ordinances are then revie .wed to determine conformance with the approved land use plan. After certification of the.land use.plan and zoning components of the LCP,,the review authority for new development within the coastal zone, which is now vested in the.Coastal Commission, will be returned to local government. The local government, in issuing coastal development permits after certification, must make the finding that the development is in I con.formity with the approved LCP. Any amendments to a certified LCP will have to be approved by the State Coastal Commission. *LCP Regul.ations, adopted by the Coastal Commission on May 17, 1977. -4- After certification of the LCP's, the Regional Coastal Commissions will be phased out. The State Coastal Commission will, however, continue to exercise permit jurisdiction over certain kinds of development (i.e., development in the State Tidelands), and will continue to hear appeals and review amendments to certified,L,CPs.: Only certain kinds of developments can be appealed after a local government's LCP has been certi.fied; these include- (1) Developments approved by the local government between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of the inland extent of.any beach or of the mean high tide line of the sea where there is no beach, whichever is the greater distance. (2) Developments approved by the local government not included within paragraph (1) of this subdivision located on tidelands, submerged lands, public trust lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, stream or within 300 feet of the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff. (3) Development approved by the local government not included within paragraph (1) or (2),of this subdivision located in a sensitive coastal resource area if.the allegation on appeal is that the development is not in conformity with the implementing actions of the certified local coastal program. (4) Any development approved by a coastal county that is not designated as the principal permitted use underthe zoning ordinance or zoning district map approved pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with �30500). (5)@ Any development which constitutes a major public works project or a major energy facility. The State Commission is also required to-review periodically the progress oflocal governments in carrying out the Coastal Act.. This review is to occur at least once every,five years. -5- CHAPTER 2: THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) 2.1 THE COASTAL ZONE IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY On the mainland, the coastal zone in Santa Barbara County spans 110 miles of coastline and includes approximately 184 square miles.* In addition, the offshore islands of Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa are entirely within coastal jurisdiction. While the coastal zone boundary line generally extends inland only 1,000 yards, the Santa Barbara coastal zone extends further inland in several areas because of important habitat, recreational, and agricultural resources. These areas include the lands surrounding Guadalupe Dunes and Point Conception, and most of Carpinteria Valley. The coastal zone of Santa Barbara County is world-renowned for its beauty and diversity. The South Coast is characterized.by sandy beaches, bluffs, and coastal terraces. Urban development and agriculture have nestled along the narrow coastal shelf against the spectacular backdrop of the Santa Ynez Mountains. The coastline from Point Conception north to the Santa Ma.ria River is rugged and rural, consisting of rolling hills, mountains, rocky headlands, steep bluffs, and extensive sand dunes between Mussel Point and the Santa Maria River. The Santa Barbara County coastal zone, like so many other areas in California, has a history of controversy over its use and development. Many projects have been proposed for the coastal zone in recent years; some have been implemented and others have failed to obtain necessary public support. Some of the better-known proposals include Exxon's proposal for an oil processing plant at Las Flores Canyon and the residential development proposals for El Capitan and More Mesa. While Santa Barbara County has managed to maintain extensive areas of undeveloped coastline, it is clear that adopted plans and policies are not adequate to ensure wise management, development, and conservation of its coastline in the future. Stronger policies and appropriate land use designations will be required to ensure protection of Santa Barbara County's outstanding scenic values and diverse habitat resources, preservation of pri me agricultural lands, and provision of, maximum opportunities for recreational use of its beaches while allowing for orderly growth and development. *Vandenberg Air Force Base, which is located in the County@s coastal zone, is not subject to local land use controls. -6- 2..2 THE LCP PLANNING PROCESS, The land use plan has evolved in several phases. The first phase, January to June 1977, concentrated .. on developing a'@framework for involving the public and affected age'ncies in the planning process, preparing a sound data base for land use decisions related to recreation access, and environmentally sensitive habitats, and included a preiiminary study of greenhouses and agriculture in the Carpinteria Valley. The second phase, July 1977 to November 1978, involved actual prepara- tion of the land use plan. Staff effort during these 16 months was concen- trated on Santa Barbara County's critical coastal planning issues: agri- culture, environmentally sensitive habitats, energy deyelopment, shoreline access, and recreation. Draft reports, which are on file at the Planning Department, were produced for all of the critical issues. Much of the background information in these draft reports has not been repeated in the land use plan. During the second phase of the program, extensive opportunities for public involvement in the development of the land use plan Were provided. For example, special public workshops were held to discuss habitat areas, recreation, access, and energy issues. A four-session Coastal Planning Series was conducted in the spring of 1978, sponsored by the Continuing Education Division of Santa-Barbara Community College. The series provided an orientation session on requirements of land use planning under the Coastal Act, established the critical coastal issues, and included presen- tations on agriculture in the Carpinteria Valley, coastal recreation and access, energy development and habitats. Early in the land use planning process, an Agricultural Advisory Committee was formed to assist staff in studying the complex nature of agriculture in the Carpinteria Valley. The committee met numerous times to critique LCP draft reports. Finally, the County's General Plan Advisory Committees have played an important role in the development of the land use plan. The committees' land use recommenda- tions contributed significantly to.LCP staff decisions on appropriate land uses in the coastal zone. The pre-hearing draft of the land use plan was released in November 1978; the third phase involved public review of that draft. Approxi- mately 35 public meetings and workshops were held during a 4-month period from November 1978 to February 1979. Many of the comments and suggestions that were received during the informal public review period were incorpora- ted into the hearing draft of the plan, which was released in May 1979. Following the release of the hearing draft of the plan., joint public hearings were held by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to receive public testimony on the plan. The Planning Commission completed their action on the plan in September and forwarded their recommendations to the Board. Additional public hearings were held by the Board of Super- visors prior to their final action on the plan. -7- Public hearings on the land use plan will,be held by th e South Central Regional Coastal Commission and State Coastal Commission.,-Following approval of the land use plan, zoning and other implementing ordinances will be prepared to carry out the land use plani Both ordinances and zoning district maps will have to be approved by the County and Coastal Commissions. Upon approval of both components of the LCP (land use plan and zoning), the County will'regain permit control over new development within the coastal zone. .8- 2.3 THE LAND USE PLAN The land use plan and implementation program, including zoning, Which comprise the LCP are designed as a separate coastal element to the County's General Plan under the California Government Code Section 65303(k). As a separate element to the County's General Plan, the LCP exist's in addition to the other elements of the General Plan, i.e., seismic safety, housing, circulation, etc.. After.certification, the land use plan maps and zoning district maps will replace and supersede the existing General Plan map and zoning map for the County's coastal zone. Where there are conflicts between policies set forth in the certified LCP and those set forth in any element of the General Plan, the LCP shall take precedence for those areas locate d within the coastal zone. The purpose of the land use plan is to protect coastal resources, provide greater access and recreational opportunities for the-public@'s enjoyment, while allowing for orderly and well-planned urban.development and the siting of coastal dependent' industry. The plan incorporates, to the maximum possible extent, local plans and policies which are consistent with the Coastal Act. Where inconsistencies have been identified, modifi- cations and revisions have been made. In general, the land use plan places a stronger emphasis on expandi.ng public access opportunities to the County's beaches, preserving prime agricultural land, and protecting environmentally sensitive habitats than is found in prevailing local policy. The changes in existing land use regulati ons that are proposed in the plan are moderate. Ample provision has been made for continued growth and development; the land use designations within the plan can accommodate projected new development through the year 2000, assuming that sufficient water resources areavailable. The plan does not, however, put forth provisions for phasing or controlling the rate of growth. There are too many factors external to the jurisdiction.of the plan which would make such an undertaking tenuous at best. These include: the Missile X program, the Space Shuttle, the proposed LNG facility, Lease Sale 48, and U.C.S.B. enrollment policies. The plan proposes that firm urban-rural boundaries be established which will have the effect of redirecting growth from an outward expansion to infilling. In this sense, the plan will result in more compact urban development, thereby assuring the long-term protection of surrounding agricultural lands and recreational resources. The land use plan has two components:' maps and text. The land use plan maps show the kinds, location, and intensity of land uses proposed for the coastal zone of Santa Barbara County. In addition, resource maps show the location of environmentally sensitive habitat areas. -9- The text explains the rationale for the land uses and establishes policies to guide future development. These local policies, along with the policies from Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, will constitute the decision rules for evaluating projects after certification of the land use plan. The essence of the land use plan is contained in Chapter 3, the Resource Protection and Development Policies. This chapter includes a discussion of each of the major policy sections of the Coastal Act, relevant issues and problems within the County's coastal zone, and the proposed policies and actions which respond to these issues. Chapter 4 is devoted to a more in-depth discussion of the planning issues and problems in the seven planning areas within the coastal zone. .,-,It is, of course, anticipated that the land use plan will need revi0on from time to time in,accordance with changing conditions. The Coastal Act requires that certified plans be reviewed at least once every five years to determine whether the program is.being effectively implemen- ted in co'nformity with the policies of the Act. Local recommendations for revisions of the certified land use plan could be considered as part of the five-year review process or they could-be initiated by the County at any time, subject to the approval of the State Commission. _10- 2.4 THE LAND USE PLAN MAPS The land use plan'maps reveal two levels of information. The land use base maps show principal land use designations such as agriculture, commercial, residential, and industrial. The second level of information is contained'in overlay maps. The overlay maps illustrate specific information such as flood.hazard areas, view corridors, environmentally sensitive habitats, and areas which require special site design. They are placed over the base maps as.a.means of showing where potential constraints on development may exist. In addition, a set of resource maps for the mainland and Channel Islands has been prepared. These maps include detailed information regarding the location of environmentally sensitive habitat areas and are intended to supplement the land use plan maps. The land use plan maps have been developed at two scales, one for the urbanized South Coast (Ellwood to Rincon) and.another for the rural areas. The maps for the urbanized South Coast are at 500 scale lone inch = 500 feet). They provide enough detail for precise planning and zoning on a parcel-by-parcel basis. Such detail is not necessary in the rural areas where parcels are generally larger,and land use issues are not as complex. Therefore, 2000 scale maps (one inch = 2000 feet) have been used for these areas. For Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands, the,land use plan maps are at 8000 scale (one inch = 8000 feet). The key to the maps is the land use classification syst em which has been jointly developed by theLCP.and Comprehensive Plan staffs. The land use classifications specify the principal permitted land uses within the coastal zone. Included in the land use classification system are the four 11 overlay", designations. Each of the land use classifications is defined in .Appendix B of the land use plan. Policies that are associated with the overlay designations, View Corridor, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area, Flood Hazard, and Site Design'are included in Chapter 3. CHAPTEB 3: 'THE BESOURCE PBOTEC TION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES 3.1 INTROQUCTION The policies established by the Coastal Act focus on the protection of coastal resources and the regulation of development in the coastal zone. These resource protection policies govern land resources, which include environmentally sensitive habitat areas and prime agricultural lands, recreational resources, the marine environment (i.e., streams, wetlands, and coastal waters), scenic resources such as views to and along the ocean, and air quality.. The stress of these policies is on resource conservation. Coastal Act development policies govern all aspects of development including land divisions, industrial development, and new and/or expanded public works facilities. The emphasis of the Coastal Act development policies is on encouraging well-planned and orderly development which is compatible with resource protection and conservation. The text and the policies set forth in this chapter are, in many aspects, the core of the land use plan. They establish the parameters for evaluating future development projects within the County's coastal zone, and set forth the measures that the County should take to achieve the degree of resource protection required by the Coastal Act. Furthermore, theselocal policies will serve as the foundation for developing the ordi nances that will implement the land use plan. This chapter is organized into major topics which reflect the principal coastal resource protection and-development issues in Santa Barbara County. Each section is prefaced with pertinent policies from the Coastal Act and is followed by a discussion of local issues and problems related to the topic. The issues section attempts to pinpoint where County practices and regulations fall short of, or conflict with, the provisions of the Coastal Act. Finally, each topic area is concluded with recommended policies to bring the County into conformity with the Coastal Act * After certification,, all new development in the County's coastal zone will have to meet the standards set forth in these policies. The following general policies shall provide the framework for the land use plan: Policy 1-1: The County shall adopt the policies of the Coastal Act (PRC Sections 30210 through 30263) as the guiding policies of the land use plan. Policy 1-2: Where policies within the land use plan overlap, the policy which is the most protective of coastal resources shall take. precedence. -12- Policy 1-3: Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in the coastal land use plan and those set forth in any element of the County's General Plan or existing ordinances, the policies of the coastal land use plan shall take precedence. Policy 1-4: Prior.to the issuance of a coastal development permit, the County shall make the finding that the development reasonably meets the standards set forth in all applicable land use plan policies. Policy 1-5: Land use plan policies calling for further studies, initiation of new programs, or acquisitiwof land or easements will be implemented as staff and funding become available. -13- 3.2 DEVELOPMENT 3.2.1 COASTAL ACT POLICIES I There are many sections of the Coastal Act that address, either directly or indirectly, the issue of development.* Only those policies that'are not addressed in other sections of the plan are included here. 30250. (a) New development, except as otherwise provided in this division, shall be located within, contiguous-with, or in close proxi- mity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate pub- lic services and where it will not have significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. In addition, land divisions, other than leases, for agri@ultural uses, outside exist- ing developed areas shall be permitted only where 50 percent of the us- able parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the.average size of surrounding parcels. (b) Where feasible, new hazardous industrial development shall be located away from existing developed areas. 30252. The location and amount of new development should maintain and enhance public access to the coast by: (1) facilitating the pro- vision or extension of transit service; (2) providing commercial facil- ities within or adjoining residential development or in other areas that will minimize the use of coastal access roads; (3) providing non- automobile circulation within the development; (4) providing adequate parking facilities or providing substitute means of serving the devel- opment with public transportation; (5) assuring the potential for pub- lic transit for high-intensity us'es such as high-rise office buildings, and by (6) assuring that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlating the amount of development with local park acqui,sition and development plans with the provision of on-site recreational facilities to serve the new de- velopment. 30254. New or expanded public works facilities shall be designed and limited to accommodate needs generated by development.or uses per- mitted consistent with the provisions of this division; provided, how- ever, that it is the intent of the Legislature that State Highway Route I in rural areas of the coastal zone remain a scenic two-lane road. Special districts shall not be formed or expanded except where assessment for, and provision of, the service would not induce new development inconsistent with this division. Where existing or planned public works facilities can accommodate only a-limited amount of new development, services to coastal-dependent land use, essential public services and basic industries vital to the economic health of the region, state, or nation, public recreation, commercial recreation, and visitor-serving land uses shall.not be precluded by other development. *Refer To Appendix A for definition of development. -14- 3.2.2 PLANNING ISSUES The policies of the Coastal Act require that new development be concentrated within existing developed areas to avoid costly urban sprawl and to protect coastal resources, i.e., prime agricultural lands, scenic quality of rural lands, habitat areas, etc. The Act specifies that. development adjacent or proximate to environmentally sensitive habitat areas be designed to avoid adverse impacts; that development be sited so as to avoid risks to life and property due to natural hazards; and that coastal visual resources be protected by careful placement and design of new development. Each of these development-related issues is treatedin subsequent sections of this chapter. The Act also requires that public works facilities (water, sewer, and roads) be adequate to serve new development. Concentrating New Development According to Coastal Ac t policy, new development must be"located within, contiguous with, or in close proximity to existing developed areas. In the County's coastal zone, urban development is currently concentrated on'the South Coast from Ellwood east to the Ventura County line, with rural areas extending west of Ellwood and, to the east, encircling the urban areas of the City of Carpinteria and the community of Summerland. Concentrating new development in existing developed areas is, therefore, an issue for Carpinteria, Summerland, and Goleta, given their proximity to rural lands. According to the Coastal Act, development should take place within these urban areas prior to expanding outward. As noted in the agriculture section of the plan (Section 3.8), past urban expansion in Goleta and the Carpinteria Valley has resulted in the conversion of much prime agricultural land. To prevent further urban encroachment ont6 agricultural lands and encourage infilling within urban areas, urban/rural boundaries are delineated on the land use plan maps for the Carpinteria Valley, Summerland, and Goleta planning areas. Within the rural lands of the Carpinteria Valley and Summerland, there exists a number of residential enclaves, known as Shepard's Mesa, Los Arcos., La Mirada, Ocean Oaks, Serena Park, Padaro Lane, Sandyland, and Rincon. Boundaries for these rural neighborhoods are also drawn on the land use plan maps to allow for completion of the neighborhood without encroachment onto surrounding agriculturallands. Land Divisions Another stipulation of the Coastal Act is that land divisions outside of existing developed areas be permitted only where 50 percent of the usable parcels in the area have been developed and the created parcels would be no smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels. The rural lands of the North County coastline and from Gaviota to Ellwood are currently zoned for large parcel sizes, in most cases 100-acre minimums. The land use plan calls for an.increase in the minimum parcel size for the Hollister and Bixby ranches and other non-prime agricultural lands in the North Coast planning area from 100 to 320 acres. This minimum parcel.size is adequate for determining appropriate land divisions in the North Coast; _15- thus, the 50 percent criterion is not needed. Similarly, 100 and 320-acre minimums for agricultural lands along the Gaviota Coast are adequate to protect the area's agricultural lands and prevent urban pressures for premature conversions. In other rural areas of the South Coast, an increase in the minimum parcel size from five acres to ten acres is proposed onthe land use plan (see Section 3.8). This change is required to address the policies of the Coastal Act concerning land divisions and the preservation of agricultural lands. Service System Capacities and the Availability of Resources The land use plan designates the kinds, intensities, and locations of land uses as required under the Coastal Act. A further intent of the Coastal Act is that the "kinds, intensities, and locations" of land uses be correlated with the availability of resources and services. Resources refer to water supply; services refer to water distribution systems, waste- water collection and treatment facilities, and transportation systems. In cases where resources and/or services can only accommodate a limited amount of new development, Section 30254 of the Coastal Act requires that provi- sions be made for allocating resources and/or services so that coastal dependent land uses, essential public services and basic industries, public and commercial recreation., and visitor-serving land uses are not precluded by other development. Resource protection and pro-vision of public services are also treated in other sections of the Coastal Act. Section 30231 of the Coastal Act requires that depletion of groundwat-er supplies be prevented. Section 30241 requires that public service a nd facility expansions and non-agricultural development -do not impair agricultural viability either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. Throughout the County's coastal zone, the major resource limitation is that of water. Wastewater treatment and collection facilities are near capacity levels in Summerland and Montecito and, therefore, present an additional constraint to development in these areas. Water supply' and demand and sanitary treatment capacity data are found in Tables D-1 to D-8 (Appendix D) for the Carpinteria, Summerland, Montecito, and Goleta planning areas. The implications of these data for the land use plan are discussed in detail in the appropriate planning area sections. Water moratoria are already in effect in the Montecito,, Summerland, and Goleta County Water Districts; and the demand for water within the Carpinteria County Water District is nearly,equal to the existing supply. Therefore, all of the planning'areas of the urbanized South Coast @re experiencing some constraints due to limited water resources. Because buildout in these areas, i.e., the total number of housing units permitted under the land use plan, exceeds available water supplies, priorities for development are needed to assure that the priority land uses specified in Section 30254 of the Coastal Act are not precluded and that the depletion of groundwater supplies is prevented. -16- DEVELOPMENT POLICIES Policy 2-1: In order to obtain approval for a division of land, the applicant shall demonstrate that adequate water is available to serve the newly created parcels except for parcels designated as "Not A Building Site" on the recorded final or parcel map. Policy 2-2: The long term integrity of groundwater basins or sub-basins located wholly within the coastal zone shall be protected. To this end, the safe yield as determined by competent engineering evidence of such a groundwater basin or sub-basin should not be exceeded except 1) by overlying property owners for beneficial use on the overlying land or 2) on a temporary basis as part of a conjunctive use or other program managed by the appropriate water district. If the safe yield of a groundwater basin or sub-basin is found to be exceeded for reasons other than the two stipulated above, use of a private well for new development shall be grounds for denial of a project. Policy 2-3: In the furtherance of better water management, the County may require applicants to install meters on.private wells and to maintain records of well extractions for use by the appropriate water district. Policy 2-4: Within designated urban areas, new development other than that for agricultural purposes shall be serviced by the appropriate public sewer and water district or an existing mutual water company, if such service is available. Policy 2-5: Water-conserving devices shall be.used in all hew develop- ment. Policy 2-6: Prior to issuance.of a development permit, the County shall make the finding, based on information provided by environmental documents, staff analysis, and the applicant, that adequate public or private services and resources (i.e., water, sewer, roads, etc.) are available to serve the proposed development. The applicant shall assume full responsibility for costs incurred in s 'ervice extensions or improvements that are required as a result of the proposed project. Lack of available public or private services or resources shall be grounds for denial of the project or reduction in the density otherwise indicated in the land use plan. Policy 2-7: a. The County shall give equal priority to the following land uses in the coastal zone of Montecito and Summerland: E@pansion of.public recreational opportunities Visitor-serving commercial uses, i.e., restaurants, retail commercial., motels, etc. Low and moderate income housing Agricultural expansion -17- b. 'In Goleta, the County shall give highest priority to low and moderate income housing and agricultural expansion followed by public recreation and visitor-serving commercial uses. Policy 2-8: The existing uncommitted water surplus in the Carpinteria County Water District shall be divided between uses within the unincorporated area of the County and within the City of Carpinteria on the basis of historical water use; 30 percent shall be allocated to the City and 70 percent shall be allocated to the County (see Table 4-1, Carpinteria Valley planning area sect'ion). The'total uncommitted water surplus within the district shall be re-evaluated on an annual basis. Action: The County's portion of the uncommitted water surplus shall be allocated for priority uses, incTuding but not limited to the following: 1. Agriculture:- Water shall be distributed between open field crops and greenhouses, nurseries, and cover crops on the basis of established water usage, i.e., approximately 56 percent of the agricultural water supply shall be used for open field crops and 44 percent for greenhouses, nurseries, and other cover crop production. 2. Residential development: New development shall be based on the 10 to 1 ratio (between urban development in the City of Carpinteria and residential development in the unincorporated area of the County) established by the State Coastal Commission. (For example, since 30 percent of the water surplus is currently being allocated to the City of Carpinteria for urban uses, 3 percent shall be allocated to the County for residential development within the rural neighborhoods delineated on the land use plan maps.) 3. Public recreation 4. Visitor-serving commercial: Two areas allow for this use on the land use plan map - the eastern end of the Carpinteria bluffs and the Carpinteria Camper Park on North Via Real west of the City. Policy 2-9: Annexation of a rural area(s) to a sanitary district or oxtensions of sewer lines into rural area(s) as defined on the land use plan maps shall not be permitted unless required to prevent adverse impacts on an environmentally sensitive habitat, to protect public health, or as a logical extension of services., -18- Policy 2-10: Al' %nt, including agriculture,- adjacent to areas designated on the-land use plan or resource maps as -environmentally sensitive.habitat areas, shall be regulated to avoid adverse impacts on, habitat resources. Regulatory measures include, but are not limited to, setbacks, buffer- zones, grading.controls, noise restrictions, maintenance of natural vegetation, and control of runoff. Policy 2-11: The densities specified in the land use plan are maximums and shall be reduced if it is,determined that such reduction is warranted by conditions specifically applicable to a site, such as topography, geologic or flood hazards, habitat areas, or steep slopes. Policy 2-12: The existing townsite of Naples i s within a designated rural area and is remote from urban services. The County shall discourage residential development of existing lots. The County shall encourage and assist the property owner(s) in transferring development rights from the Naples townsite to an appropriate site within a designated urban area which is suitable for residential development. If the County determines that transferring development rights is not feasible, the land use designation of AG-II-100 should be re-evaluated. Policy 2-13:,,,In the Montetito planning area, should a request be made to @amend the Educational Facility land use designation for the Music Academy ofthe West on Fairway Road or Crane School on San Leandro Lane, the new land use designation shall be Residential with,a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The purpose of the Planned Development designation is to ensure well- planned development of large lots that are planned for residential use within the designated urban.areas. It is theintent of this designation to allow for flexibility and innovative design of residential development so that the important resource values of a particular site (i.e., habitat areas, scenic quality, vegetation, archaeological resources, etc.) are preserved. It is also the intent of the Planned Development designation to require clustering of structures to the maximum extent possible to preserve open space and provide recreational opportunities for use by both the residents of the site and the public. In some cases, commercial development such as convenience stores.or visitor-serving facilities (i.e., restaurants, motels, etc.) may be incorporated into the design of a Planned Development. All areas designated in the land use plan for Planned Development shall be subject to the following policies: _19- Policy 2-14: The entire site shall be planned as a unit. Preparation of a specific plan (Governmept Code Section 65450) may be required when parcels comprising a site designated as PD are in separate ownerships. Policy 2-15: Use of flexible design conceptsi including clustering of units, mixture of dweIling types, etc., shall be required to accomplish as much as possible all of the following goals: a. protection of the scenic qualities of the site; b. protection of coastal resources, i.e., habitat areas, archaeological sites, etc.; c. avoidance of siting of structures on hazardous areas; d. provision of public-open space, recreation, and/or beach access; e. preservation of existing healthy trees; and f. provision of low and moderate housing opportunities. Policy 2-16: Permitted use shall include: a. residential units, either attached or detached. recreational facilities, including but not limited to tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, and parks for the private use,.of the prospective residents.and/or the public; and c., open space; and in developments of 200 residential units or greater, conditionally permitted uses may include: d. commercial recreational facilities (private or public) that are compatible with the proposed residential units; e. in especially scenic coastal areas, visitor-serving 'commercial facilities, i.e., a motel or restaurant. Residential density shall be reduced to accommodate facilities that provide overnight'lodging. f. convenience establishments of a commercial and service nature such as a neighborhood store, provided: (1) such convenience establishments are an integral part of the general plan of development for the Planned Development'and provide services related to the needs of the prospective residents. (2) such convenience establishments and their parking areas will not collectively occupy more than one (1) acre per two hundred (200) dwelling units, -20- (3) such convenience establishments will be located, designed, and operated primarily to serve trade and service needs of persons residing in the Planned Development and not persons residing elsewhere. (4) such convenience establishments will not by reason of their location, construction,,manner or timing of operations, signs, lighting, parking arrangements, or other characteristics have adverse effects on residential uses within or.adjoining the development, or create traffic congestion or hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic. Policy 2-17: The County shall specify the maximum density of development permitted under the Planned Development designation at the time this designation is adopted for a particular parcel(s) unless already specified in the land use plan. Determination of an appropriate density shall take into account all of the. factors listed in Policy 2-15 and shall be compatible with the density and character of surrounding land uses. Policy 2-18: The amount of public, private, and common open space in a Planned Development shalVbe specified in the development plan. The County shall determine the amount of public and common open space required, but in no case shall the amount of public and common open space be less than forty (40) percent of the gross area. As part of the'open space requirement, the County may include.dedication of environmentally -sensitive habitat areas to mitigate impacts of development in Urban areas. Open space shall be defilned as follows: a. Public open space shall include but not be limited to public parks and parking lots, beaches, access corridors suc ih as bike paths, Mking or equestrian trails, usable natural areas, and vista points which are accessible to members of the general public. Public open space shall not include areas which are unusable for recreational purposes, i.e., private or public streets9 private parking lots, or hazardous areas such as steep slopes and bluff faces. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas and archaeological sites.may be included in public open space. b. Common open space shall include but not be limited to recreational areas and facilities for the use of the prospective residents of the project such as tennis courts, swimming pools, playgrounds, community gardens, landscaped areas for-common use, or other open areas of the site needed.for the protection of the habitat, _21- archaeological, scenic, or other resources. Common open space shall not include driveways, parking lots, private patios and yards, other developed areas, or hard surfaced walkways. c. Private open space.shall include but not be limited to patios, decks, and yards for the private use of the residents of i,ndividual units. SITE DESIGN OVERLAY DESIGNATION Policy 2-19: Prior to approval of any lot splits or subdivision of a parcel designated on the land use plan map with the Site Design Overlay, a site plan showing the ultimate parcelization of'the site shall be reviewed by Subdivision Committee and approved by the Planning Commission. The site plan shall show lot lines, circulation pattern, and a general indication of the location of residential structures. All parcels to be created shall have adequate building sites and road access. In approving the site plan, the Planning Commission shall make the finding that ultimate development of the site will be consistent with all land use plan policies, including those regarding protection of habitat areas, avoidance of flood and geologic hazards, and protection of hillsides and watersheds. Where necessary to achieve conformance with the standards set forth in the land use plan policies, the Subdivision Committee or Planning Commission may require increases in the minimum parcel sizes shown on the land use plan maps. All future lot splits or subdivision shall be in conformance with the approved site plan; and the property shall be so zoned as to preclude further division. NOTE: Additional conditions for parcels designated as PD-Planned Develop- ment are found in the following sections: Carpinteria Bluffs: Section 4.2.3 Hammond's Meadow: Section 4.4.3 More Mesa: Section 4.5.3 West Devereux: Section 4.5.4 Santa Barbara,Shores: Section 4.5.5 -22- 3.3 HAZARDS. 3.3.1 COASTAL ACT POLICIES 30253. New development shall: (1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. (2) Assure stability and structural integrity, and..neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area,,or in any way require the construction of protective de'vices that would substantially alter natural landforms-along bluffs and cliffs. 30235. Revetments, breakwaters, groins, harbor channels, seawalls, cliff-retaining walls, and other such construction that alters natural shoreline processes shall be permitted when required to serve coastal- dependent uses or to protect existing structures or public beaches in danger from erosion and when designed to eliminate or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply. Existing marine structures causing water stagnation contributing to pollution problems and fish- kills should be phased out or upgraded where feasible. 30236. Channelizations, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and streams shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited to. (1) necessary water supply projects; (2) flood control projects where no other method for protecting existing ..structures in the flood plain is feasible and where such protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development, or; (3) developments where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. 3.3.2: PLANNING ISSUES Recent events have provided strong evidence of the vulnerability of. certain coastal areas to natural hazards. Following saturating rains -in the winter of 1978, large sections of the cliff face in Isla Vista fell into the sea, threatening several apartments; soil slippage caused a road washout in the community of Summerland; severe erosion occurred in graded areas.above Summerland; several blufftop.homes sl.id into the sea in the City of Santa Barbara; and flooding and heavy wave action damaged some homes along Miramar Beach. Also in 1978, an earthquake disrupted a rail line in the Ellwood area, produced numerous bluff slides and fissures along the South Coast, and caused considerable structural damage in the surrounding areas. The Coastal Act requires that the risks to new development from such occurrences be minimized. Moreover, it specifies that new development must be located and built neither to "create nor contribute significantly to erosion, geologic instability, or destruction of the site or surrounding area or in any way require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs." -23- The County has an array of policies and regulations within its zoning,- grading, and fire ordinances, and building code which address many of the concerns of the Coastal Act. In addition, Santa Barbara County has under- taken public works projects in recent years which now protect large areas that were previously vulnerable to flooding. Extensive creek channeliza- tions in the.Carpinteria Valley and the construction of upstream debris dams are two recent examples. However,in spite of measures currently imposed by the County, recent problems with blufftop development and severe erosion in certain hillside agricultural areas suggest that more stringent controls are needed. Bluff and Beach Erosion Bluff erosion is a potential hazard for new development and continues to be a recurring hazard for existing development in portions of the South Coast, The bluff areas along Del Playa Drive in Isla Vista,- sections of More Mesa and Hope Ranch, and areas along Channel Drive and Padaro Lane are all subject to hazards due to bluff erosion. Because of this recurring threat, many retaining walls, groins, and sections of rip-rap have been needed to protect life and property. In the aftermath of the 1978 winter, property.owners have initiated additional protective measures, such as major seawall projects proposed for Isla Vista and Padaro Lane. The,County's policy on bluff development is handled on a case-by-case basis except in Isla Vista and Hope Ranch. In Isla Vista, a 30-foot setback requirement exists. It is based on an engineering study that was undertaken in 1963 to determine cliff stability and related problems in the Isla Vista area. The study identified an average "natural" rate of cliff retreat at six inches per year and recommended that a value of twice the apparent retreat rate (12 inches) per year be applied for safety purposes, along with specific site drainage requirements. ;Assuming an average 1'economic life" of 30 years per structure, the County developed the 30-foot setback for the area. In Hope Ranch, a 50-foot setback is required under the provisions of the County's Zoning Ordinance #661. The inadequacy of the present requirements with respect to the Coastal 11 Act is especially apparent in Isla Vista, since new protective devices" which may substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.are now necessary to.protect property. Bluff areas adjacent to development at More,Mesa have been eroding at an average rate of ten inches per,year, while along a section of Padaro Lane bluff losses of up to two feet per year have been reported. These examples provide additional evidence why County.setback standards should be strengthened in order to eliminate.the possibility of needing new "protec- tive devices" in areas where future development mayI occur. While serious beach erosion occurred during the winter storms of 1978, damage was localized and temporary in most cases. Heavy river and stream -24- flows replenished much of the losses. Existing and proposed flood control projects are not considered to have a significant impact on sand supply to ,the beaches that would require corrective measures. Geologic Hazards Geologic hazards include seismic hazards (surface ruptures, liquefac- tion, severe ground shaking, tsunami runup), landslides, soil erosion, expansive soils, and subsidence. Since these hazards can affect both life and property,-additional siting criteria or special engineering measures are needed to compensate for these hazards. The entire South Coast lies in an area of high seismic risk. Seismic, landslide, and tsunami hazards have been mapped by the County and are used by the Public.Works Department to review development oroposals. Where faults are identifiable, the County Public Works Department has been generally requiring a 50-foot setback from the fault, though precise setback decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. In addition, geologic and soil engineering reports may be required under Grading.Ordinance No. 1795 for obtaining a grading permit. These reports are used to identify geologic and soil problems and to establish 'conditions for siting and constructing structures where hazards or problems exist. With the exception of a slope hazard area in Summerland, pr oblems due to slope instability are generally confined to areas outside of the proposed urban development limits set forth in the land use plan. Although the coastal,zone between Ellwood and Point Arguello is either hilly or mountainous with variable and complex geologic conditions, only low-inten- sity, nonurbah land uses will be located in this area. Consequently,, slope-related hazards will be minimized. Soil erosion is a slope-related hazard which has become more proble- matic in recent years because of extensive agricultural development on slopes of 30 percent or more. A recent study conducted by the Agricultural Unit of the State Water Resources Control Board documents severe erosion in some areas of the South Coast where new orchards are being established. The County Grading Ordinance No. 1795 (as amended by Ordinance No. 2770) exempts farming and agricultural grading operations on parcels zoned exclusively for agricultural use which are larger than five acres from obtaining a grading permit. However.- the County's Brush Removal Ordinance (No. 2767), which applies to the South Coast, does regulate removal of vegetation on parcels over five acres in size, and requires a permit and approval of drainage and erosion control devices before agricultural grading commences. Flooding Flooding has occurred along Santa Barbara's South Coast in recent years, particularly in the Carpinteria Valley, sections of Montecito,,.and _25- the Santa Barbara Airport area. Severe floods in 1969 undermined a section of UO S. 101 in Carpinteria. These flood hazards are progressively being eliminated in the populated portions of Carpinteria Valley and other areas of the South Coast as a result of stream channelizations and the construc- tion of debris dams and silt basins by the Santa Barbara County.Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the U.S. Corps of Engin eers, and by the U. S. Soil Conservation Service. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development through the National Flood Insurance Program has investigated the existence and severity of flood hazards in the unincorporated areas of.Santa Barbara County. One of the.objectives of this study is to provide information to local planners in promoting sound land use and flood plain management. The Federal Insurance Administration has adopted the 100-year flood (the flood having a one percent chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year) as the national standard for purposes of flood plain management. The 100-year "flood plain" is comprised of a "floodway" and a "floodway The floodway is the channel of a stream, plus fringe . any adjacent flood plain areas, which must be kept,free of encroachment in order that the 100-year flood be carried without substantial increases in flood heights. As minimum standards,, increases in flood heights are limited to 1.0 foot,. provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. The area between the floodway and the boundary of the 100-year flood is termed the floodway fringe. This area encompasses that portion of the flood plain that could be completely.obstructed without increasing the.water surface elevation of the 100-year flood more than 1.0 foot at any point. County Flood Combin ing Regulations, administered by the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and.,Water Conservation District, regulate construc- tion, excavation, and grading in a "designated" floodway. The designated floodway, as defined in Ordinance No. 661, only includes "land reasonably required to provide for the construction of a flood control project for passage of a flood against which protection is provided or eventually will be provided by said project including land necessary for construction of project levees." Thus, the restrictions are not as-comprehensive as those recommended by HUD. In addition, the "FH" Flood Hazard Combining Regula- tions currently apply only to areas in Carpinteria and Goleta, along Atascadero Creek, and the Goleta Slough. New regulations covering a 11 development within the 100-year flood plain have been formulated. The Flood Plain Management Ordinance, Chapter 15A of the County Code, has been adopted in order to comply with the requirements of the HUD-sponsored Federal Flood Insurance Program in which this County,is participating. Fire Areas of moderate fire hazard within urban areas of the coastal zone are restricted to hilly sections of the Carpinteria Valley and Summerland. High fire conditions also exist west of Ellwood in rural areas of the -26- coastal zone. Developments within any of the@hazardous zones in rural areas will be very low density and subject to stringent building, brush C I earance,. access@, and. water storage capac,ity. restrictions Jfor fire suppression purposes) by the County Fire Department and/or the U.. S,. Forest Service. 3.3.3 POLICIES Seawalls and Shoreline Structures Policy 3-1: Seawalls shall not be permitted unless@the County has deter- mined that there are no other less environmentally damaging alternatives reasonably available for protection of existing development. The County prefers and encourages non-structural solutions to shoreline erosion problems, including beach replenishment, removal of endangered structures and prevention of land divisions on shorefront property subject to erosion; and, will seek solutions to shoreline hazards or a larger geographic basis than a single lot circumstance. Where permitted, seawall design and construction shall respect to the degree possible natural landforms. Adequate provision for lateral beach access shall be made,and the project shall be. designed to minimize visual impacts by the use of appropriate colors and materials. Policy 3-2: Revetments, groins, cliff retaining walls, pipelines and outfalls, and other such construction that may alter natural shoreline processes.shall, be permitted when designed to elimi- or mitigate adverse impacts on local shoreline sand supply and so as not to block lateral beach access. Policy 3-3: To avoid the need for future protective devices that could impactsand movement and su 'pply, no permanent above-ground structures shall be permitted on the dry sandy beach except facilities necessary for publichealth and safety, such as. lifeguard towers, orwhere such.restriction would render.a parcel unusable. Bluff Protection Policy 3-4: In areas of new development, above-ground structures shall be set back a sufficient distance from the bluff edge to be safe from the threat of bluff erosion for a minimum of 75 years, unless such. standard will make a lot unbuildable, in which case a standard of 50 years shall be used. The County shall determine the required setback. A geologic report may be required by the County in order to make this determination. (See also Policy 4-5 regarding protection of visual resources.) -27- Policy 3-5: Within the required blufftop.setback, drought-tolerant vegeta- tion shall@be maintained. Grading, as may be required to estab- lish proper drainage or to install landscaping, and minor improvements, i4e., patios and fences that do not impact bluff stability, may be permitted. Surface water shall be directed away from the top of the bluff or be handled in a manner satis- factory to prevent damage to the bluff.by surface and percolat- ing water. Policy 3-6: Development and activity of any kind beyond the required bluff- top setback shall be constructed to insure that all surface and subsurface drainage shall not contribute to the erosion of the bluff face or the stability of the bluff itself. Policy 3-7: No development shall be permitted on the bluff face, except for engineered, staircases or accessways to provide beach access, and pipelines for scientific research or coastal dependent industry. Drainpipes shall be allowed only where no other less environmen tally damaging drain system-is feasible and the drainpipes are designed and placed to minimize impacts to the bluff face, toe, .and beach. Drainage devices extending over the bluff face shall not be permitted if the property can be drained away from the bluff face. Geologic Hazards Policy 3-8: Applications for gr ading and building permits, and applica- tions for subdivision shall be reviewed for adjacency to, threats from, and impacts on geologic hazards arising from seismic events, tsunami runup, landslides, beach erosion, or other geologic hazards'such as expansive soils and subsidence areas. In areas of known geologic hazards, a geologic report may be required. Mitigation measures shall be required where necessary. Policy 3-9:. Water, gas, sewer, electrical, or crude oil transmission and distribution lines which cross fault lines, shall be subject to additional safety standards, including emergency shutoff where applicable. Policy 3-10: Major structures, i.e.,.residential, commercial, and indus- trial, shall be sited a minimum of 50 feet from a potentially active, historically active, or active fault. Greater set- backs may be required if local geologic conditions warrant. flood Hazard Area Overlay Designation The intent of the Flood Hazard Area designation is to avoid exposing new developments to flood hazard and reduce the need for future flood control protective works and resulting alteration of stream and wetland environments by regulating development within-the 100-year flood plain. -28- The flood hazard areas designated on the overlay maps fall within the 100-year flood zone boundaries as mapped by the Federal Insurance 1 Administration (U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). An up-to-date set of the HUD maps is available for inspection in the County Flood Control District Office. All development in designated flood hazard areas and within 50 feet of any stream or river in the area between Ellwood and the Santa Maria River shall be reviewed by County Fl, ood Control for conformance with the following policies: Policy 3-11: All development, including construction, excavation, and grading, except for flood control projects and non-structural agricultural uses, shall be prohibited in the floodway unless off-setting improvements in accordance with HUD regulations .are'provided. If the proposed development falls within the floodway fringe, development may be permitted, provided creek set'back requirements are met and finish floor elevations are above the projected 100-year flood elevation, as.specified in the Flood Plain Management Ordinance. Policy 3-12: Permitted devel'opment shall not cause or contribute to flood hazards or lead to expenditure of.public funds for,flood control works, i.e., dams, stream channelizations, etc. 3.3.4 HILLSIDE'AND WATERSHED PROTECTION Coastal Act Policies In ad dition to Sectib n 30253 which requires that new development neither create nor contribute significantly to erosion, the Act requires that biological productivity and quality of coastal waters, streams, and wetlands be maintained and that development be sited to minimize alteration of natural landforms. 30231. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal Waters, streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human health shall be maintained and., where feasible, restored through, among other means,,minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and substantial interference with surface waterflow, encouraging wastewater reclamation, maintaining natural, vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. 1HUD flood hazard mapping has not been completed for all areas of the County. Most of the streams on the urbanized South Coast area have been studied in detail. Information on,flood hazards in other areas of the coastal zone is not as comprehensive. -29- 30251. The scenic and visual qu alities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of publicimportance. Permitted development shall be sited and des igned to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic,coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, t-o:restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. Implementation of these sections of the Act requires regulation of development on hillsides and watersheds. Background, Disturbance of hillsides2 and watershed lands3 can result in the loss of soil and slope stability as well as increased erosion. The removal of vegetation deprives the soil of the stabilizing function of roots and this loss,,of soil stability increases erosion and thus lowers downstream water quaTity as a result of siltation. Wetlands and,,streams are particu- larly impacted by increased siltation.' Heavy rains on'unstable slopes can produce landslides, slumps, and flaws,especially in steeply sloping areas. Disturbance of hillsides and watershed lands by development may also alter the natural drainage pattern and thus produce increased-runoff and erosion. Removal of vegetative cover decreases percolation of precipita- tion into-the soil, thereby reducing the amount of groundwater recharge and adding water to runoff that would ordinarily be transpired by trees and shrubs.. Construction of impervious surfaces, such as roads and buildings, also decreases the amount,of groundwater percolation and increases the amount of'runoff. Incre .ased runoff, in addition to producing intensified erosion, creates downstream flood hazards. Moreover, runoff from land surfaces is often contaminated with a variety of industrial, agricultural, commercial, or household 'residues. The most serious pollution problems often result from persistent erosion of soil, from fertilizers and biocides applied to the land, and from nutrients and toxic substances in watershed discharges. Estuaries are the termini for coastal watershed drainage systems and therefore such substances tend to concentrate in them. Disturbance of hillside and watershed lands can result in high costs to.a community. For example, degradation of hillsides as a result of erosion, landslides, and loss of vegetation can reduce scenic values, decrease real estate values, and impact the tourist industry. In addition, poorly designed and constructed hillside developments can frequently result 2Hillsides are defined as lands with slopes exceeding 20 percent. 3Watersheds are defined as regions or areas drained by a network of surface or subsurface watercourses and have potential for impacts on coastal streams wetlands, estuaries, and groundwater basins throughrunoff and percolation.' -30- in substantial costs to the public, either for repairs or for protective measures to prevent further damage. Increased runoff and sedimentation from denuded hillsides require increased public expenditures for flood .control and storm water management. Decreased biological productivity of coastal streams and wetlands has even farther-ranging public costs. Protection of hillsides and watersheds is, therefore, necessary to 1) minimize risks to life and property-from flooding, slope failure, and land- slides; 2) insure continued biological productivity of coastal streams and wetlands; 3) protect groundwater resources; .and 4) preserve scenic values. Policies In order to ensure the long-term preservation of the.bi ological productivity of streams and wetlands, protection of visual resources, and the prevention of hazards to life and property, the following policies shall apply to all construction and development, including grading and major vegetation removal, which involve the movement of earth in excess of 50 cubic yards. Policy 3-13: Plans for development shall minimize cut and fill operations. Plans requiring excessive cutting and filling may be denied if it is determined that the development could be carried out with less alteration of the natural terrain. Policy 3-14: All development shall be designed to fit the site topography, soils, geology, hydrology, and any other existing conditions and.be oriented so that grading and.other site preparation is kept to an absolute minimum. Natural features, landforms, and native.vegetation, such as trees, shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. Areas of.-the site which are not suited to development because of known soil, geologic, flood, erosion or other hazards shall remain in open space. Policy 3-15: For necessary grading operations on hillsides, the smallest practical area of land shall be expo@ed at any one time during development, and the length of exposure shall be kept to the shortest practicable amount of time. The clearing of land should be avoided during the winter rainy season and all measures for removing sediments and stabilizing slopes should be in place before the beginning of the rainy season. Policy 3-16: Sediment basins (including debris basins, desilting basins, or silt traps) shall be installed on the project site in conjunc- tion with the initial grading operations and maintained through the development process to remove sediment from runoff waters. All sediment shall be retained on site,.unless'removed to an appropriate dumping location. @-31 - Policy 3-17: Temporary vegetation, seeding, mulching, or other suitable stabilization method shall be used to protect soils subject to erosion that have been disturbed during grading or development. All cut and.fil.1 slopes shall be stabilized immediately With planting of native grasses andshrubs, appropriate nonnative plants, or with accepted landscaping practices. Policy 3-18: Provisions shall be made to conduct surface water to storm drains or suitable watercourses to prevent erosion. Drainage devices'shall be designed to accommodate increased runoff resulting from modified soil and surface conditions'as a result of development. Water runoff shall be retained on-site whenever possible to facilitate groundwater recharge. Policy 3-19: D@gradation of the water quali ty of groundwater basins, nearby streams, or wetlands shall not result from development of the site. Pollutants, such as chemicals, fuels, lubricants, raw sewage, and other harmful waste, shall not be discharged into or alongside coastal streams or wetlands either during or after construction. Policy 3-20: All development wit.hin the coastal zone shall be subject to the slope density curve (Plate A) of the County Zoning Ordinance No. 661 (Article VII, Section 20). However, in no case,shall above-ground structures, except for necessary utility lines and fences for agricultural purposes, be sited on undisturbed slopes exceeding 40 percent. Policy 3-21: Where agricultural development will involve the construction of service roads a.nd the clearance ofnatural vegetation for orchard development on slopes of 30 percent or greater, a brush removal permit shall be required. Policy 3-22: Where agricultural development will involve the construction of service roads and.the clearance of natural vegetation for orchard,development on slopes of 30 percent or greater, cover cropping or any other comparable means of soil protection shall be utilized to-minimize erosion until orchards are mature enough to form a vegetative canopy over the exposed earth. -32- 3.4 VISUAL RESOURCES 3.4.1 COASTAL ACT POLICIES 30251. The scenic and visual.qualities of coastal areas shall be considered!and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the'@ocean and scenic coastal areas, and, where feasibl.e, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California,Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and.by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting. 3.4.2 PLANNING ISSUES The scenic resources of Santa Barbara's coastal zone are of incalcu- lable value to the economic and social well-being of Santa Barbara County. The beauty of the Santa Barbara coastline is world-renowned; it is the basis of the County's strong tourist and retirement economies and is a source of continuing pleasure for the local populace. The visual resources of the coastal zone include its beaches, sand dunes, coastal bluffs, headlands, wetlands, estuaries, islands, hillsides and canyons, upland terraces and plains, and its rivers and streams. These resources are vulnerable to degradation through improper location and scale of building development, blockage of coastal views, alteration of natural landforms by poor cutting, grading, and filling practices, and by poor design or placement of roadside signs and utility lines. The primary concern of the Coastal Act is to protect views to these sceni,c resources from public areas such as highways, roads, beaches*,, parks, coastal trails and accessways, and vista points. Local policies which have visual resource imp lications are developed in the County's zoning, subdivision, and other ordinances. These include the Beach Development (BD) and the Exclusive Agriculture (A-14) zone restrictions, Ordinance #2188 governing the County's Board of Architectural Review (BAR), Division 8 of the County's Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to Special Treatment Areas, and County Sign Ordinance #2077. The "BD" zone is in effect from Jalama to Ellwood and in Summerland. It is intended to "preserve and protect a limited natural resource, ocean beaches; ... to control construction of developments at sea level that may be threatened by destruction from ocean storms; to control construction on blutfs which may be threatened by collapse of beach bluffs caused by erosion, slides, or slippage of such bluffs; and to control the construc- tion of sea walls and groins which might disrupt the littoral drift of sand along the coastline and cause erosion in the vicinity of such walls and groins.", In general, the restrictions of the "BD" zone serve to limit construction on beaches to recreational facilities and establish a 15-foot or one story building height maximum for structures. Such restrictions have indirect visual resource protection implications since they reduce -33- unnecessary development on beaches and control the scale of permitted developments. However, the zone does not assure that permitted development is sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas or that it is visually compatible with the character of the surrounding areas as required by the Coastal Act. This is because the zone extends inland only to the bluff line and therefore does not affect resi- dential structures on top of the bluffs. In addition, the fact that the "BD" zone allows development.on the beach for other than public safety and welfare purposes appears to be incompatible with the intent of the Coastal Act. Views of scenic bluffs from beaches are not.protected by the "BD" zone nor are they protected by blufftop setback requirements developed by the Public Works, Department. The latter establishes a setback of 30 feet in IsTa Vista (see Section 3.3 on Hazards) and on a case-by-case basis else- where. These setback regulations were formulated for safety purposes with- out @e gard to visual considerations. The County's "A-14," Exclusive Agricultural Zone, does address some of the visual problems associated with greenhouse development in the Carpinteria Valley. The zoning standards require that hothouses, green- houses, or other plant-protection structures be set back at least 50 feet from the centerline of any street and require landscaping which, within five years, will "reasonably block the view of any structures and on-site parking areas from outside of the property." Landscaping along all streets is also a requirement of the A-14 zone, but the degree of view blockage is not specified. While increased setbacks for greenhouse development from public streets and residential areas are needed (see Policy 8-6, Section 3 8), the existing landscaping requirements of the A-I-X zone are adequate t; mitigate the visual impacts of greenhouses. County building height standards, which in most zones permit two-story structures of up to 35 feet inbeight, are not necessarily sensitive to visual resource protection. For example, a building of 35 feet located on a low coastal bluff set back 30 or 50 feet can be highly visible from many points along a beach, and may consequently degrade the natural scenic value of the bluff. Further setbacks and/or height restrictions are needed to. ensure protection of views. The County's Board of Architectural Review (BAR) process is sensitive to visual resource concerns, including building mass, relationship of buildings to topography, and compatibility of buildings with the immediate area, but BAR's jurisdiction is limited, since not all zones are subject- to review. Only areas which fall under "D", Design Supervision Combining Regulations, are under review by the County's Board of Architectural Review, although Summerland, Hope Ranch, Hollister Ranch, and the Embarca- dero tract have their own review committees. All development in Montecito, which is governed by its own zoning ordinance #453, is subject to review by the County BAR. While the "D" designation is in effect for many critical undeveloped parcels in the coastal zone, there are large vacant waterfront -34- parcels which a re.not subject to design review. Furthermore, BAR policy does not contain language which encourages the protection of views to and along the oceaniand scenic coastal areas nor the "restoration and enhance- ment of visual uality in visually degraded areas." While these concerns may be operative in practices of the BAR, they are not spelled out in the BAR's "Standards of Architectural Review." The "Special Treatment 111'section of the County is Subdi vision Ordinance contains policies which are directed to the protection of hillsides as a visual resource'. This section notes that extensive hillside areas in the County dominate the view from the most heavilytravelled and highly developed areas. Many of these same areas are subject to building construction and.grading operations or the removal of the native cover which can subst antially affect the natural scenic background for such travelled and developed areas. The "Special Treatment" section recommends that subdivisions and other developments "shall be designed to preserve, to the extent which is reasonable and feasible, the natural appearance of extensive hillsides." It instructs the Subdivision Committee to require grading which preserves the natural contours of land, retain trees and other native vegetation, minimize road cut scarring, reduce grading, and ,establish landscaping to conceal raw-cut slopes. Though the scope and purpose of the "Special Treatment" designation would appear consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act, developments of fewer than five units are not subject to its provisions. The Recreational District is another existing,zoning policy which acknowledges the importance ofvisual resources, though it has not been used to date. The purpose of the District is to protect and enhance areas which have both active and passive recreation potential because of their beauty and natural features. It would restrict building heights to 2.5 stories, establish bluff setbacks of 50 feetwhen a,bluff is more than 50 feet in height, and require Board of Architectural review for development proposed within the zone. The County Sign Ordinance No. 2077 is sensitive to the visual impacts of signs. The effect of the ordinance is to subordinate signs to man-made and natural features. One of the significant features of the ordinance is its restrictions on billboards. Billboards are categorized as an "off- premisell sign and allowed only-in heavy industrial and heavy commercial districts. Length and width limitations set forth in the ordinance are smaller than the standard billboard sign. A number of billboards do exist in the County coastal zone which, due to their size and location, impact on coastal visual resources. These signs are located on the upland terrace shelf north of Highway 101, between Ellwood and Gaviota; their 1 egal status expired in May 1979. 35- 3.4.3 POLICIES Policy 4-1: Areas within the coastal zone which are now required to obtain approval from the County Board of Architectural Review, because of the requirements of the "V-Design Supervision Combining Regulations or because they are within the boundaries of Ordinance #453, shall continue to be subject to design review.. In addition, developments in all areas desig- nated on the land use plan maps as Commercial, Industrial, or Pla nn6d Devel,opmentand residential.stru,ctures on bluff:top lots shall be required to obtain plan approval from the County BAR. Policy 4-2: All commercial, industrial, planned development, and green- house projects shall be required to submit a landscaping plan to the County for approval. Policy 4-3: In areas designated as rural on the land use plan maps, the height, scale, and design of structures shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding natural environment, except where technical requirements dictate otherwise. Struc- tures shall be subordinate in appearance to natural landforms;' shall be designed to follow the natural contours of the land- scape; and shall be sited so as not to intrude into the sky- line as seen from public viewing places. Policy 4-4: In areas designated as urban.on the land use plan maps and in designated, rural neighborhoods, new structures shall be in conformance with the scale and,character of the existing community. Clustered development, varied circulation patterns, and diverse housing types shall be encouraged. Pol'icy 4-5: In addition to that required for safety (see Policy 3-4), further bluff setbacks may be required for oceanfront struc- tures to minimize or avoid impacts on public views from the beach. Blufftop structures shall be set back from the bluff edge sufficiently far to insure that the struct'U're does not infringe on views,,from the beach except in areas where exist- ing structures on,both sides of-the proposed structure already impact public views:frorn the beach. In such cases, the new structure shall be located no closer to the bluff's edge.than the adjacent structures. Policy 4-6: Signs shall be of size, location., and appearance so as not to detract from scenic areas or views. from public 'roads and other Viewing points., Policy 4-7: Utilities, including television, shall be pla ced underground in new developments in.accordance with the rules and regula- tions of the California Public.,Utilities Commission., except where cost of undergrounding would be so high as to deny service. -36- Policy 4-8: The County shall request the State of California to designate that portion of Highway 101 between Winchester Canyon and Gaviota State Park as a "Scenic Highway." 3.4.4 VIEW CORRIDOR OVERLAY DESIGNATION The Coastal Act mandate for the protection of visual resources is broad, requiring the protection of the scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas. Since the County's coastal area is world renowned for its beauty, the entire coastal zone could be subject to a visual resource protection overlay designation. Such a blanket designation is impractical; the general visual resource protection policies in the preceding section are intended to protect the County's scenic quality. The View Corridor Overlay designation is a special tool which is intended to give additional protection to areas where there are views from a major coastal road to the ocean. Highway #101, which parallels the ocean throughout much of the South Coast, affords many thousands of travellers scenic ocean vistas. Protection of this visual resource, a view corridor to the ocean, requires special treatment. Therefore, all areas in'the County where there are views from Highway #101 to.the ocean are shown on the land use maps with a View Corridor Overlay designation. All development in these areas shall be reviewed by the County Board of Architectural Review for conformance to the ,following policies: Policy 4-9: Structures shall besited and designed to preserve unob- structed broad views of the ocean from Highway #101, and shall be clustered to the maximum extent feasible. Policy 4-10: A landscaping plan shall be submitted to the County for approval. Landscaping when mature, shall not impede public views. Policy 4-11: Building height shall not exceed.9ne story or 15 feet above average finished grade, unless an increase in height would facilitate clustering of development and result in greater view protection, or a height in excess of 15 feet would not impact public views to the ocean. NOTE: There are policies in'other sections of the plan whichi when imple- mented, will result in protection of coastal visual resources. These include policies for the preservation of habitat resources (Section 3.9) and protection of bluffs, hillsides,, and watersheds (Section 3.3). -37- 3. 5 HOUSING 3.5.1 COASTAL ACT POLICIES Section 30213. Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income shall be. protected, encouraged, and,:where feasible, provided. ... New-housing in the coastal zone shall be developed in conformity with the ,standards,, policies, and goals of local housing elements adopted in accordance with the requirements of subdivision (c) of*Section 65.302 of the Government Code. 3.5.2 PLANNING ISSUES The coastal area of Santa Barbara County is an especially desirable., place to live@ People of all economic sectors have chosen to locate in this area, particularly in the urbanized areas of the South Coast, and this has created a wide diversity of life styles and housing needs.-- As housing cos.ts,have soared in recent years, accommodating the housing needs of all economic levels has become.an important local-Assue, evidenced by concern over rent control, interest in condominium conversions, and formation of housing cooperatives. The housing policies of the Coastal Act focus primarily on the needs of persons of low and moderate income. Within the County's coastal zone, substantial housing opportunities forlow and moderate income households currently exist in areas such as Summerland and Isla Vista; these opportu- nities need to be protected. In these and other segments of the coastal zone, new low and moderate.income housing units need to be provided as well..At present, the County is addressing the housing needs of persons of. low and moderate income primarily through the Federal rent subsidy program administered by the County Housing Authority and proposed housing rehabili- tation programs through Community Development Block Grant funding. Addi- tional, County housing policies for the coastal zone will be necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Coastal Act, as will be borneout in the following discussion of the housing issues and recommended policies for addressing them. Protecting Existing Low and Moderate Income Housing Opportunities The Coastal Act requires that existing low and moder ate income housing opportunities be protected. Many of these housing opportunities are found in multiple-unit apartment complexes and in older residential neighborhoods where the-housing stock, including both single family and multiple units, is often in poor condition. Removal of these housing opportunities, either through conversion of comparatively lower cost apartment r.entals to more expensive owner-occupied units or demolition of existing units, can displace low and moderate income people if adequate-housing alternatives are not available within the local area. -38- In several areas of the coastal zone from Ellwood to Carpinteria, e.g., Isla Vista, portions of Goleta, and Summerland, a large proportion of the existing housing stock is in need of major repair. This finding is based on a County-wide Housing Condition Survey'completed in June 1977, which provided,the County with an inventory of exterior housing conditions. According to this survey, forty-one percent (41%).of the single family residences in Summerland are in need.of rehabilitation.("C" condition; see Appendix A). These older, reparable dwelling.units which provide substan- tial housing opportunities for low and moderate income households need to be preserved. The County has received Community Development Block Grant funding to initiate a "Pilot" housing rehabilitation program in Summerland and Carpin- -teria -in 1980. These and other rehabilitation efforts need to be encour- aged to protect existing low and moderate income housing.opportunities. Demolition and Replacement of Existing Low and Moderate Income Housing Units Demolition of dilapidated housing ("D" condition) is sometimes required for health and safety reasons, resulting in the displacement of low or moderate income households. This is particularly a problem in rental situations. In some cases, replacement of the low and moderate -income units that have been removed is necessary to protect housing oppor- tunities. A determination.of the number of units to be replaced needs to be made on a case-by-case basis, reflecting the housing needs of the commu- nity. In other instances, a land use other than residential may be preferred following removal. For example, pockets of low income housing .off of South Fairview Avenue in Goleta are located under the flight line of the@airport and intermingled with commercial and industrial uses; because of health and safety considerations.ahd incompatibility with adjacent uses, commercial or industrial land use may be better here. In such cases, it will be necessary to replace the low and moderate income units that are removed-in other areas with comparable proximity to public'services and employment. Conversion of Existing Apartment Units to Condominiums Conversion of apartment units to condominiums can have the effect of decreasing rental opportunities for persons of low and moderate income. According to a recent housing study conducted for the South Coast area, low income households tend to reside in larger, multiple-unit apartment complexes (General Research Corp.',-An Evaluation of the Housing Market for UCSB Students, April 1977).-Conversion of tFese comparatively lower cost rental units to condominiums need to be carefully monitored to prevent displacement of low and moderate income persons, particularly on the South Coast where the vacancy rate for rental units is-very low. -39- (According to the 1975 Special Census, the average vacancy rate for the County was four percent. At'the present time, the vacancy rate on the South Coast is estimated to be close to one percent, based on the results of a survey conducted by the County Planning Department in the spring of 1978). In ApriI 1979, the County adopted an emergency condominium conver- sion,ordinance.: According to this ordinance, the County will deny a conversion which results in the involuntary displacement of any of the existing tenants within five years of approval. Encouraging and Providing for New Low And Moderate Income Housi ng According to the policies of the CoastalAct, new low and.moderate income housing shall be provided where feasible, in conformity with the goals and policies of the local housing element. The principal deterrent to implementing this policy is that the high costs of land and construction may preclude the building of units which are affordable to persons of low and moderate incomes. However, the need for affordable housing is presently a major issue County-wide and must be addressed in both the LCP and County's Housing Element. Other factors which need to be considered in determining the amount and,type of new housing in the coastal zone are the employment characteristics of.the market area and resource constraints. Affordability Overpayment, defined,by the Department of Housing and Urban 'Develop- ment as housing payments in excess of 25 percent of gross monthly income, is currently the most severe housing problem in Santa Barbara County for renters and owners. According to the 1975 Special Census, 47.4 percent of all rental households in the County,and 53.4 percent of the rental house- holds in the South Coast housing market area exceeded the 25 percent standard. A consistent pattern has.emerged throughout the County that low and moderate income households spend a larger proportion of their incomes for rent than do higher income families. Among the poorest households, those earning less than,$4,000 in 1974, the median proportion of.income spent as rent varied,from 43 percent to 100 percent of gross income. Also, households in multiple units pay a higher percentage of gross income for rent compared to households renting single family, 2-to-4 units, or mobile homes. In 19743, overpayment affected 21,000 households in the County with the very low income households accounting for 46.6 percent of these. Given the high incidence of overpayment among lower income house- holds on the South Coast,and, thus,, the need for affordable housing, inclu- sionary housing provisions and incentives for constructing new low and moderate income housing are needed.. Relationship with Employment Opportunities Employmentopportunitieslin housing market area play a large role in determining the type,of housing that is.needed. Thus,'the housing policies of the LCP must be related to the land use plan and its implications for -40- the future growth of the County. For example, Coastal Act priorities for the preservation of agriculture are reflected in the land use plan which establishes agriculture as a long-term land use. Such land use decisions will certainly sustain, if not increase, the demand for farm laborers and significantly impact the housing market for areas such as the City of Carpinteria. Construction of the LNG facility at Point Conceptfon or the space shuttle at Vandenberg Air Force Base would bring hundreds of construction workers to these coastal areas and greatly affect the demand for temporary and permanent housing in the County. Also, visitor-serving commercial uses, which are priority uses under the Coastal Act, provide many service-oriented jobs for low and moderateincome people. All of these potential employment effects need to be linked to their impacts on the housing market at the time new development is proposed. Resource Constraints Water moratoria currently are in effect for the Goleta, Montecito, and Summerland water districts. Thus, new housing in these areas is directly dependen@@on the use of private wells. In the Carpinteria County Water District,, a1imited water resource situation prevails and priorities for t-he remaining water supply need to be established. New development throughout the coastal zone must be tied to the availa@bility of resources and phased according to local plans for expansion of public services, i.e., water, sewer, and roads. 3.5.3 RELATIONSHIP TO THE COUNTY'S PROPOSED HOUSING ELEMENT The housing component of the Local Coastal Program builds upon the work that is currently being,done toward development of a Housing Element for the County's Proposed Comprehensive Plan. The LCP housing component draws as much as possible on the housing needs analyses and program recom- mendations that have been prepared to date in conjunction with the Housing Element 'since LCP and County housing policies must be in conformity. In addition, the housing component of the LCP focusses on housing opportuni- ties for persons of low and moderate income. To this end, special LCP needs analyses are reflected in the planning area discussions of the land use plan (Chapter 4). It should be noted that separate housing components are being prepared by the Cities of Santa Barbara and Carpinteria for their respective jurisdictions in the coastal zone. As outlined in preliminary drafts of the Housing Element, the County is divided into five housing market areas (HMA): Lompoc, Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, Cuyama, and the South Coast (Gaviota to the Ventura County line). Of these, the South Coast is the only market area in which major portions of the coastal zone are urbanized; and, within this market area, housing is a coastal planning issue for the urban area from Ellwood east to Carpinteria. The coastal zone west of Ellwood to Gaviota, through the Hollister and Bixby Ranches, and north to Guadalupe, is rugged and rural. Housing in this area is primarily incidental and necessary to agricultural operations. Therefore, in the LCP, the..coastal zone from Ellwood to the @41- Ventura County line is viewed as one housing market area within which existing low and moderate income housing opportunities are identified and deficiencies addressed. Housing issues for each planning subarea (Goleta', including Isla Vista and Hope Ranch; Montecito; Summerland; and the Carpin- teria Valley) are then evaluated in the context of the total market area. This approach has led to the formulation of general housing policies Which apply to the County's entire coastal,zone, as well as additional local policies and actions for individual planning areas. 3.5.4, POLICIES AND ACTIONS Policy 5-1: Affordable low and moderate income housing shall be defined as housing which is capable of being purchased or rented or is occupied by low and moderate income households (see Appendix A for definition of low and moderate income). A dwelling unit is capable of being purchased by a low or moderate income household if the total purchase price of the unit does not exceed three and one half (3.5) times the annual income of the low or moderate income purchaser for whom the unit is intended to provide a housing opportunity. A dwelling unit is capable of being rented by a low or moderate income household if the. monthly rental cost does not exceed 35% of the gross monthly .household income of the renter. However, these ratios may be adjusted from time to time to reflect lending practices., interest rates, association fees, and other changes which may affect the ability of low and moderate income persons to purchase or rent the units. 'Policy 5-2: To protect existing low and moderate income housing opportuni- ties, rehabilitation programs for areas in need shall be developed. Action The County shall identify areas which meet the requirements for government-funded rehabilitation programs, prepare the necessary applications for funding, and develop programs for implementation, including but not limited to a pilot rehabili- .tation program in Summerland.and Carpinteria effective 1979, through the use of Community Development Block.Grant funds which have been approved for this purpose. Policy 5-3: Demolition of existing low and moderate income housing of four or more units shall not be permitted unless: a. demolition is necessary for health and safety reasons, or b., the costs of rehabilitation of the units would result in housing costs which would not be affordable to low and moderate income households, or -42- C. the units to be demolished are replaced on a one-for-one basis. Where demolition is permitted, the County shall request that displaced tenants be given priority for public housing assistance programs or require other reasonable assistance in seeking comparable housing. Policy 5-4: Conversion of apartment complexes of five units or more to condominiums or stock cooperatives shall not be permitted where.50 percent or more of the units are rented by personsof low or moderate income who would be displaced by such conversion unless: a) comparable rental units are available within the same housing market area for displaced low or moderate income persons, as evidenced by a five percent rental vacancy factor for six months preceding conversion, and b) tenants have been given notice of intent to convert at least 120 days prior to conversion and first option to purchase the proposed condominiums, and two-thirds of the low or moderate income tenants have chosen to exercise .their purchase option; or c) the new monthly home ownership costs are affordable to low or moderate income households. Action 1. The applicant shall provide the County Planning Department with the following information: a) percentage of low or moderate income renters 18 months prior to the.proposed conversion, and b) the number of low or moderate income tenants who chose, to exercise the option to purchase one of the, condominium units. 2. The County Plann,ing Department shall determine the vacancy factor in the housing market area six months preceding conversion and the availability of comparable rental housing. . I Following these and other determinations that may be required for consistency with other provisions of this plan, the Planning Department staff shall recommend approval or denial of the project to the Planning Commission. -43- Pol icy 5-5: The Housing Element shall be included as a policy for new. construction in the Local Coastal Plan when said Housing Element is approved by the County. In the-interim, to the maximum extent feasible'. all new residential development of ten or more units shall include provisions for low and moderate income housing. The County shall determine which of the following alternatives for accomplishing this objective is most appropriate. a. The County may allow a density bonus not to exceed 25 percent of the total number of units,permitted under the land use plan to facilitate the inclusion of low and moderate-income housing. b'. If the County determines that inclusion of low and moderate income units is infeasible in the proposed/` development project, the County may require an in lieu fee for provision of low and moderate income housing at another appropriate location. c. In areas where the County finds that there is a critical need for low and moderate income-housing and that inclusion.of such housing in the development project could reasonably be accomplished given the density specified in the land use,plan, the location of the project, and other factors, the County may require the inclusion of low and moderate income housing as a condition of project approval. To ensure that the required low and moderate income housing remains affordable to persons of low and moderate income over. @.time, measures such.as;resale control, rental agreements, or deed restrictions shall be required for a period of no less than 25 years. Policy 5-6: In.large residential developments of 20 units or more housing opportunities representative of all socioeconomic sectors of the community shall be preferred. Such developments would include a range of apartment sizes (studios, one, two, three, and four bedroom units) and a mix of 'housing types (apartments, condominiums, and single family detached) to. provide for balanced housing opportunities, where feasible. Policy 5-7: Review and evaluation of proposed residential developments necessary to carry out the policies set forth in this housing component shall be performed by the planning analyst who is responsible for implementation of the.County's Housing Element. the duties of this staff position shall include: (1) staff analysis of proposed residential projects in the coastal zone to determine appropriate.incentives forthe applicant to construct new low and moderate income housing; (2) require- -44- ments or conditions for approval to obtain the necessary number oflow and moderate.income units; and,(3) mechanisms for ensuring that low and moderate inc ome units.are retained as affordable units over the long term. Policy 5-8: Administration of housing programs shall be shared and coordinated as much as possible.with,agencie.s such as the Area Planning Council a,,n'd'-County Housing A Iuthority to.avoid addi- tional staffing requirements and increased costs to the County. Policy 5-9: To provide for a balanced housing mix that will accommodate all economic segments of the.cbmmunity, review and approval of newdevelopment in the coastal zone, i.e., agriculture, coastal dependent industry, visitor-serving commercial, etc., shall include an assessment of its growth-inducing impacts on housing needs. The provision of adequate housingshould.be a necessary corollary to new growth-inducing developments. Policy 5-10: In the areas designated for commercial uses on the land use plan ma ps, residenti al'development shall be a permitted secondary.use subject to a conditional use,permit, and existing residential uses shall be considered permitted uses. rather than legal non-conforming uses. NOTE: An implementation program adequate to carry out the housing policies of the land use plan will be.prepared in conjunction with development of .the Housing Element of the County's Comprehensive,Plan. The implementation program will include required programs,and actions, identification of the responsible agency or agencies, and a.time frame for accomplishment. The housing component of, the Coastal Pla n will be brought into conformity with the Housing El-emont of the County's Comprehensive Plan following adop- tion of the Housing Element,.by the Board of Supervisors and approval bythe California Department of Housing and Community Development. -45- @3-6 INDUSTRIAL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT OUTLINE .3.. 61COASTAL ACT POLICIES The Coastal Dependency Criterion Oil and Gas Development 'Thermal Power Generating Plants Liquefied Natural Gas Other Coastal Dependent Industrial Uses 3.6.2 SUMMARY OF PLANNING ISSUES 3.6.3 OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT Background Planning,Issues and Scenarios Existing County Regulations for Oil and.Gas Development 3.6.4 LAND USE, PLAIN PROPOSALS Oil and Gas Wells Oil and Gas Processing Facilities Marine Terminals Pipelines Power Transmission Lines Piers and Staging Areas Other Coastal Dependent Industrial Facilities 3.6.5 THERMAL POWER PLANTS 3.6.6 LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS 3.6.1 COASTAL ACT POLICIES The Coastal Act, while emphasizinq Protection, enhancement,and restora- tio'n of coastal resources, recognizes that energy related development is necessary for the *social and economic well-being of the.State and the Nation. The basis for allowing energy development in the coastal zone is Section 30001.2, which states:. 30001.2. The Legislature further finds and declares that ' notwith- standing the fact electr.ical generating.facilities, refineries, and coastal-dependent developments, including ports and commercial fishing facilities, offshore petroleum and gas development, and liquefied natural gas facilities, may have significant adverse effects on coastal resources or coastal access, it may be necessary to locate such development in the coastal zone in.order to ensure that inland as well as coastal resources are preserved and that orderly economic development proceed,s within the state. -46- The Act also contains provisions for several types of energy develop-' ment, includi.ng oil and gas development, thermal power plants, liquefied natural gas, and@other related facilities. These policies are listed for .each of the major energy,facility categories in the following sections. The Coastal Dependency Criterion The Coastal Act policies addressing industrial development distinguish between coastal dependent and other development. According toSection 30101 of the Act, coastal dependent development or use means that "which requires a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all." Examples of coastal dependentenergy facilities include: oil and gas separation and treatment facilities supporting offshore petroleum develop- ment, marinelterminals, and liquefied-natural gas terminals. Onshore oil wells are not'considered to be coastal dependent since their functioning is dependent on a location near the oil resource, not the sea. Electrical generating plants and oil refineries may or may not be coastal dependent. Electrical generating plants which use ocean water for-cooling purposes must be at or near the coast, but plants can also use inland water supplies when available. For refineries, transportation costs for crude oil and refined,products dictate locations nearer end use markets rather than sources of supply; hence, locations in and near metropolitan markets are optimal. Since the principal metropolitan areas in California are coastal areas and many refiner'ies.receive imported oil by tanker, this leads to the coincident location of refineries in or near coastal areas. Under Section 30255, coastal dependent developments,, whether or not industrial, are given priority over other developments on or near the shoreline. In addition, Section 30260 of the,Act establishes special ..criteria for allowing coastal dependent industrial facil'ities. Section 30260 states that: 30260. Coastal-dependent industrial facilities shall be encouraged to locate or expand within existing sites and shall be permitted reason- able long-term growth whereconsistent with this division. However, where new or expanded coastal-dependent industrial facilities cannot feasibly be accommodated consistent with other policies of this divi- sion, they may nonetheless be permitted in accordance with this section and Secti.ons 30261 and 30262 if (1) alternative locations are infeasible or more environmentally damaging; (2) to do otherwise would adversely affect the publi,c. welfare; and (3).adverse environmental effects are mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. This section of the Act anticipates that industrial development may not be consistent with other Coastal Act policies, yet may be necessary for the public welfare. Additional policies for energy-related industrial develop- ,ment are included in Sections 30261-30264 of the Act., They are discussed below. -47-w Oil and Gas Development Oil and gas development is permitted in the coastal zone subject to the provisions of Section 30260 and the following conditions;, 30262. Oil and gas development shall be permitted in accordance with Section 80260, if the following conditions.are met: . (a) The development is performed safely and consistent with the geol'ogic conditions of the well site. (b) New or expanded facil.ities related to such development are consolidated, to the maximum extent feasible and legally permis,sible, unless consolidation will have adverse environmental consequences and will not significantly reduce thenumber of producing wells, support facilities, or sites required to produce the reservoir economically and with minimal environmental impacts. (c) Environmentally safe'and feasible subsea completions are used when drilling platforms or islands would substantial.ly degrade coastal visual qualities unless use of such structures will. result in substantially less environmental risks. (d) Platforms or islands will not be sited where a substantial hazard to vessel traffic might result from the facility or related operations, determined in consultation with the United States Coast Guard and the-Army Corps of Engineers. Ae) Such development will not cause or contribute to subsidence hazards,unless it is determined that adequate measures will be under- taken to prevent damage from such subsidence. (f) With respect to.new facilities, all oilfield brines are reinjected into oil-producing zones unless the Division-of Oil and Gas of the Department of Conservation determines to do so would adversely affect production of the reservoirs and unless injection into other subsurface zones will reduce environmental risks. Exceptions to rein@ jections will be granted cons@istent with the Ocean Waters Discharge Plan of the State Water Resources Control Board and where adequate provision is made for the elimination of petroleum odors.and water- quality problems. Where appropriate, monitoring programs to record land surface and hear-shore ocean floormovements shall be initiated in locations of new large-s cale fluid extraction on land -or near shore before, opera- tions begin and shall continue until surface conditions have stabilized. Costs of monitoring and mitigation programs shall be borne by liquid and gas extraction operators. In addition, the Act encourages,consolidation and multi-company use of facilities: 30261. (a) Multi-company use of existing and new tanker facilities shall be encouraged to the-maximum extent feasible and legally permissible, except where to do so would result in increased 'tanker operations-and associated onshore development incompatible with the land use and environmental goals.for the area. New tanker terminals outside of existing.termin.al. areas shall be situated as to avoid risk to.environmentally sensitive areas and shall Use a monobuoy system, -48- unless an alternative type of system can be shown to be environ- mentally preferable for a specific site. Tanker facilities shall be designed to (1) minimize the total volume of oil spilled, (2) minimize the risk of collision from movement of other vessels, (3) have ready access to the most effective feasible containment and recovery equip- ment for oilspills, and, (4) have onshore deballasting facilities to receive any fouled ballast water from tankers where operationally or legally required. The Act also requires that adequate.protection be provided against oil spills. ;Section 30232 states that: 30232. Protection aga.inst the spillage of crude oil, gas, petroleum products, or hazardous substances shall be providedlin relation to any devel,opment or transportation of.such materials. Effective contain- ment 6,nd cleanup facilities and procedures shall be provided for accidental spills that do occur.- Though refineries are not necessarily coastal dependent, their-loca- tion in coastal metropolitan areas may put them in the coastal zone. Section 30263 establishes criteria for locating refineries in the coastal zone: 30263. (a) New or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities not otherwise consistent with the provisions of this division shall be permitted if: (1) alternative locations are not feasible or are more environmentally damaging; (2) adverse environmental effects are miti- .gated to the maximum extent feasible; (3) it'is found that not permit- ting such development would adversely affect the public welfare; (4) the facility is not located in a highly scenic or seismically hazardous area, on any of the Channel Islands, or within or contiguous to environmentally sensitive areas; and, (5) the facility is sited so as to provide a sufficient buffer area to minimize adverse impacts on surrounding property. (b) In addition to meeting all applicable air quality standards, new or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities shall be permitted in areas designated as air quality maintenance areas by the State Air Resources Board and in areas where coastal resources would be adversely affected only if the negative impacts of the project upon air quality are offset by reductions in gaseous emissions in the area by the users of the fuels, or, in the case of an expansion of an existing site, total site emission levels, and site levels for each emission type for which national or state ambient air quality standards have been established do not increase. (c) New or expanded refineries or petrochemical facilities shall minimize the need for once-through cooling by using air cooling to the maximum extent feasible and by using treated waste waters.from inplant processes where feasible. -49- Thermal Power Generating Plants Siting of new or expanded thermal electri:c generating plants is addressed in Section 30264 of the Coastal Act: 30264. Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, except subdivisions.(b) and (c) of Section 30413, new or expanded thermal electric generating plants may be constructed.in the coastal zone if the proposed coastal site has been determined.by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission to have greater relative merit pursuant to theprovisions of Section 25516.1 than available alternative sites and related facilities for an applicant's service area which have been determined to be acceptable pursuant to the provisions of Section 25516. This section recognizes that the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission may decide to select sites in the coastal zone upon a showing that these sites have greater relative merit than available alternates,., This siting authority is limited within the coastal zone to areas not.designated by the State Coastal Commission under Section 30413(b), which states that: 30413. (b) The (Coastal) commission shall, prior to January 1, 1978, and after one or more public hearings, designate those specific loca- tions within the coastal zone where the location of a facility as defined in Section 25110 would prevent the achievement of the objec- tives of this diviston; provided, however, the speci fic locations that are presently used forsuch facilities and reasonable expansion there- of shall not be so designated. Each such designation shall include a description of the boundaries of such locations, the objectives. of this division which would be so affected, and detai led findings concerning the significant adverse impacts that would.-result from development of a facility in the designated area. The commission shall consider the conclusions, if any, reached by the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission in its most.'recently promulgated comprehensive report issues pursuant to Section 25309. The commission shall transmit a copy of its report prepared pursuant to this subdivision to,the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission. Liquefied Natural Gas Section 30261.(b) of the Coastal Act authorizes the siting of one liquefied natural gas facility in the California coastal zone. Since the passage of the Coastal Act, additional legislation (SB 1081) has deleted this section of the Act. Senate Bill 1081 mandated a complex siting procedure involving a number of agencies under the lead of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Discussion of this.is deferred to Section 3.6.6. -50- Other Coastal Dependent Industrial Uses The Coastal Act recognizes that other industrial uses are also coastal dependent. Those that the Act mentions specifically include ports and commercial fishing facilities. In addition, related activities, such as kelp harvesting and processing, aquaculture, and fish hatcheries, may also be considered.coastal dependent. Such uses, because they are coastal dependent, are given priority over other land use.s on oceanfront'lands (Section.30255). Other types of industrial uses (i.e., mineral extraction), which are dependent on resources which, occur within the coastal zone as well as else- where, are not considered to be coastal dependent. 3.6.2 SUMMARY OF COASTAL PLANNING ISSUES Oil and gas related development is currently the principal industrial activity in the Santa Barbara County coastal zone. Petroleum related acti- vity is expected to increase in the future as development of leases in the Channel proceeds. Although the Southern California Edison Company owns land east of Point Conception which it had intended for a power plant, a specific project is not likely to be proposed in the hear future. More recently, the Public Utilities Commission selected an area near Cojo Creek, immediately to the west of the Edison property, as the site for Califor- nia's first liquefied natural gas terminal. The issues involved in the siting of industrial and, particularly, major energy facilities in the coastal zone are complex. The principal concerns related to impacts on @coastal resources include: 1. Shoreline Access and Recreation.0pportunities: Facilities may impose barriers due to structures, fencing around the site, pier facilities across the beach, pipeline rights-of-way, and safety zones. These barriers. may impede lateral or,,vertical access to the shoreline, block views, or consume limited oceanfront land. 2. Oil Spills: The critical concerns are with safe operating procedures in all aspects of the exploration, development, and production process, plus cleanup capability which considers containment and recovery at the source of the spill and at critical resource areas such as beaches and coastal habitats. 3. Land Resources: Coastal dependent development unless carefully sited can result in destruction or adverse impacts on habitats, agricultural lands, or archaeological sites. 4. Air Pollution: The effect of emissions on local air quality from marine terminals, oil and gas separation and treatment facilities and LNG may be substantial. Emissions from these facilities are regulated by State and Federal law.@ -51- 5. Visual Resources:- Energy and industrial facilities, particularly when .sited in rural areas or within view corridors, represent major impacts on scenic and visual resources. 'Some impacts can be mitigated through proper siting, screening, and landscaping. 6. Marine Resources: Energy facilities that may Irequire ocean water for cooling or heating purposes, i.*e., power plants and LNG terminals, can have major adverse impacts on marine resources through entrainment of organ,isms in water intake systems, through discharge of water at a different temperature, and through use of biocides. The following sections consider each of the energy and industrial facility categories separately, and develop the issues and objectives which are addressed in the.land use plan. Due to the County's greater.experience and regulatory control.ove*r oil.and gas development, recommendat'ions made for oil and.gas developm ent are far more detailed.than for othir energy facilities such as LNG or thermal power plants. 3.6.3 OILAND GAS DEVELOPMENT Background Onshore oil production in Santa Barbara County is predominantly located north of the Santa Ynez Mountains, with the highest production coming from Cat Canyon, Orcutt, Lompoci and Santa Maria fields. Onshore production in the coastal zone is presently limited to a few locations. In contrast with levels of production from inland fields and from State and Federal waters, onshore production in,the coastal zone is low and declining. One area in the coastal zone where increased activity may be a possibility in the immediate future is the Guadalupe Dunes,:where Union and Husky hold leases. Santa Barbara County has a long history of offshore@oil and petroleum activity, and is.currently subject to increasing offshore development with State leases granted on 37 tidelands parcels and Federal leases granted on, 68 tracts in the Channel portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Most of these leases have undergone or are experiencing some degree of exploration, development, or production. An additional 54 tracts, almost, all of which are located in the Santa Barbara Channel, were recently sold in lease sale #48. Santa Barbara Channel production is currently about 45,000 barrels of oil and 30 million cubic feet of gas'per day. Serving these leases are 13 offshore platforms, 42 subsea wells, 5 marine terminals, and numerous,oil and gas pipleines. Twelve onshore separation treatment facilities, two of which are in Ventura County, process all the-offshore production from the Channel. Offshore oil development is in the,process of expansion with increased activity both in Federal waters and in the St'ate Tidelands. Both Arco and Union are resuming.activity in the State Tidelands near Isla Vista and Point Conception., respectively. Exploratory drilling is now underway for tracts sold in lease sale 48. Proposed,lease sale #53, tentatively scheduled for 1981, will affect areas north of Point Conception. -52- The potentials for significant adve 'rse environmental impacts resulting from oil development expansion are of great concern locally. The develop- ment of the Outer Continental Shelf may be one of the factors that could prevent the County from meeting National Ambient Air Quality Standards unless stringent steps are taken to control vapor emissions from tanker loading and unloading operations., Air quality.degradation could signifi- cantly impact coastal agriculture and be detrimental to the tourist industry and health of certain segments of the population, such as retirees. The recent OCS.Lands Act amendments gave the Interior Department jurisdiction over OCS-related emissions. When reviewing OCS projects to determine consistency with the approved coastal management program for California., the State Coastal.Comm.ission will consider, among-other things, the effect of acti.vities proposed under those plans on the attainment of State a@d_National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Whi'le 'regulations regarding tanker loading or unloading exist, the County is concerned about the greater-likelihood of major oil spills, resulting from increased tanker traffic in the Channel and from thecumula- tive effects of daily operations such as loading, unloading, and equipment cleaning, on the marine and beach environments. Natural seeps also contri- bute to air quality degradation. A key problem the County faces in planning for energy development is its lack of jurisdiction over oil and gas development in the State Tide- lands and OCS. County Control over activity in State and Federal waters is limited to regulation of onshore facilities used for drilling, process .ing, storage, and transshipment of oil an.d.gas, and enforcement of air quality standards for emissions from platforms and marine terminals@ within the three-mile limit. Along wit h the problems associated with lack of County jurisdicti on, over oil and gas development, local planning for energy facilities is hampered by lack of precisedata regarding future development. Oil companies assert they are unable to anticipate their future activities and facilityneeds beyond three years With any certainty. Many areas in the channel are still being explored and lease sale #53 has yet to be held. Increases in the selling price of oil make some oil fields profitable that were previously uneconomical to produce. Evolution i.n technology directly affects bo.th the location of wells and the methods of production, .processing, and transportation., All of these factors suggest that long range planning must occur with a framework of much uncertainty. -53- Planning Issues and Scenariosi Oil and gas is currently produced in three areas: onshore, in the State Tidelands, and in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). OCS production is the largest (36,600 barrels per day) and has the greatest potential. . State Tidelands production i*s relatively small by,comparison, and declining (7,600 B/D). Onshore production within the coastal zone is declining and insignificant by comparison (440 B/D). By contrast, onshore production in the North County fields is 37,700 B/D. Issues surrounding each of these producing areas are examined separately. 1. Onshore Production in the Coastal Zone Onshore production in the coastal zone is presently limited to the Thriftway wells just south of the Santa Maria River, Union wells at'Govern- ment Point, the Shell wells near El Capitan, and the Aminoil, wells at Ellwood. Production at these facilities is low and has been historically declining. In planning for onshore oil production, it is necessary to distinguish among three subregions: a) the urbanized South Coast between Rincon and Ellwood; b) the South Coast between Ellwood and Gaviota; and c) the North Coast between Gaviota' and the Santa Maria River. These three subregions reflect different land use patterns, zoning designations and regulations, and oil resource development patterns. 'The South Coast between Rincon and Ellwood has seen*considerable activity in the early days of oil exploration and development. Summerland in particu- lar was an extremely active area. These areas were exhausted under the technology of that time. With urbanization over the past 30 years, and changes in land use patterns, oi,l drilling came under increasing restric- tions and prohibitions. Neither the Cities of Santa Barbara and Carpin- teria nor the unincorporated area of Montecito allow oil drilling under existing zoning. Within the unincorporated area surrounding Carpinteria, fIn order to estimate the need for additional land and/or facilities to accommodate production from onshore fields, State Tidelands, and OCS, it was necessary to develop planning scenarios for each of these areas. In the scenarios, certain assumptions are made regarding the timing and levels of future production and the implications for onshore facilities. The projections used in this plan are based on estimates prepared by the Office of Planning and Research, United States Geologic Survey, and Bureau of Land Management. It must be emphasized that there are problems in discussing capacities in this generalized way. This is done only to paint a rough picture of the implications of one production scenario and to provide a reference point for further discussion. -54- the "0" designation (Oil Drilling Combining'Regulations) of the County zoning ordinance is attached to many of the residential, commercial, and agricultural designations, but bears no relation to known oil fields or past oil activity. The South Coast between Ellwood and Gaviota has experienced major increases in recreati-onal use in recent years. Additional areas have been designated for public acquisition by the State Department of Parks and Recreation. At one time, there was considerable oil and gas development activity along this portion of the coast. This is still where the bulkof the oil and gas facilities in the Santa Barbara coastal area is located. These facilities generally relate to offshore fields rather than onshore production. With declining production, many of these facilities have been functioning with considerable excess capacity. Onshore production in this arei-,I@. currently limited to the Shell Capitan wells and Aminoil wells at Ellwood. The North Coast between Gaviota and the Santa Maria River is the most likely area in the coastal zone for increased onshore producti.on. Antici- pated development in the Guadalupe Dunes area may conflict with protection of habitats and scenic and visual resources. Union Oil is currently opera- ting facilities in the Government Point area; however, these facilities relate to production in the State Tidelands. 2. State Tidelands Production Oil and gas extraction has been declining historically in the State Tidelands, though it may increase temporarily, depending on improved market conditions and use of enhanced recovery techni.ques. OPR has suggested a production scenario for the State Tidelands area which includes expanded production at Summerland, Carpinteria, and at South Ellwood fields. These are the fields OPR believes are capable of increases and where operators have taken steps to increase production. Sufficient surplus capacity exists at the Chevron plant at Carpinteria to accommodate anticipated increases in the Summerland and Carpinteria fields. ARCO is currently expanding its existing facilities at Ellwood to meet new anticipated levels of production from its State Tidelands leases. Recently, Union Oil has announced plans to begin exploratory drilling in its leases offshore of Point Conception. Substantial surplus capacity exists in other processing facilities presently handling production from the State Tidelands. It is not evident that additional sites will be needed to process oil and gas from the State Tidelands, though existing facilities may have to be modified to meet new emission standards or handle increased production. Anticipated impacts of this increased production on local coastal resources are limited. The volume of production expected from the State Tidelands will be small in comparison to production in the Outer Continen- tal Shelf. Practices currently followed by the County in concert with area operators are consistent with the Coastal Act and recommendations made by OPR. Of special note are the consolidated facilities at the Getty marine -55- terminal at Gaviota,. the joint use of ARCO and Aminoil. facilities at Ellwood, joint, use of pier facilities, and multiple company use of gas transmission lines. 3. Federal OCS Production Oil and gas production is expected to increase substantially in the Federal OCS, peaking in 1990 according to a scenario developed by the State Office of Planning and Research. The OPR scenario was developed for use by the@Joint Industry/Government Pipeline Working Group in assessing the feasibility of an onshore pipeline to transport crude oil as an alternative to tanker transport. Of immediate concern is the production that will take place in the Channel, which includes the Channel portion of lease sale #48 plus production from existing Federal leases. The Outer Banks portion of lease sales #35 and #48 is not included in the OPR scenario, as the produc- tion is expected.to be tankered to refining areas, with limited or no impacts on onshore facilities in the County. Two alternate tanker scenarios,-neither of which includes am onshore pipeline, have been developed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in its lease sale #48 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Under the 100 percent tanker scenario, very limited quantities of crude, if any, would come onshore in Santa Barbara County for treatment. This pattern is illustrated by Exxon and its proposed offshore separation and treatment facility for the Hondo field. One consequence of this scenario would be the probable reinjection of gas, although gas could be brought ashore, or liquefied at the platform site and transported by tanker. Pacific Offshore Pipeline Company, a subsidiary of Pacific Lighting Corporation and affiliate of the Southern California Gas Company, plans to build a gas processing facility at Las Flores Canyon to handle. Exxon's production from Hondo. An alternate scenario with tanker shipment at 25 percent and piping to shore facilities at 75 percent was also consideredin the EIS. Under'this scenario, it was assumed that the oil- will be piped to Ventura County for onshore processing. Thust as far as a need for additional processing sites is concerned, neither tanker scenario in the EIS for-lease sale #48 indicates heavy impacts on the County. At most, one staging area of about six acres might be needed, primarily for personnel and-supplies transfer. Other major facilities accompanying oi-1 and gas development., especially platform fabri- cation yards, service and staging areas, and pipe coating yards, would probably continue to function where they are currently sited. If crude oil does come onshore for processing, it would be important to determine how much additional processing capacity would be neeeded over and above capacities of existing facilities. The present surplus capacity of existing processing facilities at Chevron-Carpinteria, Phillips-La -56- 'Conchita, and Mobil-Rincon totals 109,000 B/D, and could accommodate'almost all of peak East Channel production under the OPR scenario including production from lease sale #48, even if all of the crude were' brought onshore. Under a 75 percent onshore piping scenario, no additional surplus capacity wouldb6 needed at peak operating conditions. These are only ballpark figures, and,overlook the impact that differing crude character-. istics and ownership arrangements may have on actual processing capabili- ties. Projections for the West Channel area are open.to some speculation, particularly with the eventual processing location of Exxon's Hondo produc- tion. Exploration has already begun in the West Channel, though production is not yet underway. No onshore facilities exist at present for,processing crude from OCS production in the West Channel. Total production projected from the West Channel under the OPR,scenario, including existing leases as well as lease sale #48 areas, peaks at 118,000 B/D by 1991. If all Channel production is considered as an aggregate under a 75 percent onshore pipeline scenario, and an onshore pipeline is assumed, linking East and West Channel areas, an addItional 60,000 B/D of processing capacity would be needed.somewhere. This is equivalent to the present capacity of the Mobil-Rincon plant. While the onshore impacts due to production' activity,from OCS produc- tion, including lease sale #35, Jease sale #48, and existing Federal leases, may be low, total impacts from direct and indirect activity connected with these leases may be significant. By the peak period of activity (1985-1986), the EIS projects-that 3,200 people will be employed directly or indirectly in,oil activity related to these lease sales, This employment will induce employment in other sectors of the economy and result in the need for housing and other services,. (Refer to the County's Proposed Comprehensive Plan for a more detailed analysis of County-wide land use impacts.) Existing County Regulations for Oil and Gas Development. Currently, the County regulates oil and gas production facilities with a policy statement, Zoning Ordinance No. 661, and the Petroleum Ordinance No. 2795. County Zoning Ordinance No. 661 regulates the permitted loca- tions for the drilling and processing of oil, gas, and other hydrocarbons. In general, production is permitted by right in the U_"Unlimited Agricul- tural" District, AG-"General Agricultural" District, and in any district subject to the '.'OV combining regulations. In-any district with@the "0" combining regulations attached.to the base zone, oil production may be permitted subject to securing a -permit from the,County Planning Commission and a processing facility may be permitted subject to obtaining a Condi- tional Use Permit. "PM" (Planned Manufacturing) zoning is required for all oil and gas processing facilities serving offshore development, and imposes tight 57- controls over the design of the facility. Since the "PM" designation must be applied for, this designation effectively requires a rezoning for every processing plant. If such zoning is not consistent with the generalplan, then a general plan amendment must also be applied for. Once the applica- tion has been accepted by the Planning Department, it is reviewed concur- rently by the Department of Environmental Resources, which performs the environmental impact assessment, and other County agencies (APCD, Parks, Planning,.Petroleum Administrator, Public Works,,etc.) to determine confor- mance with other County policies. The Planning Department prepares a, report based on these reviews for the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission then acts@ on the application.and sends the matter to the Board of Supervisors for final action. Before building permits are issued, the. applicant must submit a precise plan which incorporates controls required by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. Petroleum Ordinance No. 2795 and its amendment (Ordinance No. 2832) contain technical conditions for oil drilling activities in the County. The Ordinance regulates drilling, prdducing, operating, and abandoning wells, pipelines, tanks, and associated equipment; requires a performance bond; and establishes requirements for erosion, pollution, fire, and.safety hazards. In addition, No. 2832 defines standards for emissions and for monitoring emissions, including alert and emergency shutdown procedures. 'One potential conflict may exist between the Petroleum Ordinance and the Coastal Act. Under the Ordinance, additional wells drilled in existing oil fields identified on Division of Oil and Gas maps are not subject to environmental review. The Board of Supervisors recently reaffirmed this polity, though the Board requested a separate study for the Guada.lupe.Dunes area, where Husky Oil has applied for a permit to drill and Union Oil is considering,similar activity. The potential conflict arises over the location of sensitive habitats in the Dunes area'which are protected under the Coastal Act and impacts caused by additional oil drilling. The existing,Petroleum Ordinance may need to.be modified. to reconcile this potential conflict. Three possible administrative approaches may reconcile the conflict: (1) giving any major, project in the coastal zone (including the Dunes) major project status requiring environmental review, regardless of,whether or not it is in an existing field; (2) excluding the Santa Barbara Co'unty portion of the , Guadalupe Dunes oil field from the list of fields exempt from.environimental review; or (3) requiring development on the Dunes to meet specific perfor- mance standards In 1967, the County adopted a "Statement of Policy Relative to the location of Onshore Oil Facilities.," which is its most definitive response to the OCS program. The Policy applies to all applications from Point Conception to the Ventura County line, extending inland to the ridge line of the Santa Ynez Mountains, and to the three-mile limit offshore. In intent, the "Statement of.Policy Relative to the the Location of Onshore Oil Facilities" is consistent with Coastal Act policies because it recog- -58- nizes both the need for onshore sites for oi 1 and gas handling and the necessity of preserving recreational and scenic coastal resources. It requires that each application for an onshore facility for the purpose of.handling oil or gas production (i.e., marine terminals, tank farms, oil and gas processing facilities) be considered on the basis of: Appearance of the facility from the surrounding areas; impacts of noise, vibration, odor, air pollution, visibility, lighting, traffic, grading, flood and erosion control, pub.lic safety, and land and@water pollution. Presently, the Policy favors "no more than one additional marine terminal." It discourages any tank farms or processing facilities within three miles of any existing facilities and prohibits refining. It only supports expan- sion of existing facilities onto adjacent land, provided all other criteria of the Policy are met. In addition, it encourages consolidation of facili- ties (in keeping with Section 30261 of the Coastal Act) on existing s'ites or on adjacent land as an alternative to the establishment of new separate sites. 3.6.4 LAND USE PLAN PROPOSALS The land use plan must specify where, when, and under what conditions energy related and other coastal dependent industrial facilities may locate within the County's coastal zone. The locational is,sues are resolved.in two ways. A separate land use designation, Coastal Dependent Industry, handles uses which require locations on or near the sea in order to be able to function at all. As is current County practice, the land use plan also permits many energy related facilities such as pipelines, transmission. lines, and oil wells.under othe r land use designations. Table 3-1 sh ows which facilities are permitted in each of the land use designationse Phasing of energy facilities could result in increased protection of coastal resources through use of consolidated facilities coupled with a more even resource recovery schedule. This would lead to an overall reduc- tion in oil spill potential, less air pollution, and fewer facilities. However, phasing would require cooperation of government agencies at all levels with energy,companies, and changes, Iin existing pr'actices and regula- tions. Resolution of those issues is beyond the scope of the Local'Coastal Program. Finally, the land use plan must specify conditions under which energy and coastal dependent industrial development will be permitted. As Santa Barbara County agencies have developed experience over the years with oil and gas operations, relatively few modifications are needed to make local regulations consistent with the Coastal Act. In the following sections, policies are recommended for most categories'of energy and coastal depen- dent industrial uses. Discussion of issues and recommendations for thermal power plants and LNG terminals is included in Sections 3.6.5 and 3.6.6, respectively. In.addition to conformance with the specific energy and industrial policies in the following sections, all energy and coastal _59- dependent industrial de velopment will have to meet the standards set forth in all other applicable policies of the land use plan. Oil and Gas Wells Oil and gas production is regulated under the County's Petroleum Ordinance No. 2795 (as amended by Ordinance No. 2832). This Ordinance incorporates provisions of other administrative units, including the Division.of Oil and Gas and the Water Quality Control Board. Regulations cover drilling, producing, operating and,abandonment; petroleum wells, pi,pelines, tanks, and_associated equipment; erosion; pollution; fire hazards; and, finally, require a performance bond. Operations on the site and impacts of operation on adjoining land uses are covered by the County Zoning Ordinance No. 661, under several sections. These sections regulate setbacks, well density, removalof equipment, piers, safety equipment, erosion, plantings, dust and other emissions, color of structures, duration of daily operation, and general appearance. While the existing ordinances'are generally consistent with the Coastal Act, they need to be clarified in a few instances to sharpen their protec- tion.of resources located in the coastal zone. The Petroleum Ordinance does not distinguish between exploratory well:s and production wells. However, the cumulative impacts due to production wells spread over an area are different than those of one exploratory well. Should oil be discovered, and additional production wells established ' the Oil Combining Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance mandate.th'at drilling .s,ites (which may contain more than one well) not be any more dense than one per ten acres. This practice of concentrating production in small.islands and employing directional drilling is consistent with reducing environ- mental impacts. In an' application before the Regional Coastal Commission, Husky Oil entered a proposal for a drilling site in t,he Guadalupe Oil Field * As the application was for a project in the Guadalupe Dunes, an important coastal habitat, the Regional Commission wanted the equivalent of an environmental review done,,which the County did 'not require for projects in established oil fields. Husky withdrew its application. Two principles are at work here. First, it makes little sense to permit an exploratory well at a site where, for a variety of reasons, production wells would not be desirable. Second, to assess whether development would be acceptable requires an analysis of the site,'other facilities, coastal resources, and potential buildout. In short, a preliminary assessment of potential impacts needs to begin at-the point of exploration, as the exploratory well could end up being a production well And, potentially, part of a clustered or other development, if oil were found in paying quantities. This initial assessment.could be handled by a preliminary plan, submitted at the time of application for permit.to drill an exploratory -60- TABLE 3-1 PRINCIPAL LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS Mountainous Areas Coastal All Agriculture and All Rural All Other Dependent Other Communi ENERGY RELATED ACTIVITIES I II Open Lands Commercial Residential Residential Industrial Industrial Faciliti 1. Exploratory wells P CCUP CCUP P CCUP 2. Onshore oil development, P CCUP CCUP P CCUP including wells, pipe- lines, storage tanks, processing facilities, and truck terminals 3. Processing facilities P for offshore.oil development, including marine terminals 4. Thermal power plants 1 5. LNG Terminal I 6. Pipelines and related P P P P P P P P P facilities, i.e., pump stations 7. High voltage trans- CCUP CCUP CCUP CCUP, CCUP CCUP CCUP CCUP CCUP mission lines 8. Piers, staging areas CCUP CCUP P 9. Aquaculture CCUP CCUP CCUP P P 10. Underground gas storage 2 and related facilities, i.e., compressor stations, gas wells, and pipelines KEY P = perm7tted use as long as all standards set forth in-land use plan policies are met CCUP = requires conditional use permit in the coastal zone 1 2 County jurisdiction over power plants and LNG terminals has been preempted. Underground gas storage a permitted only at their existing location on the Pacific Lighting property in Goleta. well. If additional wells are drilled in the same lease area, a detailed development plan could then be required. Should any of the projects under the lease.be subject to CEQA, the development plan would serve as an impor- tant source of information. Where Oil and gas wells are permitted in Coastal Dependent Industry and Agriculture II designations and are conditionally permitted uses in Moun- tainous Areas, Open Lands, Rural Residential, and all other Industrial classifications'(refer,to' Table 3-1). Policies The existing Petroleum Ordinance is generally consistent with the Coastal Act, and shall be-incorporated, with some.m odifications, within the land use plan. The following modifications are proposed: Policy 6-1: To assist the Petroleum Administrator in granting permits for petroleum wells in the coastal zone, a.plan shall be prepared by the applicant and approved by the County. This plan shall consist of an Exploratory Plan for an exploratory well and a Development Plan for development wells. The purpose of the Exploratory Plan is to enable the Petroleum Administrator to make a.preliminary assessment of potential coastal resource impacts, since the-presence of oil or gas, andits depth and location, would be unknown. The Exploratory Plan would be less detailed than the Development Plan, but would address the same issues as the Development Plan. Policy 6-2: The Devel opment Plan shall accompany the application for permit filed with the Petroleum Administrator. It shall be reviewed annually by the Petroleum Administrator and updated as needed or when additional changes-in facilities or operating condi- tions are proposed and accepted. The Development Plan shal-1 consist of the following: a. A plot plan of the entire area under lease or ownership, showing relationship of proposed facilities, including location of well(s) to ultimate potential development. b. A map (1" = 50') showing relationship of proposed facili- ties to other buildings, structures, and/or natural or artificial features, including habitats, prime agricultural land, recreational areas, scenic resources, and archaeo- logical sites within 1,*000 feet of the well(s). c. A plan for eliminating or substantially mitigating adverse impacts on habitat areas,.prime agricultural lands, -62- recreational areas, scenic resources, and archaeological sites due to siting, construction, or operation of facili- ties. d. An oil spill contingency plan.indicatihg location and type of cleanup equipment, designation of.r6sponsibilities for monitoring cleanup, disposition of wastes, and reporting.of incident. e. An analysis of the potential for consolidation of facili- ties, including clustering of wells on production islands, but especially for consolidation with other operators. f. A phasing plan for the stagi,ng of development which indi- cates the-approximate anticipated t.imetable for project installation, completion, consolidation, and decommission- ing. Policy 6-3: All oiland gas development in.areas designated as environmen- tally sensitive habitats in the land use plan shall be subject to environmental review.2 Policy 6-4: Upon completion of production, the area affected by the drill ing, processing, or other related petroleum activity, shall be appropriately,contoured, reseeded, and landscaped,to conform with the surrounding topography and vegetation. Policy 6-15: Future projects for increas,ing or modifying Production at the Shell Capitan or Thriftway oil wells shall be permitted only if the net overall impact of production on coastal visual resources is improved. In particular, the impact of storage tanks and.pumping equipment on visual resources shall be miti- gated by appropriate measures such as siting, depression below grade, and vegetative screening. Oil and Gas Processing Faci-lities The County currently has twelve oil and gas processing facilities located i@ the coastal zone, two of which are not in operation (Texaco--St. Augustine and Texaco--Gaviota.) Seven of these facilities process oil and gas from offshore fields and are therefore coastal dependent (Union--Pt. Conception, Arco--Gaviota, Chevron--Gaviota, Shell--Molino, Phillips--Taji- guas, Arco--Ellwood, and Arco--Coal Oil Point). Due to declining produc- tion in the State tidelands, most facilities are functioning with consider- 2This policy is subject to'change pe Inding the outcome of a special study of the Guadalupe Dunes. -63- able excess capacity. These sites may be needed in the future to process oil and gas from development in the Channel. Where Existing areas currently in coastal dependent oil and gas development are designated as Coastal Dependent Industry in the land use,plan. Oil and gas processing facilities are encouraged to expand within these existing sites rather than opening up of new sites. In addition, it is recommended that the County designate the Exxon site at Las Flores for Coastal Depen- dent Industry, provided that any development conform to all policies and standards in this plan. If Las Flores is developed, it will require a pipeline corridor passing through the coastal zone. In accordance with existing County procedures and regulations, processing facilities.required for production from onshore oil wells are permitted in Agriculture II as well as on sites designated as.Coastal Dependent Industry, and are conditionally permitted uses in several other land use classifications (refer to Table 3-1). Policies3 Policy 6-6: If new sites for processing facilities to serve offshore oil and gas development are needed, expansion of facilities on existing sites or on land adjacent to existing sites shall take precedence overopening up additional areas, unless it can be shown that the environmental impacts of opening up a new site are less than the impacts of expansion on or adjacent to existing sites. Consideration shall also begiven to economic feasibility. Policy 6-7: The sections of the Petroleum Ordinance, Ordinance No. 661, and "Statement of Policy Relative to the Location of On-Shore Facilities" that address oil and gas processing facilities are hereby incorporated by reference in the land use plan. Policy 6-8: If an onshore pipeline for transporting crude oil to refineries is determined to be technically and economically feasible, proposals for expansion, modification, or construction of new coastal dependent oil and gas processing facilities shall be conditioned to require transshipment of oil through the pipe- line when constructed, unless such condition would hot be feasible for a particular operator. 3After certification of the LCP, any new processing facility for offshore oil or gas, not on a site designated for Coastal Dependent Industry, will require an amendment to the LCP. -64- Policy 6-9: Applicants for oil and gas processing facilities shall prepare and keep updated emergency response plans to deal with the potential consequences of hydrocarbon leaks or fires. These emergency response plans shall be,approved.by the County's Emergency Services Coordinator and Fire Department. Marine Terminals The County has permit jurisdiction over those portions of a marine terminal that are on land (i.e., pipelines, storage tanks) exce'pt where the portions of a marine terminal which are seaward of the mean high tide line are regulated by the Coast Guard and the State Lands Commission. Further, the County's "Statement of Policy Relative to the Location of On-Shore Oil Facilities" favors no more than one additi-onal marine terminal along the South Coast. While the existing policies and regulations appear consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act, policies addressing the location of new marine terminals need to be clarified in two aspects: (1) the status of marine terminals if an onshore pipeline proves to be feasible, and (2) the impact of lease sale #53 on the need for marine terminals between Point Conception and the Santa Maria River. Where Landward support facilities for existing marine facilities are desig- nated as Coastal Dependent Industry on the land use plan maps. These include Union--Cojo Bay, Getty--Gaviota, and Aminoil--Coal Oil Point. In the case of the Exxon--Capitan marine terminal,, the storage tanks are now located north of U.S. 101 on a site which.is highly visible from,the high- way. The land support facilities for this marine terminal should be relo- cated to Las Flores Canyon, which is recommended for designation as Coastal Dependent Industry. Policies Policy 6-10: All relevant sections of Ordinance No. 661, the Petroleum Ordinance, and "Statement of Policy Relative to the location of On-Shore Oil Facilities" are hereby incorporated by reference. Policy 6-11: If an onshore pi@eline is determined to be technically and economically feasible, existing marine terminals shall become, after a specified period, non-conforming uses. Crude oil shall be transported by pipeline, unless the County makes the 4 The County's only granted Tidelands are in Carpinteria. The existing Chevron marine terminal in Carpinteria is under the jurisdiction of the City. -65- finding that transshipment of oil by pipeline is not feasible for a particular operator. Policy 6-12: Due to scenic and natural, resources in areas between Point Conception and the Santa Maria River, marine terminals-are not considered at present as appropriate development in that area. If activity under lease sale #53 results in a need for marine terminal(s).in the North County, detailed studies shall be undertaken to determine appropriate location(s). Policy 6-13: The onshore facilities associated with the Exxon--Capitan marine terminal shall have legal non-conforming use status. Above-ground facilities shall be moved to the Las Flores site when this site begins.operation for oil processing and existing structures removed. Pipelines Technical performance for oil and gas pipelines is governed by Federal regulations administered through the Federal Department of Transportation. However, in California the Public Utilities Commission has the responsibil- ity for administering the Federal regulations covering Public Utility pipe- lines. County Zoning Ordinance #661 currently exempts minor pipelines from permit requirements except in areas zoned "BD"--Beach Development. Major pipelines are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. After certifica-. tion, pipelines will need to'be reviewed for conformance to the land use plan policies. However, permits shall not be required for pipelines exempted from coastal development,permits under Section 30610 (c) and (e) of the California Coastal Act of 1976 as defined by the Interpretive Guide- lines on Exclusions From Permit Requirements adopted by the State Coastal Commission on September 5, 1918. Pipeline routing poses a number of problems,wh"ich may threaten coastal resources, particularly if the pipeline must be routed through habitat or recreation areas. Here, the threat is twofold: damage.may occur during construction arising,from habitat loss, erosion, disruption of nesting or other biological cycles- or from damage occurring during operation,.due to spills caused by breaching of the lihe. Where Pipelines are permitted uses in most land use classifications. Refer to Table 3-1. Policies The following policies shall apply.to all pipelines on land and associated facilities (i.e., pump stat ons) except that Policies 6-18 and 6-19 shall not apply to gas pipelineN 5The gas transmission line proposal to carry gas inland from the LNG terminal at Pt. Conception is exempted from Coastal Commission and County approvals by the LNG Terminal Act of 1977. -66- Policy 6-14: Except for pipelines exempted from coastal development permits under Section.30610(c) and (e) of the Coastal Act as defined by the State Coastal Commission's Interpretive Guidel,ines, a survey shall be conducted along the route of any pipeline in t,he coastal zone to determine what, if any, coastal resources may be impacted by construction and operation of a pipeline. The costs of this survey shall be borne by the applicant. ,(This survey may be conducted as,a part of environmental review if an E.I.R. is required for a particular project.) The survey shall be conducted by a consultant selected jointly by the applicant, the County, and the Department of Fish and Game. If it is determined that the area to be disturbed will- not revegetate naturally or sufficiently quickly.to avoid other damage, as from erosion, the applicant shall submit a revegetation plan. The-plan shall also include provisions for restoration of any habitats which will be disturbed by construction or operation procedures. For projects where a revegetation plan and/or habitat restora- tion plan has been deemed necessary, one year after completion of construction, the area crossed by the pipeline shall be resurveyed to assess the effectiveness of the revegetation and restoration plan. This survey shall continue on an annual basis to monitor progress in returning the site to pre-con- struction conditions or until the County feel� no 'additional progress is possible. The County may require the posting of aperformance bond by 0 the applicant to ensure compliance with these provisions. Policy 6-15: Herbicides shall not be used during pipeline construction and sidecasting of soil may be restricted, when deemed necessary, by removal of excess soil to an approved'dumping site after the excavation has been backfilled and compacteds. Policy 6-16: The pipeline shall be sited and constructed in such a manner as to inhibit erosion. Policy 6-17: When feasible, pipelines shall be routed to avoid important coastal resources, including recreation, habitat, and archaeological areas. Policy 6-18:' For pipeline segments, passing through important coastal resource areas, including recreation, habitat, and archaeo- logical areas, the segment, in the case of a break, shall be isolated by automatic shutoff valves. -67- Policy 6@-19: Unavoidable routing through recreation, habitat, or archaeo- logical areas, or other areas of significant coastal resource value, shall be done in a manner that minimizes the impacts of a spill, should it occur, by considering spill volumes, d:urati.ohs,-and trajectory. Appropriate measures for cleanup or structures such as catch basins to contain a spill shall be included as part of an oil spill contingency plan.. Electric Transmission Lines6 The Cal.ifornia Public Utilities Commission and California Energy Commission are the agencies responsible in the area of electric trans- mission lines which includes technical and safety.performance an 'd environ- mental concerns. All electric transmission lines proposed for the coastal zone are developments.under the Coastal Act, thus the County will have permit review over them after certification. The only exception is -electric transmission lines proposed as part of a new electric power plant being reviewed by the California Energy Commission. The Warren-Alquist Energy Resources.Conservation and Development;Act of 1975 exempts new power Plants with capacity greater than 50 megawatts and electric transmission lines connecting such plants to the existing electricity transmission system from local government permit authority, and the Coastal Act.exempts them from Coastal Commission permit authority (Section 30264). While impacts from erosion, grading, and the operation of equipment may occur during construction and result in damage to coastal land resources and habitat areas, the primary concerns are associated with overhead electric transmission lines and their long-term impacts on views and visual resources. Visual impacts are particularly severe in unde- veloped areas, especially the foothills and upland areas, and along the coastal,terrace. Mitigating measures are 1.1mited at this time to alternate route locations and undergrounding'of lines, which is expensive. Where. Refer to Table 3-1. Policies Policy 6-20: Transmission line rights-of-way shall be routed to.minimize impacts on the viewshed in the coastal zone, especially in scenic rural areas, and to avoid locations which are on or near habitat, recreational, or archaeological.resources, when- ever feasible. Scarring, grading, or other vegetative removal 6Refer to Sections 3.3 and 3.4 for policies regarding electric distribu- tion lines. -68- shall be repaired, and the affected areas revegetated with plants similar to those in the area to the extent safety and economic considerations allow. Policy 6-21: In important scenic areas, where above-ground transmission line placement would unavoidably affect views, undergrounding shall be required where it is technically and economically feasible unless it can be shown that other alternatives are less environmentally damaging.. When above-ground facilities are necessary, design and color of the support towers shall be compatible with the surroundings to the extent safety and economic considerations allow. Piers and Staging Areas Chevron maintains a staging area, including a pier, near its treatment facility in the City of Carpinteria, which it shares with Union, Sun, and Phillips. Arco and Exxon use the Aminoil pier at Ellwood for personnel transfer to platforms Holly and Hondo. The State Lands Commission, which has jurisdiction over this pier, has. agreed to a plan developed by Arco and Exxon to remove part of the pier and rehabilitate the remainder. 0 Where Piers and staging areas are permitted uses in areas designated for Coastal Dependent Industry and conditionally permitted uses in Agriculture 11 and k-ural Residential cl.assifications (refer to Table 3-1). Policies Policy 6-22: All existing piers and staging areas sh all be permitted to function where they currently exist. Expansion on adjacent sites and/or upgrading of facilities shall take precedence over construction of new facilities. Policy 6-23: The piers at Goleta Beach County Park and Gaviota State Park are intended primarily forrecreational use. Other uses may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit if they do not conflict with recreational use. Policy 6-24: At such time as piers are no longer needed for petroleum operations, the County shall be given the right of first refusal. The piers shall not be dismantled or sold to private parties unless the County Board of Supervisors has determined that the pier is not needed for recreational uses in the foreseeable future, or decides not to purchase it. Other Coastal Dependent Industrial Facilities Aquaculture has become an increasingly impo'rtant.coastal dependent industry. Aquacultural activities range from oyster and abalone culture to -69- f i sh hat cheries and fish farms. Significant contributions from both private and public sector enterprises to the State's economy are purrently resulting from the production of salmon, trout, catfish, baitfish, and oysters. The importance of this industry 'is expected to increase because of expanding demand for food in general and because of declining yields of the world's fisheries. Aquaculture sytems can be characterized as either extensive or inten- sive. Extensive aquaculture describes the cultivation of low density popu- lations of aquatic animals i,n large aquatic systems that naturally meet nutritional and environmental needs. Intensive aquaculture usually refers to an artificial growing system such as ponds, raceways, or tanks where supplemental feeding and environmental manipulation is necessary. The facilities can range from simple ponds or suspending shellfish on strings in the water from rafts to mass intensive production operations involving algae ponds, raceways with thousands of trays of shellfish in them, and processing-buildings and laboratories. Access to salt water can be.by dikes, channels or wells. The acreage required can range from one or two to about one hundred if many large ponds are needed as in the raising of prawns. At present, the only commercially viable intensive marine aquacul- ture practiced in California is in the production of molluscan seed stock such as oysters and clams. However, abalone and salmon culture and other species undergoing research and development may become commercially impor- tant in the near future. Aquaculture is subject to multiple 'regulations governing food, health, effluent discharge, water quality, and navigable waters. Most of these regulations were intended to control other activities and pre-date the development of a viable aquaculture industry. In some cases, it can be demonstrated that these regulations have deterred the growth of the industry. Government agencies at the regional, State, and Federal levels are beginning to respond to some of the problems facing the industry and legislation is being enacted that will clarify some of these regulatory problems. Senate Bill 52, the-California Aquaculture Development Act, is a State response to investigate the current and future status of the industry within the State. The Coastal Act recognizes the importance of coastal dependent activi- ties, such as aquaculture, and.gives priority to uses which require sites on or adjacent to the sea (Section 30255). However, the Act also encoUrages coastal dependent industrial activities to locate or expand within existing sites (Section 30260). Within the unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County coastal zone, there are no aquaculture facilities at present. At one time there was a facility near Tajiguas but it has been closed down. Where Aquaculture that is coastal- dependent is a permitted use in the Coastal Dependent Industry and other industrial classifications. It is a conditionally permitted use in several other-land use classifications (refer to Table 3-1). -70- Pol icies Policy 6-25: Aquaculture facilities located in areas designated as rural on the land use plan maps shall be sited and designed to be compatible with the natural surroundings. To minimize impacts on coastal visual resources, structures shall be well- screened, and depressed below grade when feasible. Intake and outfall lines for ocean water shall beundergrounded unless not feasible for a particular operation,.i.e., salmon culture. If above-ground channels or pi@pes are necessary, adequate provisions for lateral beach access shall be required. 3.6.5 THERMAL POWER PLANTS There are many issues associated with siting power plants in the coastal zone. Power plants have significant environmentalimpacts asso- ciated with their construction and operation. Power plants require considerable land for siting and have impacts on visoual resources due to their size. Cooling water intake and outfall systems affect organisms through entrainment and changes in ambient water temperatures. Labor requirements during construction have impacts on the local economy, housing, roads, and other public services. The California Energy C ommission (CEC) has siting authority for thermal power plants in California. However, the CEC may not locate new or expanded power plants in the coastal zone in areas designated for exclusion by the Coastal Commission without first obtaining approval from the Coastal Commission. Section 30413.b of the Coastal Act requires the Coastal Commission to designate specific locations in the coastal zone where siting of a power plant would prevent achievement of coastal resource protection goals. Commission staff conducted a siting study in an effort to ensure protection of areas with significant coastal resources. Factors considered in the Commission siting study include: parks,and proposed land acquisition areas, cultivated prime agricultural land, wetlands, marine resources, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, areas of scenic and visual quality, and areas with inadequate public services. Other factors, such as air quality, and seismicity, which affect the coast in general, were not used as criteria in rejecting specific areas of the coastal zone. The Coastal Commission adopted designations on September 5, 1978. Under the provisions of Section 30413.c, these designations are required to be updated every two years. The Coastal Commission recently amended the original designations as part of their biannual review. The maps showing the areas designated for exclusion are on file at the Coastal Commission. The Coastal Commission has designated most of the County's coastal zone for protection from power plant siting. However, most of the coastal terrace north of Highway 101 between Gaviota and Ellwood remains undesigna- ted. -71- In addition to designating areas for -power plant exclusions, the Coastal Commission still retains authority under Sections 30413.d and e of the Coastal Act to participate with the CEC in sitings of coastal power plants outside the exclusion zones. Here the Coastal Commission must .analyze applications and file a suitability report regarding'siting at th,e selected location. Factors which the Coastal Commission must consider are defined in Section 30413.d of the Act. 3.6.6 LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS Section 302'61.b of the Coastal Act authorizes siting of one liquefied natural gas facility in the California coastal zone. Since the passage of the CoastalAct, additional legislation (SB 1081) has deleted this section of the Act. Senate Bill-1081 mandated a complex siting procedure invol.ving a number of agencies under the lead.of,the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), with a decision to be made not later than July 31, 1978. On that date, the CPUC recommended issuance of a conditional permit for Point Conception, pending the outcome of,further study of seismic hazards and maritime conditions. It is anticipated that these studies will be completed in 1980. At that time, a final permit would be issued unless the findings indicate hazards that clannot.be mitigated by proper design of the facility. Coastal Commission participation' in the siting process has been limited to study of potentialsites and ranking of sites based on potential impacts on Icoastal resources. Camp Pendleton was selected by the Coastal Commission as theleast environmentally damaging site, followed by Rattle- snake Canyon, Point,Conception,.,and Deer Creek in Ventura County. The Commission also recommended conditions to the CPUC for these sites. In selecting Point Conception, the CPUC made the findings.that new,gas supplies would be needed in California by 1983 and that selecti 'on of sites other than Point Conception would result in curtailment of gas supplies to high priority users. The CPUC also determined that a permit could not be issued at the other sites based on considerations of public health, safety, and welfare, thus posi,ng problems if the Point Conception site turns out to be infeasible due to hazards. Three planning issues face.the County in framing a response to an LNG facility at Point Conception. These are: 1) maintaining the population density requirements of the LNG Terminal Siting Act; 2) ensuring compatible land uses in adjacent areas; and 3) developing strategies for the protec- tion of coastal resources which may be impacted by the proposed terminal. 1. Population Density Under the LNG Terminal Siting Act, local government must restrict development which fails to conform to the distance and population density provisions of the Act. These provisions are.to be implemented by local government and the Coastal Commission through the LCP., In addition, the CPUC may,imposereasonable terms and conditions in the permit so that the -72- population density requirements are met. Further, the applicant may use the power. of eminent domain to acquire property to achieve or maintain the required population density. Under SB 1081, the population density shall not exceed (a) 10 persons per square m'ile within one mile of the site, and (b) 60 persons per square mile within four miles of the Isite. This translates roughly into 27 resi- dents within one mile and 1,800 residents within four miles of the site. Current population levels are,three resident 's within one mile of the site and 72 within four miles. Under current zoning, maximum buildout would allow 183 residents within one mile and 1,552 residents within four ,miles, using a liberal average of 2.7 persons per dwelling unit. The actual per dwelling unit occupancy average for Hollister Ranch is 1.-6 persons per dwelling unit. I The only problem posed by current zoning is for parcels within one mile of the site. Under the lowest density zoning designation currently in effect, which'allows one dwelling unit per 100 acres, the population within one mile under maximum buildout would be limited to 55 persons (assuming 2.7 persons per household). Under the land use designation proposal in this plan for the area (Agriculture II - 320 acre minimum parcel size), potential buildout would be well within the density requirements of SB 1081. 2. Proposed Land Use Designations for Point Conception Area In keeping with the development and agricultural policies of the Coastal Act, the plan designates the proposed LNG site and the area surrounding it as Agriculture.II. This designation allows most agricul- tural activities and requires a minimum parcel size of 320 acres. Other uses which are permitted under this designation are oil well drilling and production, as long as performance standards are met. Other kinds of land uses which could,be permitted in this area that are consistent with the Coastal Act and with the requirements of the LNG Terminal.Actinclude coastal dependent industrial uses, i.e., oil and gas processing facilities and aquaculture. Union Oil currently has some facilities in this area as a result of drilling activity in the State Tidelands. The land use plan designates one small area west of Cojo Creek that is currently used by Union as Coastal Dependent Industry. The Coastal Commission has already determined that this portion of the County's coastal zone is inappropriate for power plant sites due to the presence of impor- tant coastal resources. No other proposals for other coastal dependent uses, i.e., aquaculture, have been advanced, though kelp harvesting now occurs offshore in this area., Industry that would makeuse of waste cold has been suggested for coupling with the LNG facility in the event that.it is sited near.Point Conception. With the uncertainty surrounding siting at Point Conception$ -73- the unde monstrated feasibil,ity of cryo-utilization at.this site, as well as the incompatibility of industrialization with the rural character o ,f this coastal area:, no recommenda'tions.are r@ade for such uses in this plan. A speci.fic pro,posal in the future could be handled by an amendment to the land use plan. 3. Strategies to.Reduce Impacts The remaining issue is the assessment of the impact of the proposed LNG facility, as conditioned by the CPUC,.,on the ability of the land use plan to achieve the objectives of the Coastal Act. Since the CPUC did not accept or weakened several of the conditions proposed by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors, the County may experience impacts from construction and operation of a facility that might have been avoided. Despite these setbacks, the-County can Attempt, where possible, to minimize any impacts that may result from construction or operation of the facility. In the coastal zone, the principal land use issues facing the County are: 1)*the locati -on of housing for construction workers, and 2) provision for recreation and.access in thevicinity of the site. Special studies will need to be-undertaken by the Cou nty to adequately respond to these antici- pated impacts if the facility is.sited at Point Conception. Rec.ommendations If the LNG facility is sited,at Point Conception, the following policies shall take effect: 1. The LNG fac,ility site shall be given a Coastal Dependent Industry designation. .2. The Agriculture II land use designation shall be retained for the area Vithin four miles of the 'site perimeter during-the life of the 'project. 3. Residential densities under the Agriculture II designation for areas within one and four miles of the site perimeter shall.be established to meet the population density requ-irements of the Terminal Siting Act. 4@. In areas not yet subdivided, any residential development, including subdivision of land, shall not be allowed to occur which violates the population density requirements of the Terminal Siting Act. 5 Industrial land uses which claim a relationship to the LNG facility, by nature of waste cold utilization, are to be judged on their merits at the'time of proposal. No provisions are made in the land use plan at this time for their inclusion. NOTE: .1. Under the Federal Coastal Zone,Management Act, the State Coastal Commission now has "consistency" review overFederal activities, -74 permits, OCS plans, licenses and grants that affect land and water uses in.the Califor nia coastal zone.' A Federal agency or appli- cant for a Federal permit must first certify to the Commission that the.proposed development is consistent with.the California Coastal Management Program as approved by the Secretary of Commerce. If the Commission objects to specific parts of the development as not being consistent with the Program, then Federal activity cannot take place unless the Coastal Commission's objec- tions are overriden-through a special procedure. The Coastal Management.Program consists primarily of the Cal-ifornia Coastal Act of 1976. The Program states that.LCPs, when certified, will serve as'one basis for the.Coastal,Commission's consistency deter- mination, but that the'.State Coastal Commision will retain the primary authority for evaluating projects and activities subject to the Fed0ral,6onsi,stency determinations (page 85, CCMP). 2. Under the provisions of Section 30603.a (5) of the Coastal Act, any action taken by a local government on a coastal,dev *elopment permit application for a major public works project or major energy facility is appealable.to the State Coastal. Commission. A major" facility is defined as one costing more than $25,,000, -75- 3. 7 COASTAL ACCESS AND RECREATION 3.7.1 COASTAL ACT POLICIES The public's right of access to all beach areas below the ordinary high water mark (mean high tide line) is guaranteed by the California Constitution. The Legislature, in passing the Coastal Act, did not alter .these basic public rights but did establish a policy framework for achieving the goal of providing maximum opportunities for public use and enjoyment of the coast. Coastal Act policies which-address the issues of access and recreation include the following: .3U21U. In carrying out the requirement of.Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicu- ously posted, and recreational.opportunities shall..be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners and natural resource areas from overuse. 30211. Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea where acquired through use, custom, or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation. 30212. Public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast shall be provided in new development projects except where (1) it is inconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or the protection of fragile coastal resources; (2) adequate access exists nearby, or; (3) agriculture would be adversely @@affected. -Dedic'ated accessway shall not be required to be opened to public use until a public agency or private association agrees to accept responsibility for maintenance and liability of the accessway. Nothing in this division shall restrict public Access nor shall it excuse the performance of duties and responsibilities of public agencies which are required by Section&.6.6478.1-66478.14, inclusive, of the Government Code and by Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution. 30212.5 Wherever appropriate and feasible, public facilities, including parking areas or facilities, shall be distributed throughout an area so as to mitigate against the impacts, social and otherwise, of overcrowding or overuse by,the public of any single area. 30213. Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities,and housing opportunities for persons of low and.moderate income shall be protected,, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments providing public recreational opportunities ate preferred... 76- 30220. Coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities that cannot readily be provided at inland water areas shall be.protected for such uses. 30221. Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for.recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for public. 'or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property is already adequately provided for in the area. 30223. Upland areas necessary to support coastal.recreational uses shall be reserved for such uses, where feasible. 3.7.3 -.PLANNING ISSUES The'County of Santa Barbara spans 110 miles of shoreline of which only 20.4 miles (18.5 percent) are publicly owned beaches (refer to Table 3-2). The coastline*provides a diversity of topography and vegetation (i.e., sand dunes, rocky headlands, wide sandy beaches) and supports a range of recreational uses, including surfing,.dune buggies, sunbathing, swimming,, and nature study. These beaches, in addition to receiving extensive use by local residents,,provide popular desti,nation points for visitors. The issues and background data related to recreation and access have been summarized in draft reports which are on file in the County Planning Department; therefore, only a summary Of the key issues is presented below. (A more detailed discussion of the issues for each planningarea is presented in Chapter 4.) Capacity Use of Existing Facilities Existing beach parks.owned by the County and State are being used to capacity, especially during summer weekends. At times of peak demand, existing facilities are insufficient to accommodate recreational needs and people are turned away. Moreover, County and State recreational demand projections indicate that facility deficiencies exist for most recreation activities. These deficiencies are expected to increase due to growth in population, tourism, and the popularity.of many coastal dependent or related recreational activities. Consequently, a program of land acquisition and facility development needs to be implemented if demand fo,r coastal recreation is to be satisfi'ed. Variety of Recreational Opportunities Historically, County and State recreational planning has concentrated on providing beach parks which include a high level of service, such as parking, restrooms', snack bars, picnic tables, camping facilities, etc. Current use of undeveloped coastal areas which are not in public ownership indicates that there is public demand forrecreational areas that,may not require the full range of services supplied at existi,ng beach parks. _77-, TABLE 3-2 COASTLINE IN.SANTA BARBARA COUNTYt JURISDICTION AND PUBLIC OWNERSHIP I Jurisdictional Breakdown County of Santa Barbara .60.9 Vandenberg Air Force Base 37.0 University of California (UCSB) 2.5 U.S.A. (Point Conception) .8 City of Santa Barbara 6.3 City of Carpinteria 2.5 Total Coastline 110.0 Miles Publicly Owned Beaches State of California 11 3 County of Santa Barbara 5.02. City of Santa Barbara 3.8 City of Carpinteria .3 Total Coastline 20.4 Miles The Channel Islands are excluded. 2 Includes coastline'at VAFB which is accessible to the public. A/ Local Versus Out-of-County Recreational Needs The State Department of Parks and Recreation isa major supplier of coastal recreational opportunities in Santa Barbara County (refer to Table 3-3). Most State park developments along the coast provide.a high level of amenities, including facilities for campers and.trailers. Generally, over- night use of these facilities is by out-of-County users, particularly those living in the Los Angeles metropolitan-area. Provision of recreation for these out-of-C.ounty users needs to be balanced with local day.use demand for recreation, particularly in those 'instances where beathes.historically used by local residents are acquired by the State. Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Frequently, recreation areas are sited near environmentally sensitive habitat areas, i.e., estuaries, sand dunes. Lack of staff to properly . safequard these habitat resources has resulted in recreational trespass in. some habitat areas, i.e.,,Ocean Beach and Rancho Guadalupe County Parks. :Educational signs and fencing may be needed to ensure preservation of habitat values. In some areas, limitations on the amount and kinds of recreational activities may be necessary' incompatible Recreational Uses In several areas of the County, there is competition among conflicting .recreational uses of limited shoreline areas, i.e., Haskell's Beach, Guada-_ lupe Dunes. For example, surfing and swimming are frequently -incompatible activities. Off-road vehicle use.of beaches poses hazards for pedestrian use of the same area. Such conflicts need to be.resolved so that coastal ,recreational areas can support a range of activities,without the hazards associated with incompatible uses. Restoration.and Enhancement of Coastal Recreational Areas 'Lack of public jurisdiction, vandalism, and overuse have contributed to the physical and visual degradation of some coastal areas used for recreational pursuits. Littering, trampling of vegetation, ORV trespass, and vandalism occur adjacent to some County Parks (i.e., Ocean Beach, Rancho Guadalupe) as well as.areas not contiguous to public parks (i.e., TajigUas Beach, Haskell's Beach, Loon Point, Santa Barbara Shores/Ellwood, More Mesa). These areas need improvements (i.e., re-vegetation, trash cans, stairways) to restore their full recreational value.. Need for Access Corridors to Beaches There is a need for more accessways to the County shoreline, particu- Aarly in the South Coast urban area.*. There.are several areas where public access easements exist, or have been offered., which have not as yet been improved, signed, and officially, opened for public use. In other areas *Table 3-4 lists existing vertical easements providing shoreline access. _79- TABLE 3-3 EXISTING COASTAL PARK FACILITIES Beach Fronta Parking Camper Acreage (linear feet?e Capacity Sites STATE PARKS Point Sal 49 4,800 101 0 Gaviota 2,775 27,500 100 59 Refugio 90 14,100 100 85 El Capitan 133 9,420 420 147 Total 3,047 55982U MO T@T COUNTY PARKS Rancho Guadalupe2 26.0 180 18 Jalama 28.0 1,710 30 105 Ocean Beach3 36.0 18,480 50 Goleta Beach 29 0 3,004 600 Arroyo Burro 6:3 601 159 Lookout 3.4 680 74 Rincon 9.4 1,380 100 Isla Vista4 1.4 240. 0 Total 139.5 T6,275 1,047 105 1 The parking lot at Point Sal is unimproved so actual. capacity is unknown. 2Guadalupe Park has two parts. Only figures for the oceanfron t parcel are used. 3The beach areas adjacent to Ocean Beach Park are owned by Vandenberg Air Force Base, therefore beach frontage figures are for the areas to which the public is allowed unrestricted access (subject to VAFB determination). 417he Isla Vista Beach is on top of a high bluff and no access to the beach is currently provided. t@e @@T h e is -80- TABLE 3-4 EASEMENTS PROVIDING VERTICAL.ACCESS TO SHORELINE Area Street Isla Vista Camino,Majorca Isla Vista Camino del Sur Isla Vista Camino Pescadero Isla Vista El Embarcadero Montecito Eucalyptus Lane Montecito Butterfly Lane, Montecito* Edgecliff Lane (Hammonds) This easement was acquired by the County in 1973 but has not yet been improved. -81- where prescriptive rights exist, the County has not acquired'the necessary easements to ensure continued public enjoyment of these beaches. For example, there are approximately 25 beaches between Gaviota and Rincon which are commonly used by the public where the adjacent upland ownership is private. At a minimum, access corridors to these shoreline areas need to be established in order to guarantee continued accessibility of these beaches for the future. Access corridors also need to be provided between the nearest public road and coastal areas, which support specialized recrea- tional pursuits (e.g., surfing spots along Hollister Ranch). Need for Non-Auto De endent Access to Coastal Areas Many coastal areas of Santa Barbara County that have outstanding recreational, scenic, and natural-resource values are inaccessible due to lack of roads or trails, as well as private ownership. While it would not be desirable to open up these.areas to intense recreational use, limited access is needed. Alternatives for increasing opportunities for recrea- tional use of coastal lands without jeopardizing the integrity of natural resources and scenic values need to be expl,ored. In other areas serviced by roads, the coastal shelf between the public road and ocean is too narrow to provide for parking. Consequently,@there is a need for trails for hiking, biking,-and equestrian use to provide increased opportunities for coastail.access and recreational use. Limited Public Funds Provision of access and recrea tion'opportun ities is expensive. While the major share of public funds goes to the acquisition, improvement, and maintenance of park facilities, other costs include liability insurance and the loss of tax dollars. Some.of these costs can be recovered by user fees. The State has charged fees for use of its facilities for several years and the County is now considering similar action. These fees may present barriers to use of public beaches by persons of low and moderate incomes. Public acquis'ition of.oceanfront lands, however, is not necessarily the only avenue available for increasing opportunities for coastal access and recreation. 'Other less costly measures include: purchase of ease- ments, recreational preserves, etc. Frequently, acquisition of upland area is not necetsary; all t'hat.is needed is an access corridor to connect a public road to the beach. Such corridors can often be acquired as a condi- tion of development for adjacent property. The County, if it is to achieve the State-mandated goal of maximum access and recreation, will have to rely on these alternative methods for providing access and recreation..* -82- 3.'7.3 RELATED ISSUES Relationsh ip of LCP to Countyand State Recreation*Planning Some overlap of responsibilities exists between the LCP, County Park Department, and the State Department of Parks and Recreation in planning for recreation and access in the coastal zone. The mandate of the LCP, as defined by the Coastal Act, is to provide maximum-opportunities for access and recreation consistent with the protection Iof natural resources. The State and County Park Departments, in addition to responsibility for acqui- sition of parks, are required to prepare detailed master plans for facility development. Preparation of master,plans for individual park units is beyond the scope of the LCP and the mandate of the Coastal Act. However, the policies and.recommen'dations developed by the LCP are essential for establishing a framework for facility'planning in the coastal zone by. County and State agencies. Issues of particu,lar importance in the coastal zone are ensuring that (1) environmentally sensitive..habitat areas which are sited near existing ,or.proposed recreational areas are protected, and Q) coastal dependent and related recreational uses are given priority in the coastal zone.. Recreational Carrying Capacity The Coastal Act goal of providing maximum opportunities for recreation is clearly subservient,to the goal of protecting natural resources, partic- ularly environmentally sensitive habitat areas. However, many existing and proposed recreational areas are.adjacent to sign.ificant habitat resources, i.e., wetlands and sand dunes.- The conce pt which provides a framework for. resolution'.of these conflicting coastal goals is that of recreational carrying capacity. Recreational carrying capacity is the type of use that can be supported by an area developed at a certain level over a specified time without causing environmental-damage or adversely affecting the experience of the visitor. Recreational carryi.ng capacity is composed of three compo- nents: environmental, facility,@and social capacities. Environmental capacity refers.strictly to the level of use that can be tolerated by the physical environment, i,ncluding.all plant and animal species, without degradation or damage. Facility capacity refers to the level of use which the built environment can withstand and social capacity to the level of activity most acceptable to the participant. In terms of weighing these .components,.the Coastal Act (Sections 30210 and 30212) gives priority to environmental.capacity as a constraint in determining appropriate intensi- ties and kinds of recreational use's for a site.' While quantification and measurement of recreational carrying capacity is difficult, sufficient information exists.to generally describe the environmental carrying capacity of various coastal environments. For -83- example, dry sandy beaches can tolerate intense recreational tise without adverse effects. Dunes, on the other hand, are perhaps the most fragile of coastal habitats. Dune vegetation cannot tolerate even foot traffic; .therefore, activities should be limited to scientific or educationaluses. The carrying capacity of uplands and bluffs is dependent on the kinds of plant communities and animal species present. Bluffs are also subject to erosion from heavy foot traffic. Tidepools are extremely fragile environ- ments; the principal impacts of recreational uses are trampling and collecting of specimens. Wetlands and streams are also vulnerable to degradation from recreational activities, particularly trampling of vegeta- tion, erosion, and disturbance of animal species. Coastal Dependent and Related-Recreational Activities The Coastal Act requires that coastal areas suited for water-oriented recreational activities be protected for such uses (Section 30220). There- fore, it is necessary to distinguish between recreational activities that require coastal locati-ons and those that do not. For the purposes of this plan, therefore, the following definitions are used: 1. Coastal dependent recreation: Activities which require a coastal location in order to occur, i.e., ocean swimming, surfing, scuba diving,, fishing, boating, beach activities, and nature study. 2. Coastal related recreation: Activities which are popu)ar in coastal locations but also occur inland, i.e., ORV's (dune buggies), picnick- ing, bicycling, walking, jogging, and camping. 3. Non-coastal dependent recreation: Activities which are unrelated to a coastal. location, i.e.,,basebalT, basketball, bowling, go1f, swimming. (pool),,tennis, ORV's (motorcycles), 'etc. 3.7.4 POLICIES Local policies and recommendations are intended to provide the frame- work for implementation of the Coastal Act goal of providing maximum oppor- .tunities for.access and recreation. The policies are intended to establish guidel-ines regarding: 1) dedication of appropriate access easements in private development; and 2) appropriate kinds, locations, and intensities of recreational development by public agencies and private developers. In addition, new recreational development has to meet all other applicable standards and policies included in this plan. Policies of particular importance are those related to habitat protection (Section 3.9) and hazards (Section 3.3). - General policies (7-1 thru 7-8) are followed by a set of specific policies and recommendations designed to increase opportunities for access and recreation in each of the planning areas. These recommendations are summarized in Table 3-5. Many of these sites have already been targeted -84- TABLE 3-5 SUMMARY OF LCP ACCESS AND RECREATION PROPOSALS Planning Area Location Recommendati ons Carpinteria Carpinteria bluffs Vertical access corridor Padaro Lane Vertical access corridor Beach Club Drive Vertical access corridor Summerland Loon Point Moderate use recreation area Wallace Avenue Moderate use recreation area Montecito Miramar Beach Vertical access corridor Hammonds Meadow Vertical access corridor Channel Drive Moderate use recreation area Goleta More Mesa Moderate use recreation area .Orchid Lane Vertical access corridor Univ. Exchange property Moderate use recreation area Gaviota Coast Haskell's Beach Coastal park Dos Pueblos Moderate use recreation area Edwards Coastal park Tajiguas Moderate use recreation area Arroyo Hondo Vertical access corridor Wiada de Guillermo Vertical access corridor CaNda del Molino Vertical access corridor Ca?fada San Onofre vertical access corridor North Coast Gaviota to Jalama Trail system Point Sal to Guadalupe Trail system Jalama Expand County Park 'Guadalupe Provide access to Mussel Rock Refer to policies and planning area discussion in Chapter 4 for details. Vertical Access Corridor: easement to connect public road to beach, bike racks, possibly a few parking spaces, light recreational use. Moderate Use Recreation Area: areas where some limited facilities such as parking and restrooms may be provided where appropriate; intended for day use mostly by local residents. Coastal.Park: a major park facility that would be used by local residents and also may serve as a destination point for out-of-County users, would provide a range of amenities and possible include overnight camping facilities. for acquisition by the County Park Department and State Department of Parks and Recreation as shown in Table 3-6. In addition, existing and proposed access areas are depicted on the land use plan maps. A schedule for acqui- sition of these sites will be developed during the zoning and implementa- tion phase of the LCP. Policy.7-1: The County shall take all necessary steps to protect and defend the public's constitutionally guaranteed rights of access to and along the shoreline. At a minimum, County actions.shall include: a) Initiating legal action to acquire.easements to beaches and, access corridors for wh.ich prescriptive rights exist consistent with the availability of staff and funds. b) Accepting offers of dedication which will increase oppor- tunities for public access and recreation consistent with the County's ability to assume liability and maintenance costs. Policy 7-2: For all development between the'first public road and the oceangranting of an easement to allow vertical access to the mean high tide line* shall be mandatory unless: a) Another more suitable public access corridor is available or proposed by the land use plan within a reasonable distance of the site measured along the shoreline, or b) Access at the site would result in unmitigable adverse impacts on areas designated as "Habitat.Areas" by the land use plan, or c) Findings are made, consistent with Section 30212 of the Act, that access isinconsistent with public safety, military security needs, or that agriculture would.be adversely affected, or d) The parcel is too narrow to allow for an.adequate vertical access corridor without adversely affecting the privacy of the propert@ owner. The County may also re quire the applicant to improve the access corridor and provide bike racks, signs, parking, etc. *The mean high tide line (ordinary high water mark) is an ambulatory line which may vary over time as a result of climatic and other influences. The line is the normal or average inland extent of tidal influence. -86-1 TABLE 3-6 PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS: COUNTY AND STATE Location Approximate'Acreage State (Funded acquisitions): Refugio--Expansion westerly to Arroyo Quemado 40 El Capitan-l-Expansion easterly to,Edwards Ranch 285 Haskell's Beach--Partial acquisition 23 County (Proposed parks, not funded): Ellwood--Haskell's Beach and.Ellwood Pier 59 Ellwood--Santa Barbara Shores (east of Sandpiper). 292 Goleta--More Mesa 86 Montecito--Hammonds Meadow 22 Summe,rland--Wallace Avenue (Serano Beach) Carpinteria--Loon Point 57 -87- This policy shall not apply to the following kinds of develop- ment: replacement of structures destroyed by natural disas- ters, remodeling of existing structures, repair and mainte- nance activities as defined in Section 30610 of the Act, or development incidental to an existing use on the site. Policy 7-3: For all new development.betw'een the first public road and the ocean, granting of lateral easements toallow for public access along the shoreline:shall be mandatory. In coastal areas, where the bluffs exceed five feet in height, all beach seaward of the base of the bluff shall be dedicated. In coastal areas where the bluffs are less than five feet, the area to be dedicated shall be determined by the County. At a minimum, the dedicated,easemen't shall be adequate to allow for lateral access during periods of high tide. In no case shall the dedicated easement be required to be closer than 10 feet to a residential structure. In addition, all fences, no trespassing-signs, and.other obstructions that may limit public lateral access shall be removed as 'a condition of development approval.' Policy 7-4: The County, or appropriate public agency, shall determine the environmental carrying capacity for all existing and proposed recreational areas sited on or adjacent to dunes, wetlands, streams, tidepools, or any other areas designated as "Habitat Areas" by the land use plan. A management program to control the kinds, intensities " and locations of recreational activi- ties so t,hat.habita.t resources are preserved shall be developed, implemented, and enforced. The level of facility development (i.e., parking spaces, camper sites, etc.) shall be correlated with the environmental carrying capacity'. Policy.7-5: For areas controlled by Federal,.State, County, or District agencies, in a zone extending approximately 250 feet inland from the mean high tide line, priority shall be given to coastal dependent and related recreational activities and. support facilities. However, camping facilities should be set back. from the beach and bluffs and near-shore areas reserved for day use activities. Recreational activities that are not coastal dependent may be located within this 250-foot zone if the less desirable coastal dependent support facilities (parking, restrooms, etc.) are located inland. In no case shall facilities,, except,for required structures (i.e., life- guard towers.- volleyball nets, etc.). be located directly on the dry sandy beach.. Policy 7-6: Recreational uses on ocean front lands, both public and private, that do n.ot require extensive alteration of the natural environment (i.e., tent campgrounds) shall have priority over uses requ-iring substantial alteration (i.e., recreational vehicle campgrounds). -88- Policy 7-7: During the zoning and implementation phase of the LCP, the County shall establish a schedule for acquisition of areas proposed for new or expanded access and/or recreation. The ..schedule shall designate responsible agencies, time frame, and. methods forAmplementing all access and recreation proposals set forth in this plan. nteri a Valley Planning Area Policy 7-8: Increased opportunities for beach access shall be provided in the Carpinteria planning area. Implementing Actions: a) The County shall accept and open for use the vertical easements offered in connection with developments on Padaro Lane (APN 5-400-35) and Beach Club Drive (APN 5-390-23). A footpath from the public road to the beach, bike racks, and trash-cans shall be provided and main- tained. b) Dedicatio n of a vertical access easement and construction of a trail to the b,each'shall be required of any develop- ment on the easterly end of the Carpinteria bluffs (refer to Section 4.2.3). Summerland Planning Area Policy 7-9: Additional opportunities for coastal access and recreation shall be provided in the Summerland,planning area. Parking, picnic tables, bike racks, and restrooms shall be provided where appropriate. Implementing Actions: a) The County shall acquire the beach and bluff area south of Wallace Avenue. The parking area along Wallace Avenue shall be landscaped, and measures taken to minimize further erosion along the bluffs a'.nd railroad embankment. Paths to connect the parking Area to the beach shall be well-defined. b) The County shall acquire all dry sandy beach area seaward of the toe of the bluff, from.the Baka property (APN 5-250-1) to Loon Point. c) The County shall acquire an easement along the footpath that currently connects Padaro Lane to the beach area west of Loon Point (APN 5-260-7). Limited offstreet parking shall be provided on the County-owned parcel (APN 5-260-8) which lies between Padaro Lane and Highway 101. -89- d) Morris. Place shall be managed as part of Lookout Park. The area shallbe kept in its natural state as much as possible.@ A footpath from theparking area in Lookout Rark to the beach shall be-provided.' Montecito Planning'Area Policy 7-10: The County shall provide increased opportunities for beach access and recreation in the Montecito planning area. Implementing Actions: a) The County shall open the existing easement from Eucalyp- tus Lane along Edgecliff to Montecito Creek for hiking, biking, and equestrian use. A easement on the east side of the creek from the existing easement to the-dry sandy beach shall also be.required as a condition of development on Hammond's Meadow. (Refer to Section 4.3.3) b) The C ounty., shall acquire an easement for the bluff and beach area south of Channel Drive between the cemetery and the-Coral Casino. The easement shall be for public recre- ation and beach access. Permitted uses shall include walking, swimming, su.nbathing, walking dogs, etc. The County shall be respon'sible for maintenance of stairways and seawalls, collection of trash, provision of bicycle racks, and maintenance of landscaping. The County shall also be responsible for marking off a swimming area during. the summermonths. At such ti'me as the County is able to provide an equivalent amount,of public parking elsewhere in the vicinity, parking on.one'side of Channel Drive shall be eliminated in order to accommodate bicycle lanes. c) The County shall pursueany opti 'ons for increased public access in the Posilipo Lane a.nd.Fernald Point area that may become available in thefuture. d) The County shall. accept the verticaleasement offered, in -conjunction with APN 9-345-37 (,Broida) on Miramar Beach and open it for local public use.' e) The County shall make improvements (i.e., stairway with handrail.) to its existing easement at the base of Eucalyp- tus.Lane to facilitate access to the beach. Bike racks shall also be provided.' _90- f) In order.to alleviate existing congestion a long,Eucalyptus Lane,.the County shall.provide a small public parking area, Jor approximately 15 carsadjacent to Humphrey Road. Access to the beach from this parking area would be via Eucalyptus Lane or Edgecliff Lane. Policy 7-11: Sin ce the Biltmore pier is, of very limited recreational value and cannot support either fishing or boat l.aundhing, the County shall support the efforts of the Biltmore Hotel to have the pier removed. Goleta Planning Area Policy 7-12: New opportuni'ties for beach access.and-coastal recreation shall. be provided 'in the Goleta planning area. Implementing Actions: a) Provision of a public,moderate use recreation area includ- ing parking, restrooms, blufftop hiking and biking trails,. @.picnic tables, and stairway access to the.beach sha.11 be required'as,a condition of development on the More Mesa property. (Refer to.Section 4.5.3.) b) Provision of a, vertical easement to allow for beach access', parking area,, and dedication of public open space adjacent to,the'beach shall be required as'a condition of development on the University Exchange Property., (Refer to Secti.on 4.5.4.) C) Provision of a public moderate use recreation area includ-. ing parking, rest.rooms, blufftop hiking,and biking trails, picnic tables, and appropriate access to the sandy beach shall be required as a condition of any future development on the Santa Barbara Shores property. In the interim, the County'shall obtain a vertical easement across the eastern portion of, the property to Provide for publicbeach access. (Refer to.S.ection 4.5.5.) d) The County-shal] encourage the adjacent property owners to provide beach.access at the-end of Orchid Lane for use by educational and scientific groups. e) The County shall,accept the-la teral.easements offered in connection..with development on Hope Ranch (APN 63-1501-10, The County should encourage the University to continue to provide public access to the beach through the University and use of beaches adjacent to the University property, particularly the West campus. The County should also pursue an agreement. with U_C.S.B@ to use campus parking lots to accommodate the overflow from Goleta Beach Park during peak-.us,e periods. ,.Gavio'ta Coast Planning Area Policy 7-13: In order to protect natural and Visual resources of the coastal zone between Ellwood and Gaviotaj development of recreational facilities shall not impede views between U.S. .101 and the ocean, shall minimize grading, removal of vegeta- tion, and pavi,ng, and be compatible with the rural.character of the area. Existing natural features shall. remain undis- turbed to the maximum.extent possible@ , and landscaping shall consist of dr'ought-tolerant species. Polity 7-14: Campgrounds and ancillary facilities sited south,of U.S. 101 between Ellwood and Gaviota shall be set back as far as feasible from the beach in order to reserve near-shore areas for day use. Where feasible, new recreational facility development, particularly campgrounds and parking lots, shall be located north of U.S. 101. Policy,7-15: The vegetation..in the.small canyons at the:mouths of Canada San Onofre and Canada del Molino streams shall hot be disturbed by recreational development or use. Policy 7-16 All new development-on State-owned lands shall be in confor- mance with a recreational master plan approved by the County and the Coastal Commission. The master plan shall include maps showing locations of proposed facilities and a text describing the entire scope of the State's long-range plans for the Ellwood.to Gaviota area, i.e.j numbers of campsites, restrooms, parking lots, kinds of recreational activities to be accommodated, etc. In addition, themaster plan shall conform to the following criteria: a. Facilities for overnight use by out-of-County visitors shall be balanced,with those for day use by local residents. b. Intensities and kinds of recreational uses shall be controlled so as not to exceed the environmental carrying capacity of the area. c. Alternative transportation systems to provide access to State parks,(i.ei., shuttle buses) shall be used where feasible. _92- Policy 7-17: Since existing parks i,n the Ellwood to Gaviota area already provide extensive faciliti.es for recreational vehicle, camping, priority i.n future development shall be for campgrounds.that Would be accessible by bicycle and pedestrian trails only and for hostels. Policy T@-18: Expanded opp6rtunities'.for access and recre@tion sh all be provided in the Gaviota Coast planning area. Impl. ementing Actions: a. In order to maximize access to the beaches, vertical ease- -ments connecting the proposed coastal bicycle trail (linking Santa Barbara and Gaviota) to the beach shall be acquired by a public agency at . the following locations: (21) Hoa:k6ll's Beach (near Bell Canyon) D Pueblos.Canyon (3) Edw 0 Canyon) ajjrds (near Gat 4 T guas Creek Arroyo Quemado R Arroyo Hondo @7@ Canada de Guillermo 8 Canada@del Molino 9 Canada San Onofre The trails connecting the bicycle path to the beach shall be well-marked and bicycle racks shall be provided. Where necessary, stairways from the top of the bluffs shall be provided. Public parking and other facility dev * elopment, other t.han staircases, fences, improved trails, bicycle racks, and picnic tables, shall not be permitted at these accessways except as specified in section b. b. In order to increase opportunities forcoastal dependent and related recreational uses, the following areas, which have recreational potential:9 should be acquired by a public agency: Facility Development Haskell's Beach Hike-in and bike-in campground, parking, restrooms, picnic tables, bike rack. Dos Pueblos Da 1 , parking, restrooms, pi t%juse on y icnic es, bike rack. Edwards Parking restrooms, picnic tables, bike racks, store, low-intensity camping. Tajiguas Day use only, parkingi'restrooms, bike racks. San Onofre Day use only, parking, picnic tables., bike racks -93- .''Policy 7-19:Jn order to protect the marine resources of.Naples Reef and the adjacent beach as a.hauling out area for harbor seals, intensive recreational use shall not beencouraged. Access, to. the site should continue@to be by@way of boats. North Coast Planning Area 'Policy, 7-20: In order to ensure protection of marine and biological resources at Point Sal State Beach, public recreational use shall be limited by all of the.following measures: a. Brown Road shall not be expanded to more than two lanes; it should be paved. b. Improvements to the existing State park shall.be limited to minor improvements to the parking area to prevent erosion, and construction of a.trail to connect the parking area to the beach. C. ..'Hang-gliding shall not be permitted. @.Policy 7-.21: Jalama shall be m,aintained'as a two-lane roadtwith onlyminor realignment'from the summit to the park. All improvements shall bedesigned'and constructed to minimi2eadverse impacts on Jal6ma Creek. Improvements shall not result in the removal of.any riparian vegetation along the creek. P ol i cy -7-22.:. Expanded.opp6.rtunit.ies,for public acce'ss and recreation shall, be provided in the North Coast planning area. Implementing Actions: a., The County shall,study alternatives for expanding Jalama Beach County Park for day an&overnight uses. Sufficient excess road:capacity on Jalama.Road shall be reserved to accommodate traffic.gen6rated by increased use at Jalama County Park. @b. A hiking trail wh,ich prov,ides lateral and vertical access to beaches shall be deve'loped to connect Rancho Guadalupe County Park to Point Sal State Park and Point Arguello or Jalama Beach to Gaviota State Park. The County, with the assistance of the.State Department of Parks and Recreation and participation of affected property owners, shall initiate planning studies to determine the precise loca- tion and procedures for implementing such a trail. The trail shouldeventually include hostels and/or walk-in campgrounds where feasible on publicly-owned land; one possible location for such facilities would be an area in the vicinity of Point Conception. Policy 7-23: In order to ensure preservation of the natural and archaeo- logical resources of the Guadalupe Dunes and expand public opportunities for low intensity recreation., the County shall: -94- a Adopt and enforce an ordinanceprohibiting ORV use, hang- gliding, and overnight camping on the sand dunes. b. Repair and expand the existing County parking lot. c. Provide more attractive restroom facilities... d. Provide limited picnic facilities. e. Install attractive signs informing the public of the ecological importance and fragility of the dunes and wetland. f. Restrict theCounty park to low intensity recreational uses, i.e., walking, fishing, and picnicking. g. Provide at least one part-time ranger to enforce rules. h. Pursue alternative methods for expanding the park area, south to Mussel Rock. Policy 7-24: In order to ensure that adequate opportunities for coastal access and recreation will be available in the future, the amount of development in the North County should be correlated w ith a precise recreation plan for the North Coast planning i area. To this end, the County shall initiate studies to determine the long-range needs and goals for access and recre- ationin the area from Gaviota to Guadalupe. A long-range. recreational plan shall be developed which includes the following elements: a. An integrated trails system which will connect existing County and State Parks and provide vertical access to the beach at appropriate intervals. b. Identification of areas which have the.most recreational potential and a schedule for acquisition of such areas. After adoption of a long-range recreation plan, all develop- ment proposals for the North Coast planning area shall be reviewed for conformity with this master plan and appropriate easements, etc., shall be required at the time of development approval. 3.7.5 COASTAL TRAILS Background and Issues Trails along the coastline serve two purposes: they provide recrea- tion for the hiker, bicyclist, and equestrian, and an'alternative mode of _95- transportation to coastal recreational areas. Use of. trails can reduce the impact of parking facilities and vehicle emissions on coastal resources. Trails can also provide a means of public access to scenic and.remote coastal areas that are not served by roads, without the environmental impacts that accompany motor vehicle access. The Park Department is the lead agency for recreational equestrian and, hiking trails planning in Santa Barbara County. Although funds for purchase of easements are not part of the Park Department budget, the Department is able to acquire trail'routes by conditioning land develop- ments, pursuit.of prescriptive rights, and acceptance of donations. The County Riding and Hiking Advisory Committee, whose members include Board of Supervisors appointees, monitors trail proposals and developments, and makes recommendations to County departments.. There are also two South Coast private citizens' groups which are active locally: the Santa Barbara County Trails Council and the Montecito Trails Foundation. Santa Barbara County currently offers limited opportunities for hiking, biking and equestrian use in the coastal zone. While a system of trails has been adopted as part of the County's General Plan, many trails have' not been implemented. Completion of several trails now planned for the coastal zone will substantially increase opportunities for recreational use and access incoastal areas. One trail of particularimportance in the coastal zone is that proposed to connect U.C.S.B. to the State Parks.west of Gol,eta. The State Department of Parks,and Recreation, with assistance from the County and Caltrans, is now completing planning studies for the link between U.C.S.B. and El Capitan. The link between El Capitan and Refugio is already constructed. Beyond Refugio, the State is in the process of-determining which parcels and.easements are.necessary to complete.the trail as far.as Arroyo Quemado. The State does not have any plans at present for the final link to connect Arroyo Quemado to Gaviota. There are currently no hiking, biking, or riding trails proposed for the northern Santa Barbara County coastal zone that would increase access to remote.coastal areas between Gaviota and Guadalupe. Bicycle trails are proposed to connect Lompoc to Ocean Beach and the City of Guadalupe to the County,.Park. 'A trail system in this area would increase opportunities for public access and enjoyment of this relatively undeveloped portion of coastline. Policies Policy 7-25: Easements for trails shall be required as a condition of project approval for thatportion of the trail crossing the parcel upon which the project is proposed. Policy 7-26: All proposed trails for the coastal zone shall be incorporated into the County's Master Plans for hiking, biking, and equestrian trails@ -96- 3.7.6 RECREATIONAL BOATING Coastal Act Policy 30224. Increased recreational boating use of,coastal waters shall be encouraged, in accordance with this division, by developing dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities,.providing addi- tional berthing space in existing harbors, limiting non-water-depen- dent land,uses that congest access corridors and preclude boating support facilities, providing harbors of refuge, and by providing for new boating facilities in natural harbors, new protected water areas, in areas dredged from dry land. Background and Issues The need for expanded boating facilities has been well-documented in studies undertaken by the State Departments of Navigation and Ocean Devel- opment andParks and Recreation. The major requirements for boating acti- vities are mooring or launching-facilities in protected waters.. The City of Santa Barbara marina,'which provides the only berthing facilities in the County, has slightly over 1,000 slips. The waiting period for.a slip now runs over two years. Launching facilities in the County are provided at Goleta Beach County Park and Gaviota State Park. Increasing the supply of berthing facilities in order to meet the demand would require expansion of the City's harbor or construction of a new harbor somewhere in the County. Since the County does not have any natural harborsi such development would require dredging and/or construc- tion of a breakwater. Such activities are known to have adverse effects on marine resources and can interfere with the natural movement of sand along the shore. The Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, in a study prepared for the Coastal Commission (Small Craft Facilities Chapter--Exist- Ping and Future Site Locations, March 14, 1975) has suggested that Point Sal and Cojo Bay be considered as possible locations. for a harbor of refuge; however, a specific project has not been proposed to date. The viability of the Cojo site as a harbor of refuge may be affected if a LNG Terminal is constructed at that location. Policies Policy 7-27: The County shall provide expanded opportunities for recrea- tional boating where feasible. Implementing Actions: a. The County shall study the feasibiltity of providing storage for small boats, i.e., catamarans, at exi'sting County Parks. b. The County shall negotiate with oil operators in the area to acquire options to lease or buy pier, facilities atsuch time as they are no longer needed by the industry. 3.7.7 VISITOR-SERVING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT Coastal Act Policies 30213. Lower cost visitor and-recreational facilities and housing opportunities for persons of low-and m.oderate.income shall be .1 protected, encouraged, andi where feasible, provided. Developments providng public recreational opportunities are preferred... 30222. The use of,private lands suitable for visitor-serving commer- cial recreation.facilities designed to enhance public opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private residential, general industrial,-or general commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry.., 30250. (c) Visitor-serving facilities that,cannot.feasibly be located in existing developed areas'shall be located in existing isolated developments or at-selected points of attraction for visitors. Planning Issues Visitor-serving commercial development includes hotels, motels, private campgrounds, restaurants, and commercial-recreational developments, such as shopping and amusement areas for tourists. These visitor-serving facilitlios together with public parks and beaches provide the major oppor- tunities for public access and recreation on the coast. In the County's coastal zone, public recreational areas rather than commercial visitor-serving facilities are the dominant activity. The majority of commercial visitor-serving facilities* are concentrated within the City of Santa Barbara and, to a lesser extent, the City of Carpinteria. From Ellwood west to Point Conception and north to the San Luis Obispo County line, the.coastal area is rural and remote; extensive State park development, County parks, large cattle ranches, and rugged open areas characterize this area. In the urbanized South Coastarea, both the Biltmore and Miramar Hotels are visitor-serving landmarks in the coastal area of.,Monteci.to. Further east, the novelty shops and restaurants of Santa Claus Lane provide a rest-stop for travelers using Highway 101. As development, commercial visitor-serving facilities,need to be sited where public services are adequate and where such facilities would be compatible with adjacent land uses. Also of concern is the Coastal Act mandate that commercial recreation shall not take precedence over agricul- ture or other coastal dependent industry. Based on these considerations, there are few areas within the County's coastal zone which would be appro- priate.for.new commercial visitor-serving development. The land use plan provides limited opportunities for new visitor- serving commercial development. In the Carpinteria planning area, the eastern portion of the Carpinteria bluffs has been designated for a visitor-oriented use (refer to Section 4.2.3). In addition, the Haskell's beach property, which is west of the Sandpiper Golf Course, has been desig- hated for resort use. Development of other visitor-serving facilities in- the rural areas of the County's coastal zone is not viewed as appropriate at this time. -98- Pol i ci es Rolicy 7-28: Visitor@serving commercial recreational development that involves construction of,major facilities, i.e, motels,- hotels,-,,restaurants.,, should bellocated within urban areas..' and should not change the character or impact residential areas. Policy 7-29: Visit,or-serving commercial:recreational development in rural areas should be limited to low intensity.uses, i.e., camp- grounds, that.are,designed. to protect and enhance visual re.sources, and mi,nimize,impacts on topography, habitatsi and water resources. Policy 7-,30: Visitor-serving facilities. shall be permitted in rural areas only,if it is determined that approval of such development will not result in a needlor major ancillary facilities on, nearby la*ndsl i.e... residences, stores, gas stations. _99- 3.8 AGRICULTURE 38.1, COASTAL ACT POLICIES 30241., The maximum amount of prime agricultural land shall main- taind in agricultural production to assure the protection of the areas' agricultural economy, and conflicts shall be minimized between agricultural,and urban land uses through all of the following: wing. (a) By establishing stable boundaries separating urban and rural areas, including, where necessary clearly defined buffer areas to minimize conflicts between agricuitural and urban uses. (b) By limiting-conversions of agricultural lands around the periphery of urban areas to the lands where the viability of existing agricultural use is already severely limited by conflicts with urban uses and where the conversion of the lands would complete a logical and viable neighborhood and contribute to the establishment of a stable 11mit to urban development. (c) By developing available lands not suited for agriculture prior to the conversion of agricultural lands. (d) By assuring that public service and facility expansions and non-agricultural development do not impair agricultural viability, either through increased assessment costs or degraded air and water quality. (e) By assuring that all divisions of prime agricultural lands, except those conversions approved pursuant to subdivision (b) of this . section, and all development adjacent to prime agricultural lands shall not diminish the productivity of such prime agriculturallands. 30242. All other lands suitable for agricultural use shall not be converted to non-agricultural uses unless: (1) continued or renewed agricultural use is notfeasible, or (2) such conversion would preserve prime agricultural land or concentrate development consistent with Section 30250. Any such permitted conversion shall be compatible with continued agricultural use on surrounding lands. 30243. The long-term productivity of soils and timberlands shall be protected, and conversions of coastal commercial timberlands in units of commercial size to other uses or their division into units of non- commercial size shall be limited to providing for necessay timber processing and related facilities. .3.8.2 PLANNING ISSUES Agriculture in the County's coastal zone varies with the diverse topography and soil types that distinguish the rocky, rugged coastline of the North County (Hollister.and Bixby Ranches to Guadalupe) from the allu- vial plains and foothills of the South Coast, exemplified by the Carpin- teria Valley. In the Carpinteria Valley,a trend toward higher return specialty crops, e.g., cut flowers'and nursery stock,lemons, and avpcadps, -100- has emerged. in-response to the area's prime growing conditions and the escalating land values characteristic of an urbanizing area. Of the approximately 3,900 acres in agricultural use in the Valley at this time., 3,200 acres are planted to lemons and avocados; 650 acres are devoted to greenhouse and nursery'production; and the remaining acreage is being cultivated for other irrigated crops. An estimated 2,350 acres of the Valley's toils are classified as prime, representing about 60 percent of the lands in production. Bordering the Carpinteria Valley, the non-prime soils and generally steep.slopes north and east of thecommunity of Sumer- land are currently@planted to lemons and.avocados; horse stabling facili- ties, related to the nearby Santa.Barbara Polo Grounds, are also found in this area.. Agriculture in the coastal zone from Montecito to Ellwood is scattered and of a smaller scale than that of the Carpinteria Valley. A number of greenhouses exist in the vicinity of More Mesa in Goleta, and newplantings of lemons,and avocados extend along U. S. 101 west of Ellwood. At El Capitan, a more rugged.topography, less moderate climate, and lack of water resources foster a natural transition tocattle grazing and large scale ranch operations. The latter activities typify agriculture in the rest of the County's coastal zone . from Gavi'ota to the San Luis Obispo@Couhty line, except for a small portion of the fertile Santa Maria Valley west of Guada- lupe, which is in vegetable productfon. The County's commitment to the preservation of agricultural lands is demonstrated by the success of its Agricultural Preserve Program. Current- ly, there are 525,760 acres enrolled in preserves throughout the County Tepresenting over 90 percent of the eligible privately owned prime and non-@ prime lands. While thePreserve Program has been strongest in the rural .areas of the County, over 20,000 acres of pri.me lands located within one mileof City lim.its are enrolled.' In the Carpinteria Valley, 2,878 acres are under preserve status at this time. Although hone of the greenhouse growers has elected to join the program to date, 55 acres of nursery production have been enrolled. Coastal Act policies require. that the maximum amount of prime agricul- tural lands be maintained in production and that conflicts between agricul-, tural and urban land uses be minimized. The Act also,calls for the protec- tion of the long tenn productivity of soils and stipulates conditions under which the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses would be appropriate. To carry out the goals of the Coastal Act, the land use plan must delineate stable urban/rural boundaries fn areas where agricul- tural lands are directly affectedby past and potentJal urban encroachment and establish minimum parcel si.zes for agriculture which will tend to strengthen agricultural use over the long term.. Policies and performance standards must also be formul-ated which will prevent adverse impacts on. coastal resources from agricultural development, e.g., erosion caused by orchard de 'velopment on steep hillsides, water quality degradation from agricultural irrigation runoff, and loss of soil productivity from agricul- tural development such as greenhouses. Urban/Rural Boundary Within the County's coastal zone, the need for clearly defined urban/rural boundaries is especially apparent on the South Coast, where prime coastal agriculture has.given way to urban expansion in a rapidly developing area. Lemon orchards and vegetable "truck" farms once charac- teristic of the coastal area of Goleta have gradually been replaced by residential subdivisions and industrial parks as a result of the area's growth. The prime.agricultural lands of the Carpinteria Valley have also been subject to urban,,encroachment. From 1970 to 1975, the City of Carpin- teria experienced its most rapid growth. During that period, the'City annexed two large residential subdivisions and an industrial park, the former encroaching onto prime agricultural soils,to the north of the City and the latter requiring the conversion of some viable orchards to the east. At present, the City's boundaries generally abut prime soils,or. prime agricultural lands. Residential enclaves such as Serena Park and Shepard's Mesa have also emerged in the unincorporated area of the-Carpin- teria Valley, introducing a residential estate land use pattern into the agricultural setting. To the@west, the town of Summerland is surrounded by rural lands which are best suited for continued rural use because of a combination of existing agricultural uses, natural hazards (steep slopes and unstable soils), and resource constraints. The purpose of an urban/rural boundary is to clearly delineate areas appropriate for urban land use, i.e., residential, commercial, and indus.- trial, from areas where rural uses should be sustained, principally agri- culture but including rural residential, coastal dependent industry, and, limited highway commercial activities where necessary. The urban/rural boundary is not necessarily defined on a jurisdictional basis; for example, agriculturally designated lands within city limits that are located on the urban fringe and contiguous with other agricultural parcels would be included in the rural area. Conversely, a residential subdivision contiguous to other urban uses but in an unincorporated area would be considered urban. The principal determinant in establishing an urban/rural boundary is the preservation of existing agricultural lands, while allowing for reasonable growth within urban areas through infilling and logical expansion outward. To this end, criteria for designating agricultural lands, not as a transitional land use but for agricultural use over the long term, need to be developed. The preservation of lands with.prime agricultural soils, i.e., Class I or II according to the U.S. Soil Conser- vation Service, is of highest priority. Prime agricultural lands, as defined in Section 51201 of the Public Resources Code (Appendix A), and lands in existing agricultural production are the next most important to receive agricultural land use designations. Finally, lands not in produc- tion but having agricultural potential (i.e., soils, topography, location and other factors which will support long term agricultural production) need to-be identified for agricultural use. In the land use plan, two agricultural land use designations are used: Agriculture I and Agriculture II. Agriculture I is used to designate the -102- high return, specialty crop areas,within the urbanized portion of the South Coast. Minimum parcel sizes under the Agriculture I designation range from five to forty acres and permitted uses include food and fiber crops, orchards, and greenhouse operations; commercial horse stabling facilities would require. a conditional use permit under this designation. The ranches and large scale grazing operations typical of the rural area from Ellwood to Gaviota, the Hollister and Bixby Ranches, and,North Coast are shown as Agriculture II. Minimum parcel sizes range from 100 to 320 acres; green- houses would be a conditional use under the Agriculture II designation. Urban/rural boundaries are delineated on the land use pl an maps for the Carpinteria Valley, Summerland, and Goleta areas; each of these proposed boundaries is explained in detail in the respective planning area .discussions in Chapter 4., Minimum Parcel Size In'addition to designating lands for agricultural use, minimum agri- cultural parcel sizes which will strengthen agricultural uses by allowing for flexibility in the scale of production requ.ired for existi.ng and poten- tially viable crops and preventing parcelization to a point where agricul- tural viability would be jeopardized need to be determined. In several areas of the County's coastal zone, agricultural minimum parcel sizes specified under existing zoning are inadequate to sustain agricultural production over the long term; thus, some increase is,warranted. Counter- ing this need for an increase in minimum parcel sizes, however, is the existence of smaller parcels in many areas of the coastal zone, which limits the degree to which change can be effected. In the Carpinteria Valley, escalating land costs characteristic of an area with urban potential, have contributed to development of the Valley's specialty crop agricultural economy and the formation of smaller agricul.- tural parcels. In,1956, the County instituted the "A-14" zone, establish- ing a five-acre minimum parcel size for the Valley and other areas of the South Coast. This action was prompted by the possibility that urban uses would intrude into existing agricultural areas. In 1971, the County modified the Uniform Rules of 'the Agricultural Preserve Program to allow growers who own as few as five acres of fully planted and commercially producing land to qualify for preserve status if they apply with growers of equal or larger size to meet the 40-acre minimum preserve size required for prime agricultural lands. This action was taken to strengthen the A-14 zone in the face of mounting urban pressures. In 1978, the County again modified the Agricultural Preserve requirements to allow five-acre parcels with 4.75 fully producing acres to qualify as preserves if all of the other requirements are also satisfied. Although these measures have been effec- tive in holding the line against further urban encroachment in the Carpin- teria Valley, a buildout of the Valley based on the permitted five- acre minimum would jeopardize the area's agricultural production and lead to adverse impacts on local resources and service systems (see Carpinteria Valley planning area discussion). While a larger minimum parcel size is -103- needed in the Valley, the level of increase that would be appropriate is conditioned by the existing predominance of smaller parcel sizes; over half of the parcels In the Valley are less than ten acres in size. Under the land use plan, a ten-acre minimum parcel size is proposed as a base agricultural minimum in place of the minimum.five acres permitted under the existing A-14 zone in the Carpinteria Valley. However, a range of minimum parcel sizes from five to forty acres is also included to provide for flexibility and to adjust for topographic and soil constraints. Since the Carpinteria Valley is the largest prime agricultural area in the County's coastal zone, the determination of a minimum parcel size for the Valley is Used as the basis for agricultural. minimums in Summerland, Goleta, and other prime agricultural lands within the bounds.of the coastal zone. In the rural area of the County's coastal zone extending west from Ellwood to Point Conception and north to the County line, existing zoning .includes General Agriculture and Limited Agriculture designations. Since agriculture in this area is mostly non-prime, i.e., cattle grazing and forage.crops, large.acreages are required to be economically viable and .100-acre minimums are specified for most areas under present zoning. An Unlimited Agriculture ("U") zone with a ten-acre.minimum also 'exists in some areas. Historically, this designation was used for unclassified lands in the County's rural areas. -On the 'basis of economic viability and resource constraints, both the 100-acre and 10-acre minimums Iare inade- quate for non-prime agricultural lands. Yet, on the.Gaviota Coast between Ellwood and El Capitan, the vast majority of parcels are less than 100 acres in size and existing agriculture is a mixture of prime and non-prime pursuits. A 100-acre minimum, therefore, continues to be the most appro-. priate minimum parcel size for,agriculturally designated lands in this area. West of El Capitan, agriculture in the Gaviota Coast planning area is predominant,ly non-prime due to changes in the topography, climate,.and availability of water resources. Under the land use plan, the agricultural minimum parcel size is increased.to 320 acres in this portion of the planning area to reflect these changes. Along the North Coast, the coastal boundary extends inward, encompass- ing the entire Hollister and Bixby Ranches. Although parcelization has already occurred on Hollister Ranch under the existing 100-acre zoning, the Bixby Ranch remains under single ownership. Because of the need to sustain the economic viability of the County's non-prime agricultural lands on the North Coast and, also, because of the area's remoteness, lack of water resources and public services, an increase in the minimum parcel size is required. The land use plan stipulates a 320-acre minimum for the North Coast to strengthen agric.ulture.as the principal. land use and to bring potential buildout in line with the area.'s available resources. Determination of minimum parcel sizes alone may not be sufficient to sustain the large, non-prime agricultural operations still in existence in the rural areas of the coastal zone, i.e. ranches in excess of 10 000 -104- acres. Historically, minimum parcel size restrictions have led to parceli- zation of larger holdings into smaller holdings, frequently resulting in parcels unsuited for continuation of large-scale agricultural activities such as,cattle grazing. Therefore, a new strategy is needed. One alterna- tive would b '0 to:permit a clustered residential development at a density ,greater than that permitted under the specified minimum parcel size on a small portion of the property, with the requirement that the balance of the .land be maintained in agricultural production. Through thi& type of limited development, the vast majority.of the agricultural land would be -retained intact as a single unit, affording the economies.of scale thatare required in non-prime operations. Impact of Greenhouse Development on Coastal Resources UInder the Coastal Act, greenhouses, although an agricultural activity, are also a type.of development and must be evaluated in terms of their impact@on the long-term productivity of soils and,the preservation of an areals agricultural economy. Issues such as the contribution of green- houses to increased runoff, 'loss of groundwater recharge, the effects of soil coverage and compaction, andimpacts on visual quality need to be addressed. Greenhouse operations vary-,in the amount of' structural and related land coverage required for production. In *the Carpinteria Valley, approxi- mately 60 percent of greenhouse production takes place directly in the underlying soil, the remainder taking place in pots or containers. How- ever, aside from the land reserved for growing, asphalt or concrete coverage is generally used for storage, packing and loading areas, walk- ways, driveways, and parking. The cost of removing greenhouse structures and related coverage can be prohibitive, foreclosing the possibility of returning the land to other types of open field agriculture. In some cases., gravel or sand is substituted 'as a covering for driveways and parking areas- but, this type of coverage can also be detrimental to the future produciivity of the soil because.of compaction@and penetration into the topsoil. Although greenhouses are a permitted use in all of the County's agri- cultural zones, specific greenhouse regulations are stipulated only in the A-14 zone. According to the existing ordinance, a greenhouse must be set back 50 feet from the centerline of any street and 20 feet from the lot lines of the parcel on which it is located. These are the only conditions affecting greenhouse lot coverage at this time and they are insufficient in several respects. The 50-foot setback from the centerline of any street is not adequate in the Carpinteria Valley, since the width of the two major roads along which greenhouses are located (Via Real and Foothill) varies, leading to a lack of uniformity in the setback requirement. Where a 20 foot setback along property lines is adequate for smaller greenhouse projects (i.e., on existing parcels of less than five acres), an increased setback is needed for projects on lots of five acres or more, particularly. where greenhouses are located adjacent to residential neighborhoods. In addition, the maximum proportion of lot coverage for greenhouse structures and impervious surfaces needs to be specified to control the density of -105- development and mitigate visual impacts. Since setbacks can account for a significantly large proportion of the smaller parcels, setback requirements forthese parcels should be less than for larger parcels; maximum coverage requirements should also be adjusted to reflect this concern. In the Carpinteria Valley, w ater runoff from greenhouse structures and related impervious surfaces as well as.from agricultural irrigation is directed to the,Valley's natural drainage channels. Two of these water courses, Franklin and Santa Monica Creeks, flow directly into Carpinteria Marsh. Portions of these creeks have been channelized and plans have.been proposed to channelize other-portions within the Marsh itself. The current capacity of the channels is based on existing land use patterns in the Valleyi Additional runoff from a substantial increase in greenhouse, agricultural, or urban development could potentially.overburden these channels, creating a need to enlarge them and resulting in a loss of habitat. In addition,,although there is no present evidence of.water contamination in the Marsh, the impact of runoff waters on the water quality ofthe Marsh heeds to be monitored. The cumulative r6noff and water quality impacts of increased agricultural development in the Valley on the area's resources have not been assessed to date, as projects have been evaluated on a case by case basis. Given the extent of agricultural development in the Valley at this time, an overall assessment of these impacts is needed. With the exception of an area in the western portion of the Carpin- teria Valley south of Foothill Road and another narrow strip to the east of the City, most of the Valley is in a groundwater recharge area. Depending on the amount of impervious surface coverage, greenhouses can,reduce the rate and area of permeability for recharge with the,result of decreasing water repleni-shment to the groundwater basin. However, while some recharg@. may be lost due to greenhouse coverage water is returned to the ground- water basin through internal irrigation. The actual loss of groundwater recharge caused by greenhouse projects. needs to be measured on a case by case basis and mitigating measures required as necessary. Recharge can be restored through use of impoundment basins, porous pavement, and other water management measures. The amount of water used in greenhouse operations is greater than that required for most open field crops grown in the coastal area. -Because of existing water constraints on the South Coast, the need for supplementa 1 water will be a limiting factor for new greenhouse developments as well as conversions from existing field cro.ps to cover crops (see planning area discussions and Section 3.2). At present, new greenhouse projects.of 2G,000 square feet or more, and additions of 10,000 square feet and over,.which result in a structure in excess of 30,000 square feet, are subject to an impact analysis through the environmental review (EIR) process. Because of the concern for the poten- tial adverse impacts caused by greenhouses, all greenhouse projects of 20,000 square feet or more and any addi'ticins to an existing greenhouse development that create a total dev'elopment of 20,000 square feet or more need to be subject to environmental review. In addition, criteria for -106- .evaluating adverse impacts from greenhouses need to be standardized, in order that these impacts can be identified and mitigating measures requ ired. The industrial appearance of greenhouses as viewed from Highway 101 and other public streets in the Valley can detract from the visual quality, of the coastal area if not appropriately landscaped. The County has instituted landscaping requirements which have been effective in most cases .in minimizing the visual, impact of greenhouses. Accordi ng to the requirements of the A-I-X zone, a landscaping plan must be approved by the County Planning Department and such,landscaping must be capable of screening greenhouse structures,and parking areas within five years, These. measures are adequate to protect coastal visual resources. 3.8.3.,POLICIES Policy 8-1@ An agricultural land use:designation shall begiven to any parcel in rural areas that meets one or more of the following criteria: a. Prime agriculturalsoils (Capability Classes I and 11 as determined.by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service). b. Other prime agricultural lands as defined -in Section 51201 of the Public Resources Code (Appendix A). c. Lands,in existing Agricultural use. d. Lands with agricultural. potential (e.g., soil, topography, and location that will support long term.agricultural use). These.criteria shall al so be used for designating agricultural land use in urban areas, except where agricultural viability is already severely impaired by conflicts with urban uses. Policy 8-2: If a parcel is designated for agricultural use and is located in a rural area not contiguous with.the urban/rural boundary, conversion to non-agricultural use shall not@be permitted unless such conversion of the entire parcel would allow for another priority use under the Coastal Act, e.g., coastal dependent industry, recreation and access, or protection of an environmentally sensitive habitat. Such conversion shall not be in conflict with contiguous agricultural operations in the area, and shall be consistent with Section 30241 and 30242 of the Coastal Act. Policy 8-3: If a parcel is designated for agricultural,use and is located in a rural area contiguous with the urban/rural boundary, converston shall not be permitted unless: @-107- a. The agricultural. use of the land is severely impaired because of physical factors (e.g. high water table), topographical constraints, or Urban conflicts (e.g., surrounded by urban uses'which inhibit production or make it impossible to qualify for agricultural preserve status)'.-and b. Conversion would contribute to the. logical completion of an existing urban neighborhood, and c. There are no alt6rnative areas appr Iopriate for infilling @within- the urban area or there a.re,no. other parcels along. the urban periphery where the agricultural potential is. more severely restricted. 'Policy 8-4: As a requirement for approval of any proposed land division Of agricultural land designated as Agriculture I or II in the land use plan, the County shall make a'finding that thelong- term agricultural productivity of the property will not,be diminished by,the proposed division. Policy 8-5: All, greenhouse projects of 20,000 or more square feet and all additions to existing greenhouse development, i.e... greenhouse expansion, packing sheds, or other' development for a total of existing,and additions of 20,000 or more square feet, shall be.. subject to County discretionary approval and, therefore,9, subject to environmental review under County CEQA guidelines. Action The County Planning Department shall work with the Department of,.Environmental Resources to develop guidelines to standard- ize the environmental' impact analysis of greenhouse develop- ments. This action i,s necessary to ensure that cumulative adverse impacts on coastal. resources areAdentified and that mi.tigation measures are attach,ed to'projects as a condition of. approval.. Such guideli.nes 'shall include an.evaluation'.of the following factors.for each project: a. 'An assessment ofthe.individual and cumulative increases in the amount and rate of runoff that would be caused by. the proposed project and the potential impact on down- stream water courses. Mitigating measures shall be required to prevent runoff waters from entering overbur- denedwater courses by directing runoff to water courses capable of handling the increased flow., or to collect the runoff and proVide.for drainage systems adequate to handle the increased flow. -.108- .b. If the project is located in a groundwater recharge area, a determination of the amount and rate of recharge that would occur if the site were uncovered and the net loss of recharge that will result from the project. Projects will be required to provide for the net potential loss of recharge that will result from the project throughthe use of impoundment basins where feasible or other means of collecting, storing, and reinjecting water for the purpose of recharging the groundwater basin. c. Assessment of the.impact of materials used for coverage and amount of.coverage.on the long-term productivity of soils. d. Assessment of the potential adverse impacts of the project on-the water quality of affected water bodies and ground- water basins. Given adequate evidence that.toxicants or excessive nutrients are present in either point source or non-point source runoff, mitigation measures shall be required, including suspension of the runoff and redirec- tion away from the affected waters or treatment of the runoff to remove toxicants and nutrients present, if possible. To implement this policy in the Carpinteria Valley, a program for regular monitoring of the water quality of the Carpinteria Marsh and streams affected by greenhouse development shall be established (see also Recommenda- tion 8, paragraph b(l), Section 3.9). e. Assessment of the potential adver se impacts of the climate control.aspects of the project on air .quality. In addition to the mitigating measures listed above, other measures necessary tomitigate any adverse impacts identified as a result of the evaluation of these and other factors shall be required as a condition of project approval. In order to adequately assess.the potential individual and cumulative impacts of greenhouse development,on the coastal resources of the Carpinteria Valley, the County should conduct a master environmental impact assessment for the Valley to determine the level of greenhouse development that the Valley's resources cansupport without experiencing adverse environ- mental impacts. _109- Pol icy 8-6: No.greenhouse, hothouse, or accessory structure sha 11 be located closer than 50 feet from the boundary line of a lot zoned resi'dential. In addition, setback and maximum lot. coverage,requirements shall be as'follows: Maximum Lot Coverage for Al Parcel Size Setbacks Structures Less than 5 acres 30 feet from the 75 percent right-of-1way of any,street and 20 feet from the lot lines of the parcel on which the greenhouse is located .5 to 9.99 acres., 130 feet from the 70 percent right-of-way of any street and from the lot lines of the parcel oh,which the.greenhouse is located 10 acres or more 30 feet from the 65 percent right-of-way of any street and from the lot lines of the parcel on which the' greenhouse is located Policy 8-7: Landscaping and screening shall be installed within six.months of completion of new greenhouses and/or accessory buildings. Such landscaping shall reasonably block the view of greenhouse structures and p'arking.areas,from the,nearest,public road(s) within five years of project completion. Policy 8-8: The existing-@and. future viability of large, non-prime agricul- tural lands for which the County of Santa Barbara has not approved land divisions in the Gaviota Coast, North Coast, and Santa Rosa Island planning areas (i.e., cattle grazing operations on 10,000 acres.or more) shall be protected. _110- Residential development at a density greater than that allowed Under the specifiediminimum,parcel size may be permitted only if clustered on.no m,ore than two percent of.the gross acreage with the remainingacreage to be left in'agri cultural production and/or open space. The maximum density allowable under a clustered residential development shall be determined by the County. Such development may be considered subject to the followi.ng findings and conditions: 1. The County shall, make the finding that the existing agri- cultural operation will be enhanced by and not in conflict, with the proposed development. .2. The County shall make the fi nding that water resources and services are adequate.to serve both the proposed develop- ment.and existing agricultural operations. 3. The County shall make the finding that the proposed devel- opment, will have no significant adverse impact on scenic quality or habitat resources. If the County.can make these findings, development may be permitted [email protected] following conditions and pursua,nt.to an implementing overlay district Under the applicable County zoning ordinance: a. Initial public capital costs created by the development shall be borne by the applicant. Property tax and other revenues accruing.to local government from-the development shall be equal to.or exceed all costs of providing services.such as roads, water, sewers, schools, fire and police protection. Any development may be required to provide local security, including fire and police protec- ti6n. b.. Permitted development shall be clustered and/or located to retain at least 98 percent of the gross acreage in produc- tive agricultural land and/or open space. The residential units shall be located on no more than 2% of the gross .acreage which shall. result in residential lots smaller than the 320 acre minimum permitted under the Agriculture II designation. The ownership of the 98% of the gross acreage shall be held in common by the owners of the individual residential lots and shall never be severed in ownership from such owner parcels. The creation of the residential lots shall fully comply with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. c. Development rights to residential uses for that portion of the property that will remain in agriculture shall be granted to.the County and/or a third party such as the California Coastal Conservancy in perpetuity. The portion to remain. in agriculture shall be retained as a single un.it and shall not be further. subdivided. Development rights to be granted pursuant t,o,the.foregoi.ng shall ..be delivered,fr6e and,clear of any.financial liens. d. Provision for adequate public access and recreation shall be required. Note regarding.calculation of:area to be included in two percent figure: The two,percent figure is the maximum area that,will be permitted to be taken out of agricultural production and committed to residential andrelated accessory uses. Areas to be included in the calculation are: residential units, new-roads and parking alreas,,structural 'coverage' for non-agricultural buildings, private open space such as yards or gardens, etc. -112- .3..9- ENV.IRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS 3.9 1 COASTAL ACT POLICIES The guiding policies for the protection of land and marine habitats. in. the coastal zone set forth in the Coastal Act of 1976 are: 30230. Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and, where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given,to areas and species of special biological or economic significance.: Uses of the marine environm ent shall be carried out in a manner.that will sustain the biologicalproductivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations ofall species,of marine organisms adequate for long.-term commercia.1, recreational,, scientific, and educational. purposes. 30231. The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters streams, wetlands, estuaries, and lakes appropriate to maintain optimum populations of marine organisms and for the protection of human-health shall be maintained and, where feasible, restored through, among other means, minimizing adverse effects of waste water discharges and entrainment, controlling runoff, preventing depletion of ground water supplies and encouraging waste water reclamation, maintaining natural vegetation buffer-areas that protect riparian habitats, and minimizing alteration of natural streams. 30233. (a) The diking filling, or dredging of open coastal waters, wetlands, estuaries, an@ lakes shall be permitted in.accordance with other applicable provisions of this division, where Ithere is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative, and where feasible,',mitigation measures have b .een provided to minimize adverse environmental effects, and shall be limited to the following: (1) New or expanded port,,energy, and coastal-dependent industrial facilities, i'nclu.ding commercial fishing facilities. (2) Maintaining existing, or restoring p IreIvioIusly dredged, depths. in existing navigational channels, turning basins, vessel berthing and mooring areas., and boat launching ramps. (3*) In wetland areas only, entrance channels for new or expanded boating facilities; and in a degraded wetland, identified by the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 30411, for boating facilities if, in conjunction with such boating facilities, a substantial portion of the degraded wetland is restored and maintained as a biologically productive wetland; provided, how- ever, that in no event shall the.size of the wetland area used for such boating facility, induding berthing space,'turn'ing basins, necessary navigation'channels, and any necessary support service facilities, be greater than, 25 percent of the total wetland.area to be restored. (4) In open coastal waters, other than wetlands, including streams, .estuaries, and lakes, new or expanded boating facilities. (5) Incidental public service purposes, including, but not limited to,. burying cables and,pipes or inspection of piers and maintenance of existing intake and outfall lines. (6) Mineral extraction, including sand for restoring beaches, except in environmentally sensitive areas. (7) Restoration purposes. (8) Nature study, aquaculture, or similar resource-dependent acti- vities. (b) Dredging and spoils disposal shall be planned and carried out to avoid significant disruption to marine and wildlife habitats and water circulation. Dredge spoils suitable for beach replenishment should be transported for such purposes to appropriate beaches or into suitable longshore current systems. (c) In addition to the other provisions of this section, diking, filling, or dredging in existing estuaries and wetlands shall maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the wetland or estuary. Any alteration of coastal wetlands identified by the Department of Fish and Game, including, but not limited to the 19 coastal wetlands iden- tified in its report entitled, "Acquisition Pri,orities for the Coastal Wetlands of.California" shall be limited to very minor incidental public facilities, restorative measures, nature study, commercial fishing.facilities in Bodega Bay, and development in already developed parts of South San Diego Bay, if otherwise in accordance with this division. 30236. Channelizations, dams, or other substantial alterations of rivers and streams shall incorporate the best mitigation measures feasible, and be limited to (1) necessary water supply projects; (2) flood control projects where no other method for protecting existing structures in the flood plainis feasible and where, such.protection is necessary for public safety or to protect existing development, or; (3) developments where the primary function is the improvement of fish and wildlife habitat. 30240. (a) Environme ntally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas. (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of,such habitat areas. 30607. 1 Where any dike and fill development is permitted in wetlands in conformity with this division, mitigation measures shall include, at a minimum, either acqu.isition of equivalent areas of equal or greater biological produ .ctivity or opening up equivalent areas to tidal action; provided, however, that if no appropriate restoration site is available,. an in-lieu fee sufficient to provide an area of equivalent productive value or surface areas shall be dedicated to an appropriate public agency, or such replacement site shall be purchased before the dike or fill development may proceed. Such mitigation measure shall not be required for temporary or short-term fill or diking: provided, that abond or other evidence of financial respon sibility i's provided to assure that restoration will be accomplished in the shortest feasible time. 3.9.2 DEFINITION AND LOCATION Although most undeveloped areas of the coastal zone, as well as many .,isolated pockets of open space within urban areas, provide a "habitat" for many species of animals and plants, the,intent of the Coastal Act is preservation of significant habitat resources. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas are defined as "any area in which plant or animal life or their hab,itats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem,and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments." (Coastal Act, Section 30107.5) The, coastal. zone of Santa Barbara-County, as a result of its topog- raphy, climate, and land use patterns, exhibits a wealth and diversity of habitats. The islands of Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz, in particular, are known for their outstanding biological values (refer to Section 4.8 for a discussion of island habitats). All known environmentally sensitive habi- tats on the.islands and mainland have been located on.topographic maps. These resource maps and supporting documentation are on:file at the County Planning Department. Habitats which are found in the County's coastal zone include: rare and endangered species habitats (as identified by the California Department of Fish and Game), wetlands, streams, nearshore reefs, tidepools, offshore rocks, native, plant communities, dunes.. kelp beds, harbor seal, rookeries and hauling out grounds, and.seabird roosting and nesting areas. The ge'neral locations of some of the mainland habitat resources are summarized in the following chart: Area Habitat Type Santa Maria River Mouth Wetland Guadalupe Dunes Dunes, dune plant habitat. Least Tern nesting sites Mussel Point. Rocky point, intertidal area*and dunes Point Sal Rocky intertidal, coastal strand-plant community, coastal bluff plant com- munity Santa Ynez River Mouth (Surf) Dune and wetland Point Conception, Jalama, and Rocky intertidal, coastal strand corn- Jualachichi Summit munity, wetland and riparian habitats, chaparral, Pinus muricata stand Point Conception to,Ellwood Rocky intertidal areas Naples Reef Rocky subtidal area Ellwood Pier Area. Native grassland Devereux Dunes and wetland. Coal Oil Point Rocky intertidal Isla Vista Coastal Vernal Pools Rare and seasonal plant community Goleta Point Rocky intertidal Goleta-Slough Wetland, vernal pools, freshwater marsh More Mesa White-tailed Kite habitat El Estero (Carpinteria Marsh) Wetland Carpinteria Reef Rocky intertidal NOTE: Harbor seal hauling grounds, butterfly trees, streams, and native plant communities are found at many locations in the coastal zone. 3.9.3 PLANNING ISSUES Habitats are considered to be environmentally sensitive when they exhibit extreme vulnerability to disturbance or destruction from human activities. In Santa Barbara County, recreational uses, agricultural practices, and development pose the greatest threats to habitats because existing County regulations do not provide adequate protection. These issues are summarized below. Recreational uses: Many.recreat ion areas are located on or near habitat resources. ImpaEts from recreational uses include off-road vehicle (ORV) trespass, tramplin*g or alteration ' 'of vegetati.ve cover, disturbance of wild- life, collection of specimen's, and harvesting for food. These problems are I ,F7A@.. -116- exacerbated by the lack of public awareness of the value of habitats and the potential for damage from-these activities. -Some of these impacts @could be mitigated by.proper management and maintenance of park areas and better control over types and locations of recreational activities. Agricultural uses: Certain agricultural practices which are prevalent in the County have impacts on habitats. These practices include-the use of stream.water for irrigation, land clearing, and pesticide applications, and may damage habitats by causing stream depletion, erosion, and contamination through runoff.' Development: Urban and/or industrial development near or adjacent-to habitats may be accompanied by a host of human activities and related land uses which are incompatible in many instances with the continued existence of certain species. Specific impacts include noise, pollution, intrusion, and outright habitat removal through grading,. paving, and placement.of structures. Oil.development is an issue of Oart'icular.concern due to the threat,of oil spills. Existing oil spill. contin,gency measures may not be adequate to save wetlands, tidepools, and kelp beds in the,event of a 'spill. Existing land use control measures: Existing County procedures and ordinances are not adequate to ensure protection of coastal habitat resources. With the exception of the preserve designation for the Carpin- teria Marsh, habitat areas are not specified or protected in existing, general plan or,zoning designations. Even the recently adopted Conserva-. tion Element is inadequate to protect habitats ' because its policies are advisory rather than mandatory. Consequently, protection of habitats is generally left to the environmental review process. This procedure provides only limited protection of habitat resources; not only are many projects exempt from environmental-review, but it is rare that a project is denied on the basis of findings in environmental documents. Moreover, the lack of existing County policy means that projects are designed without .,benefit of specific guidelines to,ensure protection.of habitat resources. If project re-design is required as a result of environmental review, costs to developers increase significantly. 3.9.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HA8ITAT AREA OVERLAY DESIGNATION The land use plan proposes an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area overl'ay designation to address the deficiencies in existing regulatory procedures. The overlay designation symbolically,indicates the locations of most habitat areas on the land use plan maps. (Small wetlands and streams, which are habitat areas by definition, are shown only on the resource maps and not on the land use plan overlay.) The resource maps include detailed information on all known habitat locations and should be used along with the land use plan.maps. The policies for each habitat type which fol'low 1ater in.this section are to serve as guidelines for develop-' ment on or adjacent to,tWhabitat areas designated on the land use plan and resource maps. -117- The following criteria were used in determining which habitats in the County's coastal.zone warranted. the Habitat Area overlay designation: 1. unique, rare, or fragile communities which should be preserved to ensure their survival in the future, i.e., dune vegetation, native grasslands. 2. Rare and endangered species habitats that are also protected by Federal and.State laws, i.e., harbor seal rookeries and haul out areas. 3. Plant community ranges that,are of significant scientific interest because of extensions of range, or un.usal hybrid, disjunct, and relict species (see definitions in Appendix A). 4. Spe6ialized wildlife habitats which arevital to species survival, i.e.,, White-tailed kite habitat, butterfly trees. @5. Outstanding representative natural communities that have values.ranging from a particularly rich flora and fauna to an unusual d,iversity of species, i.e., Point Sal. 6. Areas with outstanding educational values that should be protected for scientific research and educational uses now and in the future,, i.e., Naples Reef. 7. Areas that are important because of their biological productivity such as wetlands, kelp beds, and interti'dal areas. .8. Areas that are-structurally important in.protecting natural landforms and species, i.e., dunes which protect inland areas, riparian corridors that protect stream banks from erosion and provide shade, kelp beds which provide cover for many species. Significant habitat resources in the coastal zo ne which meel at least one of thesecriteria are,designated.on the land use plan maps. Environ- mentally sensitive habitat areas have.been grouped into the following cate- .gories: While the designations reflected on the land use plan and resource maps represent the best available information, these designations are not defin- itive and may need modification in the future. The scale of the maps precludes complete accuracy in the mapping of habitat areas and, in some cases, the precise location of habitat areas is not known. In addition, migra.tion of.species or discovery of new habitats.would result in the need for designation of a new area. Therefore, the boundaries of the designa- tions should be updated periodically in order to incorporate new data. Changes in theoverlay designations may,be initiated by the County or by landowners. -118- Dunes Subtidal Reefs Wetlands2 Rocky Points and Intertidal Areas Native Grasslands 'Kelp Beds Vernal Pools Seabird Nesting and Roosting Areas Butterfly Trees Native Plantsz Marine Mammal Rookeries Streams and Hauling Grounds White-tailed Kite Habitat Due to the limitations of mapping techniques and, in some cases,. incomplete-information on habitat areas, the following policies shall apply to development on parcels designated as a habitat area on the land use-plan . and/or resource maps and to development on parcels within 250, feet of a habitat area. 'POLICIES:" 9-1: Prior to theissuance of a development permit, all projects on parcels shown on the land use plan and/or resource maps with a Habitat Area overlay designation or within 250 feet of such designa- tion or projects affecting an environmentally sensitive habitat area shall be found to be in conformity with the applicable habitat. protection policies of the land use plan. All development plans, grading plans, etc., shall show the precise location,of the habitat(s) potentially affected by the proposed project. Projects which could adversely impact an environmentally sensitive habitat area may be subject to a site inspection by a qualified biologist to be selected jointly by the County and the applicant. Habitats found in the County and policies for protecting these habitats are listed below., These policies are in addition to.existing State and Federal regulations which protect.many species of plants.and animals and their habitats. HABITAT TYPE: Dunes Location: 'Guadalupe, Surf, Devereux, Channel Islands Description: Dunes are distinct and sensitive ecosystems that contain1many rare, endangered, protected, or unusual plant and.animal species. Dune 2 Most native plant communities are not designated on the land use plan and resource maps,because the' o many locations throughout the. y exist in s coastal zone. Only major streams.and wetlands are shown on,th.e land use plan maps.. -119- landforms serve an important function in protect ing inland areas from st orm damage and erosion. This highly specialized habitat is extremely unstable due to the sensitive.interplay between surf, wind, and sand conditions. Sparse, highly adapted vegetation provides the only stabilization of the constant sand movement. The small-number of undisturbed dune areas in Southern California make many of thedune species uncommon, rare, or endangered. Three rare or endangered plant species found in the dune habitats of Santa Barbara County are Cirsium rhothophil.um, Corethrogyne leudoehylla, and Senecio blochmaniae TNative Plant Society, 1971). The principal threats to dune habitats are land uses or recreational activities which result in removal of the vegetation which stabilizes the sand. Oil and gas development, sand mining, and off-road vehicles use may contribute to degradation of the dune resources unless adequately controlled. The Guadalupe Dunes area extends from the mouth of the Santa Maria River south to Mussel Point. In addition to the rare and endangered plant species listed above, another rare plant, Erigeron foliosus var. bloch- maniae is found here (California Natural Areas Coordinating CounciTT.-The encTangered California least tern nests on these dunes. The Guadalupe Dunes .area has been designated as a National Natural Landmark by the National Park Service in recognition of its outstanding resource values. Current unauthorized recreational use by off-road vehicles and hang-gliders is destroying shallow-rooted plants on the dunes, disturbing bird nesting sites., and may be causing movement of the sand inland onto adjacent agri- cultural lands. The Surf dunes are located at the mouth of the Santa Ynez River and surround a 40-a.cre County park (Ocean Beach County Park). The area around .the County.park is owned by Vandenberg Air Force Base. The sand dunes which are associated with the Santa Yne2 River wetland area are.of great interest to botanists. Cirsium rhothophilum,.an endangered California plant was first collect and described in the dunes of Surf (Munz, 1970). Additionally these dunes contain the southernmost populations of several coastal strand dominants, e.g., Evening Primrose (Oenothera cheiranthi- folia), and Sand Verbena (Abronia latifo.lia (Munz_,__19__7_0T._ Nesting sites of least tern have been found on the Surf dunes., Off-road vehicles. and recreational activities have damaged the dune vegetation and disturbed nesting sites. The Devereux sand dunes are located west of the UCSB campus; most of the dunes are protected under the Natural Land and Water Reserve System of the University of California. The University attempts to protect the dunes from adverse impacts by prohibiting trespassing. There are signs, fences, and campus police patrols to act as deterrents. The dune area to the west of Devereux campus is not protected and is subject to impacts from off-road vehicle and uncontrolled recreational access. -120- Pol i ci es: 9-2: Because of their State-wide significance, coastal dune habitats shall be preserved and protected from all but resource dependent, scienti- fic, educational, and light recreational uses. Resource dependent uses such as sand mining and oil well drilling may be permitted if it can be shown that no alternative location is feasible and such development is sited and designed to minimize impacts on dune vegeta- tion and animal species-3 Disturbance or destruction of any dune vegetation shall be prohibited, unless no feasible alternative exists, and then only if re-vegetation is made a condition of project approval. Such re-vegetation.shall be with native California plants propagated from the disturbed sites or from the same species at adjacent sites. 9-3: All non-authorized motor vehicles shall be banned from beach and dune areas. 9-4: All permitted industrial and recreational uses shall be regulated both during construction and operation to protect critical bird habitats during breeding and nesting seasons. Controls may include restriction of access, noise abatement, restriction of hours of oper- ations of public or private facilities. 9-5: For all permitted uses, including recreation, foot traffic on vege- tated dunes shall be minimized.. Where access through'dunes is neces- sary, well-defined footpaths shall be developed and used. HABITAT TYPE: Wetlands. Location: Santa. Maria River Mouth, Santa Ynez River Mouth, Jalama Creek Mouth, Carpinteria Marsh 'Devereux Lagoon (UCSB), Goleta Slough (City of Santa Barbara), and small wetlands at the mouths of many streams (refer to resource maps). Description: Wetlands, and their associated biotas (marshes, swamps, lagoons and sloughs) are extremely fertile and productive environments. They act as nurseries for many aquatic species and serve as feeding and nesting areas for many waterfowl including rare and endangered species. Tidal flushing from the ocean and nutrient rich freshwater runoff mix to form a delicate balance that maintains the productivity of these environ- ments. Eighty to ninety percent of ihe.State's shorebirds utilize wetland habitats while in California (Fish and Game, 1971). Furthermore, six endangered and one rare species.are dependent on the coastal wetlands. These include the California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), American peregrine falcon,(Falco peregrinus), lightfooted clapper-rail (Rallus longirostris levipe-sT, Californialeast.tern (Sterna albifrons 3 Special studies are needed to develop conditions and m itigation measures for oil.well drilling and sand mining. Refer to Section 3.6 for other policies regarding energy facflities. -121- brown.i), and the salt marsh harvest mouse (At the Crossroads, 1976). Loss of 6Fto 70 percent of California's wetland acreage since 1.900 to develop- ment, dredging, and siltation underscores the need to protect remaining wetland habitats. Development activities in upland watersheds and stream alteration pose the greatest threats to 'Continued viability of wetland habitats due to toxic runoff and siltation. Direct impacts include dredging, mosquito abatement practices, and flood control projects. The Santa Maria River Mouth is located at the extreme northern boundary of Santa Barbara County. It is a winter estuary consisting of 40-50 acres of tidal mudflat area. Although it has not been subjected to intense study, it-is believed that the brown pelican, an endangered species, may make use of this area. The least.tern, another endangered. species, has been observed in the Santa Maria River Mouth during breeding season. Endangered plant species that have been.located in this vicinity by the California Native Plant Society are Castilleja mollis. Cirsium rhothophilum, C. loncholepis, Erigeron foliosus var. blochmaniae, and @Monardella crispa. According to the California Department of Fish and Game, irrigation runoff water is having.an adverse impact on the Santa Maria River Mouth. ("Water Quality and Quantity Problems of.Fish and Wild- life," 1972). The Santa Ynezwetland area lies in the broad lowflood plain of the lower Santa Ynez River. It consists of salt marsh,, mudflats, shallow tidal channels, and open water. The lagoon and river mouth area have an exten- sive habitat frequented by water-ass 'ociated birds including the endangered California least tern., Wading,birds such as the green heron, American bittern, snowy egret, and great blue heron have been sighted in the back- water areas (Fish and Game, 1976). The endangered plant Cordylanthus maritimus is also found in the.'salt marsh areas (California Native Plant ,Society,,1971). Activities affecting this wetland area.include recrea- tional uses (off-road vehicles, sport fishing, and boating, nearby agricul- tural uses, sedimentation, and dredging. Goleta Slough, which is mostly within the jurisdictional limits of the City of Santa Barbara, is located adjacent to the UCSB Campus. It is a @shallow water Salicornia marsh interwoven with several water channels. This Slough once occupied an area of over 1200 acres but as a result of sedimentatio*n and filling for the airport, it has been reduced to a little over 350 acres Endangered species such as the American peregrine falcon, the California*brown pelican, and Belding's savanna sparrow along with the "protected" white-tailed kite have been sighted in the Slough area. Addi- tionally, an endangered plant, Cordylanthus maritimus, has been found in the Goleta Slough environs by the California Native Plant Society. Adverse impacts have been caused by off-road vehicle enthusiasts.use of the area and mosquito abatement activities. *Tidal circulation has also been impaired by levee construction, tide gates, and other factors which have increased sedimentation. _122- Carpinteria Marsh is located immediately west of the City of Carpin- teria. The wetland area is listed as a high priority wetland for protec- tion by the California Department of Fish and Game (1974). Two endangered. bird species, the lightfooted clapper rail and Belding's savanna sparrow, inhabit the marsh along with Cordylanthus maritimus, an endangered plant Species. The University of C-aTl7o-rnia has recently purchased 120 acres of this 230 acre marsh for inclusion in its Statewide Natural Land and Water Reserve System. Access,to the marsh is restricted to individuals and groups such.as.Nat 'ural History Museum personnel, Audubon.bird watching groups, and University researchers. Impacts on the ma rsh from agriculturcil runoff, sedimentation, and mosquito abatement threaten its productivity. Additional wetlands exist at the mouth of numerous streams. These habitats, although smaller, contain many of:the rare and endangered plant ,.and animal species mentioned above and thus are important resoqrces.@to be protected. Policies: 9-6: All diking, dredging, and filling activities shall conform to the provisions of Sections 30233 and 30607.1 of the Coastal.Act. Dredging, when t(onsistent with these provisions and wherenec.essary for the maintainence of the tidal flow and continued viability of the wetland habitat or for flood control purposes, shall be subject to the following conditions:. a.. Dredging shall,be prohibited in breeding and nursery areas and during periods'of fish migration and spawning. b. Dredging shall be limited to the smallest area feasible. c. Designs for dredging and excavation projects sha 11include protective measures such as silt curtains, diapers, and weirs to protect water quality in adjacent areas during construction by preventing the discharge of refuse, petroleum spills, and unnecessary dispersal of silt materials. (Projects which result in discharge of water into.a wetland require a permit from the Regional Water Quality Control'Board.) 9-7: Dredge spoils shall not be deposited permanently in areas subject to tidal influence or in areas where public access would be signifi- cantly adversely affected. When feasible, spoils should be deposited in the littoral drift, except when contaminants would adversely. affect water quality or marine habitats, or on the beach. 9-8: Boating shall be prohibited in all wetland areas except for research or maintenance purposes. 9-9: A buffer strip, a minimum of 100 feet in width, shall be maintained in natural condition along the periphery of all. wetlands. No per manent structures shall be permitted within the wetland or buffer area.except structures of a minor nature, i.e., f Iences, or structures necessary to support'the uses in Policy 9-10. (The upland boundary -123- of a wetland sha-11 be the land that is flooded or saturated at some: time during years of normal precipitation.) 9,-10: Light recreation such as birdwatching or nature study and scientific and educational uses shall be permitted with appropriate controls to prevent adverse impacts. 9-11: Wastewater shall not be discharged into any wetland without a permit from.the Regional Water Quality Control Board finding that such, discharge improves the quality of the receiving water. 9-12: Wetland sandbars may be dredged, when permitted,pursuant to Policy 9-6 a-bove, and when necess Iary for maintenance of tidal flow to ensure the continued biological productivity of the wetland.: 9-13: No unadt.horized vehicle traffic.shall,,be permittedin wetlands and pedestrian traffic shall be regulated and incidental to the permitted uses.; 9-14: New development adjacent to wetlands shallnot result inadverse impacts due to additional sediment'. runoff, noise, and other distur- bances. 9-15: Mosquito abatement pract'ices shall be limited to the minimum neces- ,sary to protect health and prevent damage to natural resources. Spraying shall be avoided during nesting seasons to protect wildlife, especially the endangered light-foot6d clapper rail and Belding's savannah sparrow. Biological controls are encouraged. 9-16: No grazing or other agricultural uses,shall be permitted in coastal wetlands. HABITAT TYPE: Native Grasslands Location: A small patch of native,grassland is located,on the coastal bluffs west of the Ellwood pier. Small patches also.exist in other locations. Description: At one time, native grassland communities covered much of California. However, overgrazing and competition with European weedy species introduced at the time of Spanish settlement have all but eli,min- ated the native grasses from California. Twenty-six of these native grass species are listed as rare, endangered, or possibly extinct by the Califor- nia Native Plant Society.. Additionally, numerous wildflower species occur within the native grassland community. Wildflowers, because of their varying colors, add a unique visual resource to this habitat. The grassland community is sensitive to disturbance, particul,arly from cattle grazing. Disruption to this community,increases its vulnerability to takeover by introduced species.,. -124- Pol icies: 9-17: Grazing shall be managed to protect native grassland habitat. 9 18: Development shall be sited and d.esigned to. protect native grassland areas@ HABITAT TYPE: Vernal Pools Locatiow Isla Vista Description: These small fragile communities are the result of rain or runoff in areas of poor drainage, and support interesting ecological commu- nities during winter and early spring. Plants typical of vernal Pools .include Downingia spp., Lepidium spp. and LXthrumhyssopifolia. The Pacific Tree Frog, the Western Toad, ihe California Tiger Salamander, and the Southern Long.-toed Salamander commonly inhabit the pools along wi th migratory birds who use them in the spring-as resting places. Due to spotty distribution and the degree of adaptation needed for the fluctuating environmental conditions in this community, these,areas often support endangered and rare plant and animal species. The pools also provide water and forage for small grazing animals such as rabbits, mite, voles and gophers (Howald, 1979). Vernal pools are threatened by site development, fire,prevention measures, mosquito control activities,,mowingl disking, and draining. In an undisturbed state, Vernal pools are valuable for scienti- fic and educational purposes. several vernal pools sites are found on undeveloped parcels in the south-westerly area of Isla Vista. These pools are subject to impacts-from mosquito abatement practices, fire prevention measures, and disking. An endangered.plant, Lasthenia conjugehs@ is found.'in@Lthese pools., .Policies: 9-19: No mosquito control activity shall be car,rie.d out in vernal pools, Anless it is required to avoid severe nuisance. 9-20: Grass cutting for fire prevention shall. beconducted -in.such,a manner as to protect.'vernal pool.s. 'No grass cutting shall, be allowed within the vernal pool area or within a buffer zone of five feet or greater. 9-21: Development'shall be sited and designed to avoid vernal pool sites as depicted on the resource maps. HABITAT TYPE: Butterfly Trees Location: Dos Puebl,os, near Coronado Road in Goleta, near Arroyo Quemado, Music Academy of the Wes,t.parking lot in MontecitoP Price estate in Hope Ranch area, Pacific Lighting property near Goleta Slough, Loon Point.area. -125- Description: Tagging studies,indicate that the Monarch Butterfly (Danaus plexipous) migrates southward over long distances to escape the cold winters of the central and northern states. Their wintering grounds are areas within a coastal strip extending from Los.Angeles to Monterey. These wintering grounds are roosting habitats consisting of a circular configura- tion of tall trees, usually eucalyptus, which are essential for the mating phase of the Monarch Butterfly's life cycle. During the fall and winter months the trees are used by massive numbers of Monarch Butterflies as communal roosts. These winter clusters represent the most sensitive part of the Monarch's life cycle. Repopulation of the species depends upon the mating phase which occurs in these specialized habitats. Little is known about the behavior patterns and migration 'routes of, the Monarch Butterfly; therefore, this habitat is of important scientific, educational, and general publ,ic interest. Policies: 9-22: Butterfly trees shall not be removed except where they pose a serious threat to life or property, and shall not be pruned during roosting and nesting season. 9-23: Adjacent development shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from the . trees. HABITAT TYPE: Marine Mammal Rookeries and Hauling Grounds Location: Carpinteria, Goleta, Naples, Point Conception, Channel Islands.4 Description: The Santa Barbara Channel is equalled by few localities in its variety and number of marine mammals. Several species of whale, dolphin, seal, and sea lion are found in the Channel. California grey whales migrate through the Santa Barbara Channel on their way back and forth from their breeding grounds off Baja California. Harbor seals and sea lions use isolated beaches and rocks along the coast and offshore islands for hauling out and pupping grounds. Marine mammals are protected under the provisions of the Federal Marine Mammal Protection Act. This legislation encourages '.'efforts to protect the rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance for each species of marine mammal from the adverse effect of man's action" (Section 2(2)). Harbor seals have a life span of from 15 to 30 years, weigh up to 150 kilograms, and average 1.5 to 2.0 meters in length. Population estimates of Harbor seals along the California coast range from a minimum of 1600 to a maximum of 2500 individuals. Harbor seal hauling grounds are usually sandy beaches or rocky outcrops frequented by harbor seals. Some of these areas are used for rookeries (giving birth and nursing). Studies indicate that nearby deep water, headlands whi.ch restrict lateral access, shelf-like 4 other locations may exist. -126- offshore rocks, and offshore kelp beds..(used for feeding and rafting) are factors influencing selection of hauling grounds. Harbor seal hauling out. appears to be regulated by the time.of day, tidal fluctuations., and human disturbances. Harbor seals do not haul out on beaches that are used heavily by the public. In fact, they have been known to entirely abandon hauling grounds because of excessive human activity In some cases,, however, harbor seals have adapted to minor disturb;nces such as occasional beach walkers And noise of boats or aircraft. Male sea lions can grow to eight feet in length and weigh as much as 1,000 pounds, while the female sea lion can extend six feet in length and weigh up to 600 pounds. They range from British Columbia to the Central Mexican coas t and breed in the summertime on rocks and isolated beaches generally from the Santa Barbara Channel south. Although more common on the Channel Islands, sea lions do haul out on Lion Rock near Point Sal. Located 100 meters due east of the Standard Oil Company pier, the Carpinteria hauling grounds and rookery consists of a sandy pocket beach connected by a sand spit to a shelf-like intertidal rock outcrop. Harbor seals use this hauling ground during.the night and occasionally during the day. However,,they do not use the rock outcrop when people or dogs are nearby. Observations indicate as many as.90 seals use the area. The Goleta hauling grounds are located 1.6 kilometers east of Goleta Beath County Park. The harbor seals in this area haul out during the dAy. and night when'tides are low to expose the sand and.rock outcrops. These seals appear to have adjusted somewhat to the human, aircraft, and boat traffic which frequent the area. As many as 79 harbor seals have been observed using these grounds. A pocket beach located appro ximately .6 kilometers east of Naples Point provides a secluded hauling ground and rookery, utilized during the day and night. Observations indicate as many as 165 harbor seals use these grounds. Two observations of harbor-seals at Point Conception indicate that between 80 and 150 seals may be using a rocky shelf belo'w,the Coast Guard Lighthouse as hauling grounds.. Policies: 9-24: Recreational activities near or on areas used for marine m ammal hauling grounds shall be carefully monitored to ensure continued viability of these habitats. 9-25: Marine mammal rooke 'ries shall not be altered or disturbed by recrea- tional, industrial, or any other uses during the.times of the year when such areas are in use for reproductive activities, i.e., mating, pupping, and pup care. -127- NOTE At present, 'there are only harbor seal rooker ies on the mainland and Santa Cruz and Santa. Rosa Islands. There is the possibility that other species of marine mammals may establish rookeries in other areas in the future, particularly on the Islands. Times of year when marine mammals use rookery areas: Harbor seals:: February through April Northern Elephant seals: Mid-December through February Sea Lions and fur seals: May through September HABITAT TYPE: White-tailed Kite Location: More Mesa Description: Within the United States, the White-tailed Kite is currently found only in California. This bird of prey has pure,white under parts and grey and.white tail feathers.. The White-tailed Kite is most often observed alone or in pairs; however, it is known to roost and, in some cases, nest communally. The More Mesa grassland provides a feeding and nesting habitat for the White-tailed Kite. This hawk, designated as a fully protected species. by the California Department of Fish and Game, cannot be "taken or possessed at any time" (California Fish and Game Code, Section 3511). The kites use the oak trees, found in the northwest portion of More Mesa, for communal ro osting at night and as nesting sites during the breeding season. The surrounding grasslands, ravines, and flood plains of Atascadero Creek serve as hunting grounds for the kites, which feed mainly on the meadow vole and harvest mouse. Estimates of the amount of grassland area needed for feeding by a pair of kites range from 30-125 acres depending upon prey populations. Impacts on the White-tailed Kite include conversion of, grassland feeding areas, and disturbances of nesting and roosting sites. Policies: 9-26: There shall be no development including agricultural development, i.e., structures, roads, 'within the area used for roosting and nesting. 9-27: Recreational use of the roosting and nesting area shall be minimal, i.e., walking, bird watching. Protective measures for this area should include fencing and posting so as to restrict, but not exclude, use by people. 9-28: Any development around the nesting and roosting area shall be set .back sufficiently far as to minimize impacts on the habitat area. 9-29: In addition to preserving the ravine plant communities on More Mesa for nesting and roosting sites, the maximum feasible.area shall be retained in grassland'to provide feeding area for the kites. -128- HABITAT TYPE: Rocky Points and Intertidal Areas Location: Mussel Point, Point Sal, Point Conception to Ellwood, Coal Oil.. Point, Goleta Point,.Carpinteria Bluffs, Channel Islands Description: Rocky points and intertidal areas provide habitats for a diversity of marine organisms whichare adapted to harsh and changing environmental conditions such as wave shock and moisture fluctuation. Direct human disturbance, such as foot traffic, collecting of organisms, or any sort of handling is very destructive to the existing biota. Adverse impacts on marine water quality also affect the biota which thrive on rocky points and.intertidal areas. Destruction to the organisms at one rocky point decreases the probability of natural replacement of organisms at other points because of their biological interdependence. Mussel Point is located just south of the Guadalupe Dunes. It is a rocky headland backed by high dunes of.up to 450 feet. The rugged coast- line supports a sensitive intertidal community. Point Sal is located south of Mussel Point. Its intertidal area extends from the.Point southeasterly to the State beach park. The Point Sal area is.zoologically.significant because of the relatively undisturbed condition of the tidepools and the exemplary display of vertical. zonation within the intertidal zone. The area from Point Conception to Ellwood is approximately 30 miles in length. This stretch of coastline has been recommended for preserve status by the Conservation Element due to,.its many fine-intertidalareas. Many- segments of this,coastline remain relatively undisturbed d.ue-to a' lack of public access. Coal Oil Point is a low-lying rocky reef onthe west campus of the University of California. This area is valued for its "remarkably rich intertidal invertebrate fauna" (Conservation Element). These invertebrates include many species of starfish, crabs, octopus, and'molluscs. This area is designated as a Natural Reserve by,the University of California. The reef area is used extensively for educational.purposes. For this reason and its proximity to urban areas,. heavy collecting activity has disturbed the site. Goleta Point is also located on the main University of California at Santa Barbara campus. This is an exposed rocky poirt that is subjected to heavy foot traffic because of its proximity to the campus and dormitories. The Carpinteria reef and bluffs, located at the eastern edge of Carpinteria State Beach, present the most diverse intertidal area on the mainland south of Point Arguello (Conservati.on Element). The reef contains organisms from relatively large taxonomic groups which are absent in other areas. Additionally, some species,uncommon on the South Coast have been sighted.in the Carpinteria.Reef., _129- Pol i ci es: 9-30: In order to prevent destruction of organisms whi'ch thrive in inter- tidal areas, no unauthorized vehicles shall be allowed on beaches adjacent to intertidal areas. 9-31: Only light recreational use shall be permitted on public beaches which include or are adjacent to rocky points or intertidal.areas. 9-32: Shoreline structures, including piers, groins, breakwaters, drain- .ages, and seawallss and pipelines, shouldbesited or routed to avoid significant rocky points and intertidal areas,. HABITAT TYPE: Subtidal Reefs Location: Naples, Carpinteria Description: Su,btidal reefs are offshore rocky areas that serve asattach- ment points for a hi-gh number and diversity.of algae, invertebrates, and fish species. The reef environment is a unique and rich resource, used for research, education, and commercial and recreational fishing. Naples Reef is an intertidall and subtidal area six miles west of Goleta extending a mile or so out to sea. According to biologists, this reef contains the largest number and highest diversity of intertidal organisms within the County. The reef is also believed to have the greatest diversity of algae anywhere along the South Coast. Invertebrate zoologists collecting specimens at Naples Reef have observed uncommon organisms (e.g. colonial anthozoans, phoronids, bryozoans, and dorid and aeolid nudibranchs). Moray eels (Gymnothorax) have been found at Naples Reef and at only one other locality in the County. Striped perch (Embio- tica lateralis) and Catalina Goby (Lythrypnus) are also found at the reef and are uncommon in most other parts of the County coastline. Field trips and research projects are conducted at the reef by UCSB researchers and students, and to a lesser extent by Cal Poly at San Luis Obispo, the University of California at Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara City College. Other uses in this area include fishing, surfing, and skin and SCUBA diving. Commercial and recreational fishing and collecting are causing the depletion of lobster, red sea urchin,'and abalone. Continueddepletion will erode the educational value of Naples Reef. Carpinteria Reef is located offshore at the extreme eastern edge of Carpinteria State Beach and extends one mile to the south. This reef is very diverse biologically. For example, Elysia and Tigriopus, two inter- tidal invertebrates which are not often seen on the South Coast, are found on the Carpinteria Reef. The reef is of high scientific and educational value and is sensitive to collecting pressures due to extensive recrea- tional use. Carpinteria Reef is also a popu lar skin and SCUBA diving area. The California Department of Fish.and.Game'considers this reef to be.a favorite spear fishing spot for opaleye., halfmoon, sheephead, and pile perch. -130- Pol icies: 9-33: Naples reef shall be maintained,primarily as a site for scientific research and education. Recreational and commercial uses shall be permitted as long as such uses do not result in depletion of marine resources. If evidence of depletion is found, the County shall work with the Department,of Fishand Game and sport and commercial fishing groups to assets the extent of damage and implement mitigating measures. 'HABITAT TYPE: Kelp Beds Location: Along the coast from Jalama to Carpinteria Description: The Santa Barbara County coastline supports a rich kelp bed resource. Kelp beds are productive environments which serve as fish habitats and are therefore important to sport and commerc.ial fishermen and biologists. Kelp beds are destroyed by poor water quality from sources such as sewer outfalls, siltation a-nd other ocean bottom disturbances, water temperature changes, and overgrazing from marine invertebrates (such as the sea urchin) and fish. Extensive kelp bed areas have been destroyed in Southern California coastal areas due to.some of these impacts. The effect of kelp harvesting on long-term survival and productivi.ty is a source of considerable controversy'.. The activities of kelp cutters are currently regulated by the California Department of Fish and.Game. Policies: Since the County does not have direct jurisdiction over activities that could impact kelp resources, it should request that 1) the Department of Fish and Game carefully monitor the kelp harvesting industry to ensure that such activity will not reduce kelp bed size and range or its productivity as a fish nursery habitat, and 2) State and Federal agencies carefully monitor activities that may.affect marine water quality such as sewage disposal, dredging, and energy development. HABITAT TYPE: Seabirds.Nesting and Roosting Sites Location: Lion Rock, Channel Islands Descriptio n: Seabirds utilize rock outcrops and seacliffs.on the mainland and offshore islands-for nesting and roosting purposes. Birds which nest on the Channel Islands often disperse along the mainland during the non- breeding season. Populations along the coast are,usually high during the winter months and when tidal changes are extreme. Low tides expose normally hidden intertidal invertebrates which serve as food for seabirds. The California brown pelican, western gull, several species of cormorants, loons, and grebes are found in the Santa Barbara Channel region. Impacts upon seabird populations include human disturbances of roosting areas, oil spills, and chemical pollution from mainland outfall.s. 'Pol i c 1 es: 9-34: Recreational activities near areas used for roosting and nesting shall be controlled to avoid disturbance to seabird populations, particularly during.nesting season. HABITAT TYPE: Native Plant Communities (examples:. coastal sage scrub, chaparral, coastal bluff, closed cone pine forest, Califor- nia native oak woodland (also individual oak trees)), endangered and rare plant species as designated by the Cali fornia Native Plant Society, and other plants of special interest such as endemics. Location: Countywide5 Areas-with..outsta,nding examples of native plant communities'are Mussel Point, Point Sal and Point Conception. Description: Natural ecological systems composed of native plant species serve many essential functions. They serve as wildlife habitats and provide nesting sites and feeding resources for many animals. Native .plants, due to their adaption to the local,environment, us.e.less water than most introduced species and contribute*to the stabilization of soil on bluffs, hillsides, and watersheds. In addition, native plants are an integral component of the landscape that makes the Santa Barbara County coastal zone a visual resource of more than local importance. Oak trees need special attention, as they are large and provide important habitat and .shading. They are very long-lived, relatively slow-growing, and are, easily harmed by surrounding land uses. Grazing in the oak-savanna can prevent regeneration of individual trees. A delicate coastal strand community covers some of the upland area near Mussel Point. In addition to the typical species found in this commu- nity, such as sand verbena,(Abronia maritima and A. umbellata), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), and lupine (Lupinus albifro7ns), -four rare plant species have been reported: Cirsium rhothophilum. Senecio.blochmaniae, CastijltL mollis and MonardeTT-a-cr-lT'spa. Point Sal is located just south of Mussel Point. Due to the relative lack of human disturbance and accessibility, several of the Point Sal plant communities are in excellent condition. The vegetation on the steep slopes of the cliffs at Point Sal is made up of the coastal bluff community. This community is rare in Santa Barbara County and Point Sal has the best example on the mainland. An endangered'plant, Sanicula hoffmannii, is found in the coastal sage community, which is also represented at Point Sal. 5Most of these habitats are not designated on the land use maps because they occur in so many areas. Therefore, the policies will have to be applied on a case-by-case basis as projects are reviewed. -132- Point Conception is a broad, flat marine.terrace with'bluffs up to 50. meters in height. It is located at the point.where the north to south orientation of the Santa Barbara coast changes to an east to west direc- tion. As with Point Sal,,Point Conception is important from a scientific and educational standpoint. Coastal strand, dune, chaparral, and coastal sage scrub communities are all represented at Point Conception. Two rare and endangered plants found here are Cirsium rhothophilum and Senecio blochmaniae. Point Conception has been minimally disti d, largely because oFthe lack of access to,the site.; all of the la,nd near the Point is privately owned and closely patrolled. Policies: 9@35: Oak trees, because they are particularly sensitive to environmental conditions, shall beprotected. All land.use activities, including cultivated agriculture and grazing, should be carried out in such a manner as to avoid damage to native oak trees. Regeneration of oak trees on grazing lands should be encouraged. 9-36: When sites are Igraded or developed, areas with significant amounts of native vegetation shall be preserved. All development shall be sited, designed, and constructed to minimize impacts of grading, paving, construction of roads or structures, runoff, and erosion on native vegetation.. In particular, grading and paving shall not ..adversely affect root zone aeration and stability of native trees. -133- HABITAT TYPE: Streams Location: Perennial intermittant POINT SAL Santa Maria River Corralitos Canyon Santa Ynez River JALAMA TO GAVIOTA Canada de la Gaviota Canada de la Cuarta Canada del Agua Caliente Canada del Coyote Canada de Alegria Canada del Agua canada del Sacate Canada de las Panoches Canada de Santa Anita Canada de las Agustine Arroyo Bulito, Arroyo San Augustine Barranca Honda Canada de Pescado Canada del Cojo Canada de Chiclan Wood Canyon Canada de la Llegua Jalama Creek Canada del Gato, Gaspar Creek Canada del Cementerio Espada Creek Damsite Canyon Black Canyon Escondido Creek GAVIOTA COAST Canada San Onofre Canada del Barro Canada del Molino Canada del Cementario Arroyo Quemado Canada Alcatraz Arroyo Quemado Canada del Leon Tajiguas Canada de la Posta Canada del Refugio Canada de las Zorillas Canada del Corral Canada de la Gallina Canada del Capitan Canada de la Huerta Las Llagas Canyon Canada de la Rita Canada del Venadito Canada de la Destilladora Gato Canyon Las Varas Dos Pueblos EagleCanyon Tecolote Canyon Bell Canyon GOLETA Atascadero Creek San Pedro Creek Tecolotito Creek Cameros Creek San Jose Creek Devereux Creek MONTECITO AND SUMMERLAND San Ysidro Creek R omero Creek Oak Creek Montecito Creek CARPINTERIA VALLEY Rincon Creek Toro Canyon Creek Santa Monica Creek Franklin Creek Carpinteria Creek Gobernador Creek Arroyo Paredon Source: USGS Maps -134- Description: Streams and creeks provide habi tats for many bird, animal, and plant species and serve.as major corridors for transporting nutrients and sediments to wetlands and estuaries. They also play a critical role in providing sand for beach replenishment. Streams and creeks provide an environment for plant and animal species that cannot tolerate the arid conditions of the dominant chaparral environment. Riparian v ,egetation, including California Bays (Umbell,ularia californica), Willows1(Salix.�,E-)J, .Big Leaf Maples (Acer macrophyT-lum), and Sycamores (Plantus racemosa), is found along many Of the County's streams. Strands of -California Walnut (Juglans californica),, uncommon in Santa Barbara County ., occur along Jalama andRincon Creeks. Additionally, numerous water-loving organis .ms including the Monterey Salamander (Ensdtina) and the Pacific Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata) live within th-esestream environments. Streams and creeks affect both the quantity and quality of local water supplies. Heavy siltation of the stream bed can clog the natural flow of water from 'the surface into groundwater reserves. Increased sedimentation in streams also results in higher flows and increased flood hazards. Polluted runoff from upland development or direct discharge into a stream can infiltrate the groundwater,'thereby polluting underground water resources. Development and land use activity within and,adjacent to the watercourse has profound effects on stream hydrology, channel geometry,, and water quality. Protection of streams requires regulation of land use within the immediate environmen t as well.as control of land use in the larger watershed. The following policies.are directed. at development@ within the stream corridor. Regulat.io InIof. 11 land,'u.ses in the watershed is addressed.i.n Section 3.3@of the plan. Definitions: stream: watercourses, includi'ng,.major and minor streams, draihageways and small lakes, ponds and marshy areas through which. streams pass. (Coastal wetlands are n ot included.) Major Stream: a stream with a.drainage area in excess of 500 acres. Minor Stream: a stream with 6 drainage area l,ess than 500 acres. Riparian Vegetation: vegetation normally found along the banks and.beds of streams, creeks, and rivers.. Stream Corridor: a stream and its minimum prescribed buffer strip. Buffer: a designated width of land adjacent to the stream which is neces- sary to protect biological productivity, water quality, and hydro- .1ogical characteristics of the stream. A buffer strip,is measured horizontally from.the banks.or high water mark of the stream landward. _135- Pol icies: .9-37: The minimum buffer strip for major streams. shall be 20.feet and, for minor streams...15 feet. These minimum buffers,may be adjusted by.the. County on a case-by-case basis after investigation of the following factors: .a. soil type and stability of stream corridor; b. how surface water filters into the ground; C. types and amount of riparian vegetation and how such vegetation .@contributes to soil stability an*d habitat value;. d. slope of the land on either side of the stream; and e. location.of the 100-year flood plain boundary. 9-38: No structures shall be located within the stream corridor except: dams; structures necessary for flood control purposes; bridges, when supports are located outside the critical habitat; pipelines, when no- alternative route is feasible; and fences. 9-39: Dams or other structures that would prevent upstream migration of anadromous fish shall not be allowed in streams targeted by the California Department of Fish and Game unless other measures are used to allow fish to bypass obstacles., These streams include: :San, Antonio Creek (Los Alamos area), Santa YneZ River, Jalama Creek, Santa Anita Creek, Gaviota Creek, and Tecolote Creek. 9-40: All development, including dredging, filling, and grading within stream corridors, shall be limited to.activities necessary for flood control purposes, bridge construction, water supply projects, trail construction, or laying of pipelines, when.no alternative route is feasible. When such activities requ,ire removal of riparian plant species, re-vegetation with local native plants.shall be required except where undesirable for flood control purposes. Minor clearing. of vegetation.for hiking, bikingi and equestrian trails shall be permitted. 9-41: All permitted construction and grading within stream corridors shall be carried out in such a manner as to mini,mize impacts from increased ruhoff, sedimentation, biochemical-degradation, or thermal pollu- tion. 9-42: The following activities shall be prohibited within stream corridors: cultivated agriculture, pesticide applications, except by a mosquito abatement or flood-control district, and installation of septic tanks. 9-43: Other than projects t hat are currently approved and/or funded, no further concretechannelization or other major alterations of streams in the coastal@zone shall be permitted unless consistent with the provi,sions of Section 30236 of the Coastal Act. -136- 3.9.5 RECOMMENDED ACTIONS The following actions areneeded to ensure long-term preservation, of habitat resources in the coastal zone: 1. Immediate publ,ic action is needed t o halt the unauthorized use.of:off- road vehicles on the Guadalupe. Dunes,., 2- The County should pursue funding for a special study of-the Guadalupe Dunes. This study should include an inventory.of the biological and r s'for sand mining and archaeological resources and performance standa d oil and gas development. 3. The County should pursue additional measures,.to.ensure long-term preservation of the habitat resources of the following areas: Guada- lupe Dunes, Point'Sal, Santa, Cruz and.Santa Rosa Islands., These additional measures mayinclude: public acquisition.,.conservation easements, open space or recreational preserves,, purchase of develop-. ment rights 4. The County should post signs at appropriate-locations which will restrict public access. into the following habitat areas: dunes, wet- lands and estuaries,@and prohibit the coll.ecting of marine organisms in rocky points and intertidal areas. 5. The County should encourage and support efforts.to increase.public understanding of significant habitat- areas by 'all of the following measures: a. E,ncouragi.ng educational programs on habitat areas in the public schools.and informal education programs@through community organiza-. tion�. bo Providing signs, interpretive displays, etc., on habitat sites which are on or adjacent to County parks. .c. Pursuing funding for specific studies to determine the effecton wildlife and habitats of various land.use activiti :es-and to det er- mine allowable levels and kinds@of uses as well as appropriate mitigation measures. 6. The County, in cooperation with other agencies, including the Depart- ment of.Fish.and Game, needs to undertake systematic investigations of stream ecosystems for purposes of inventory and for development of protection and enhancement programs. Funding sources should be sought for these studies. 7o Public action. is need.ed,to restore South Coast streams that have.been interrupted or altered by culverts along Highway .101. -137- 8. The County should assume the role of lead agency in forming a manage- ment committee to ensure the preservation of the biological producti- vity and protection of the water quality-of the Carpinteria Marsh. Agencies to be represented on the management committee include: County Flood Control, Mosquito Abatement District, U.C.S.B@., Sandyland Protec- tive Association, Department of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.C. Cooperative Exten- sion, Coastal Commission, City of Carpinteria, Nurserymen's Associa- tion, and County Planning Department. a) The Committee should be responsible for developing a comprehensive management plan for the slough and surrounding watershed. b) The plan should include the following elements: (1) Monitoring Program: Baseline data,evaluating existing water quality and. biological productivity needs to'be collected. In partic*ul.ar, research should determine if sedimentation and pesticides are adversely impacting the marsh. Depending on the implications of.the baseline data, specific polities, programs., and performance standards would need to-be developed. (2) Management Program: This element of the plan should provide for ongoing management of the slough. It should include recommendation-s for changes to existing ordinances where nIecessary (i.e., grading, zoning), refinements of the perfor- mance standards proposed in the.land use plan, and policies regarding appropriate kinds and intensities of recreational, educational, and scientific uses. NOTE: Refer to Section 4.8 for discussion of habitat resources on.Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands. -138- 3.10 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 3.10.1, COASTAL ACT POLICIES 30244. Where development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preser- vation Officer, reasonable mi-tigation measures shall be required. 3.10.2 @BACKGROUND The South Coast area of Santa Barbara County is one of the most impor- tant archaeological regions in California. This area was densely occupied by the Chumash at the time of Spanish contact, and archaeological evidence confirms that it was so occupied for a considerable period of time. Site density in the area is estimated to be very high,.although it has not been systematically surveyed. Approximately 90 percent of the remaining sites directly on the coast have been recorded, chiefly by D. B. Rogers in 1929. Areas just a few hundred Yards away from the.toast are not as well-known, although they are also believed to contafn a high density of sites. Chumash sites are known in the Point Conception.area, and it is probable that more exist. In addition, Point Conception is highly regarded by all North American Indians as the "Western Gate.." It is revered by Native Americans as the passageway for souls from this world to the next and is sacred ground. The only area in northern Santa.Barbara County that has been subjected to intensive survey over the last few ye .ars is the Vandenberg region. Investigations have revealed a very high density of sites on Vandenberg Air Force Base and adjacent areas. Very little, however, is known at present of the archaeology of other areaslin the northwestern part of the County although it is likely that significant areas exist. For example, several archaeological sites have been identified in the vicinity of the Guadalupe Dunes. Hammond's Meadow is the only site in the coastal zone that is currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. If an adequate survey of the Santa Barbara County coastline were to take place, it is probable that the entire area could be linked into one large, high density archaeological site zone. Because native American Indians have used this area for perhaps up to 7,000 years, many remnants of their villages, camps, food processing, and,ceremonial sites exist in the coastal zone. The physical attributes of these sites include burials, artifacts, house and ceremonial structure remains, kitchen and food processing "mi0dens," shells and bones, as well as some rock drawings (pictographs and petroglyphs) and special sites containing only rock arti- facts. Those sites which are currently known are mapped and on file with th e @County Planning Departme nt and the Department of Environmental Resources. To protect sites,.however, these maps are confidentia,l.. 3.10.3 PLANNING ISSUES Although factors causing similar population distribution are probably different, the Indians of Santa Barbara County and the current population show preference for the same general locations. Consequently, present populations have damaged many archaeological sites. In 1973, the Califor- nia State Archaeological Task Force estimated that 50 percent of all archaeological sites in California, and 81 percent in Santa Barbara County, have been destroyed. Since archaeological sites are a non-renewable resource, the remaining sites need to be protected. 'At present, urbanization and p0lic access appear to be the principal sources of destruction of archaeological sites. The direct threats posed by urbanization include: plowing; bulldozing; residential and industrial construction; grading for roads and highways; construction of parking lots, airstrips, and railways; cattle grazing; water projects (eroding and burying sites); off-road vehicles; recreational developments; natural forces (water and wind); and unauthorized collecting of artifacts. One of the most significant indirect threats for the destruction of archaeological sites is public access. Vandalism has always been a source of destruction to sites, and the probability of it@occurring increases with enhanced -access to areas of archaeological significance. Any increase in temporary or permanent population in the vicinity of a site through construction of housing projects, trailer parks, campgrounds, or recreation areas increases the vulnerability of archaeological sites to disturbance. Construction of public.roads which provide access to areas of archaeological significance or publication of known site locatio'ns or areas of high site density also can increase vandalism. 3.10.4 POLICIES Policy 10-1: All available measures, including purchase, tax relief, purchase of development rights,..etc., shall be explored to avoid development on significant historic, prehistoric, archaeological, and other. classes of cultural sites. Policy 10-2: When developments are proposed for parcels where archaeo- logical or other cultural sites are located, project design shall be required which,avoids impacts to such cultural sites if possible. -140- Policy 10-3: When.sufficient planning flexibility does not permit avoiding construction on*archaeological or other types of cultural sites, adequate mitigation shall be required. Mitigation shall be designed in accord with,guidelines of the State. Office of Historic Preservation and the State of California Native American Heritage Commission. Policy 10-4: Off-road vehicle use, unauthorized collecting of artifacts, and other activities other than development which could destroy or damage archaeological or cultural sites shall be prohibited. Policy 10-5: Native Americans shall be consulted when development propo- sals are submitted which impact significant archaeological: or cultural sites. 3.10.5 HISTORICAL RESOURCES Santa Barbara's historical heritage is rich and diverse. Prime examples of historic sites survive from each of the major.periods of Cali., fornia history. In the coastal zone, the majority of these sites are found within the City of Santa Barbara, although a more extensive inventory of historical sites may turn up new sites within the County's jurisdiction. The Vicente Ortega Adobe is probably the most important site within .the coastal zone. This adobe is located in the foothills north of Route 101 between Goleta and-Gaviota Pass near Arroyo.Hondo. It was built in the late 18401's or early 1850's by descendents of Jose Francisco Ortega, the founder of Santa B 'arbara. The adobe remains.in its original condition and has not been subjected to restoration. Consequently, it is an extremely importa,nt example of early adobe construction.. Nineteen.other historic sites have been inven,toried,within the County's coastal zone. Listed geographicallyfrom north to south, they 'include: Point Sal Point Perdernales Point Conception Lighthouse Gaviota Landing Gaviota.Pass (State Historical Landmark) Baron Adobe La Vigia Refugio Beach Park Erro Pepper Tree Ygnacio Ortega Adobe Bruno Orella Adobe El Capitan Beach Park Dos Pueblos (Historic Site, Cabrillo Anchorage) Whaling Camp (Goleta Point Area) Asphaltum Mine (Goleta--UCSB Area) Massini Adobe (Montecito) First Oil Well (Summerland) Fleishman House (Lambert Road) SheparWs Inn (Carpinteria Valley) -141- Recommendations': Although the Coastal Act does not specifical.ly call for protection of historical resources, the.followin.g recommendations are made to ensure, protection of important historical sites in the coastal zone of Santa Barbara County. 1. The County should undertake an inventory of historical sites in the unincorporated areas of the County.' 2. The si,gnificant sites should be designated as landmarks by theCounty Advisory Landmark Committee and restrictions imposed as,currently permitted by County Ordinance No. 1716. Historic sites of national significance should be nominated for land- mark 'status by the National Historic Landmarks Program and the National Register of Histortc Places. Those of State-wide significance should be nominated for inclusion on the register of California Historical Landmarks. 4. Owners of historical sites meeting the criteria specified in Sections 50280-50289 of the Government Code should be encouraged to enter into historical properties contracts with the County (the contract gives the owner the-.benefit of assessment.based on.restricted use of the property) to insure permanent preservaton,of significant sites. NOTE: Most,.of.the information.for this section, was taken from the County's Conservation Element. -142- .3. 11 AIR QUALITY 3.11.1 COASTAL ACT POLICIES 'Only two sections ofthe Coastal Act directly address the issue of air quality. Under Section 30253.(3) of the Coastal Act, new development shall "Be consistent with requirements imposed by an air-pollution control district or the State Air Resources Control Board as'to each particular development." In addition, under Section 30253.(4), new development shall. IlMinimize energy consumption and vehicle miles traveled." A number of other sections of the Coastal Act reinforce these policies either directly or indirectly. Section 30250 urges that new development be located near existing developed.areas to prevent excessive sprawl. Section 30252 urges that new development be.sited so as to assure the potential for public transit for high intensity uses, and that non-automobile circulation be en couraged within the development. . Under Section 30241, protection of agricultural land by establishing stable urban-rural boundaries, limiting conversions of agricultural land, and controlling public service and facility extensions, further.acts to limit sprawl and thus reduce the distances people travel. In addressing the issue of air quality, the land.use plan must be consistent with both the Coastal Act and State.and Federal air quality standards. 3.11.2 CONSISTENCY WITH COA STAL ACT By implementing these policies of the Coastal Act, the land use plan will help to reduce air pollution. The land use plan designates boundaries separating urban and rural land uses thus preventing the encroachment of new urban development in agricultural and rural areas. Within the urban areas there is enough vacant land to allow for substantialinfilling. However, if these vacant areas are,developed without phasing controls, the resultant levels of growth may be greater than those permissible for attainment of the Federal air quality standards. By encouraging the concentration of developmentand limiting sprawl, the land use plan should contribute to the reduction of vehicle miles travelled and result in improved public transit and carpools by increasing the density of popula- tion along a given route. The access and recreation proposals in the land use plan reflect mixed effects on air quality. Within the urbanized South Coast area, the land use plan proposes increased opportunities for access and recreation to serve mostly local residents. In many, cases, the plan makes no provision for parking, but encourages,pedestrian and bicycle access. However, the -143- plan.also proposes expansion of access and recreation in the rural areas of the County. Most of these areas can only,be reached by private transporta- tion, since public transit service does not exist and is not planned. While many of the proposals in the area between Gaviota and Guadalupe are for limited access via hiking trails, autos would still be needed to reach the trail.heads. Provisions for public transit at somefuture date should be considered in framing specific proposals for expanded recreational facilities along the South Coast. The importance of the County, particularly the South Coast, as a recreational area has resulted in the acquisition of large coastal areas by the State Department of Parks and Recreation. State Park facilities generally include overnight campgrounds and thus cater to the out-of-County user. Since most of the State Parks are filled to capacity during the summer months, the amount of traffic generated may be substantial. The State has plans for considerable expansion of its holdings in the area between Ellwood and Gaviota. These plans, if they include proposals for more camping facilities, will need to be evaluated carefully for their impacts on air quality. The State is also planning a bicycle trail that will eventually link Santa Barbara and Goleta with the State Parks at El Capitan, Refugio, a-nd Gaviota. Though this trail will reduce the need by' local residents to use car s to access beaches west of Ellwood, its impact on vehicle miles travelled will be insignificant. In terms of impacts of industrial facilities on air quality, the land use plan does not propo'se.a substantial expansion of areas available for industrial uses. In the case of oil and gas development, industrial desig- nations.am confined to existing processing facilities. These facilities, which are currently dispersed along the coast between Carpinteria and Point Conception, may need to be expanded and upgraded to serve increased produc- tion in the State Tidelands and Federal OCS. 3.11.3 CONSISTENCY WITH THE AIR gUALITY ATTAINMENT PLAN (AQAP) One mechanism for achieving consistency between.the land use plan and the requirements of the Clean Air Act and its amendments is the applica- tions of,the provisions of the Air Quality Attainment Plan to* the coastal zone. The substance of the AQAP.rests with development of control strate- gi6s for individual pollutants. The control strateg.ies developed under the AQAP effort are based on: (1) inventory of.current emissions; (2) projec- tion of future emissions; (3) analysis of reductions available from control measures; and (4) synthesis'of control measures into a strategy in order to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The AQAP includes four types of control measures: stationary, transportation, land use, and energy. Only the AQAP land use measures directly impact the LCP land use plan. Sin 'c"e.the land.use:meas.ures are not yet adopted, the degree of consistency between the LCP,,Ia*nd use plan and the AQAP cannot be deter- mined. Policy: Policy 11,1: The provisions of the Air Quality Attainment Plan shall apply to the coastal zone. -144- CHAPTER 4: THE PLANNING AREAS 4.1 INTRODUCTION In order to achieve the level of detailed planning required by the Coastal Act, Santa Barbara County's coastal zone has been divided into seven subareas. These include the Carpinteria Valley, Summerland, Montecito, Gaviota Coast (Ellwood to Gaviota), the North Coast (Gaviota to the Santa Maria River mouth), and the Channel Islands. In this chapter, each planning area discussion begins with a description of the physical characteristics of the area. The character description is followed by a discussion of coastal planning issues which are relevent in the subarea (e.g., the protection of visua'l resources, the availability and demand for coastal recreation and beach access, and low and moderate cost housing accessibility). In a few cases, where large parcels exist within an already urbanized area (i.e., More Mesa, Hammond's Meadow), special planning has been required resulting in specific policies to guide future development of these parcels. Each planning area discussion is concluded with a summary of the land 'use maps. This summary highlights the changes in existing zoning designations that are'proposed for the coastal zone. The resource and service system capacity data and buildout projections that are referred to throughout the.planning area discussions are contained in Appendices.D and E respectively. The last section of this chapter--the Channel.Islands-- differs in format'-from the discussions for the preceding planning areas. Due to their unique characteristics, a more detailed discussion of the resources and planning issues is included. The Chan'nel Islands section is concluded with a.set of special policies that are proposed to guide future development and recreational use on Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz. -145- PAW", Wall 1978 RON MORGAN 4. 2 Carpinteria Valley 4.2 CARPINTERIA VALLEY 4.2.1 CHARACTER OF THE PLANNING AREA The Carpinteria Valley is a long, na rrow coastal plain paralleling the shoreline and the Santa Ynez Mountains. It is bounded by the Pacific Ocean and the coastal zone boundary to the north and south, and the Ventura County line and Toro Canyon Road to the east and west. Although the City of Carpinteria has grown rapidly in recent years, the Valley remains predominately agricultural. From Toro Canyon to the Ventura County.line, orchards, fields of flowers, and grebnh 'ouses are the prevailing landscape. The City of Carpinteria is literally encircled by agriculture.which extends into the Carpinteria foothills. As an agricultural resource, Carpinteria Valley is among the finest in the State of California for the production of specialty crops, which include avocados, cut flowers, and foliage plants. The local climate, prime soils, and relatively clean air make the area highly desirable to growers. The Valley's two climatic.zones, Maritime and Coastal, are characterized by very mild temperature ranges and nearly frost-free growing conditions. Average seasonal temperatures range from 55' F in winter to 650 F in summer; and there are between 310 and 330 frost-free days per year. These mild temperatures, combined with a relatively wind-free setting and excellent solar exposure (due to the north-south orientation), help produce excepti-onally fine quality, high-yield crops which can be harvested when other agricultural areas are out of:production. Carpinteria Valley growers thereby enjoy a market advantage over their coun .terparts elsewhere. Carpinteria Valley has di.stinct agricultural subareas. The Valley's westerly end i.s a mix of avocado orchards, greenhouses, and open field flowers. In recent years, greenhouse development has been particularly active in this area. The Valley floorto the east and north of the City of Carpinteria is one of the most fertile and productive agricultural areas in the Valley and is currently planted,to avocados and lemons. North of Foothill and Casitas Pass Roads, the terrain becomes progressively steeper and rugged. Avocado orchards dominate here, while a few greenhouses and nurseries.occupy some of the level land.. Newly planted avocado orchards extend well into the foothills and beyond the coastal zone boundary into the National Forest Service jurisdiction. Urban development in the Carpinteria Valley is mainly confined within the city limits of Carpinteria and several neighborhoods scattered about the Valley Floor and along thecoastline. Serena Park, the most westerly neighborhood, is composed of single family residences. Just east and north of Serena Park is a large condominium development which abuts the polo field, a well-known Carpinteria Valley landmark visible from U. S. 101. East of the polo field and north of Foothill Road are the hillside neigh- borhoods of Ocean Oaks and La Mirada. These neighborhoods are small, isolated subdivisions surrounded by agriculture. -146- At the opposite end of the Valley to the east is Shepard's Mesa, an area zoned for one to three acre estates and surrounded by steep and marginally productive agricultural land., Homes on Shepard's Mesa have spectacular views of the entire Valley, the Pacific Oceanj and the Channel Islands. Carpinteria's coastline (bordered by Rincon Point to the east and Loon Point to the west) includes bluffs, sandy beaches, and an estuary. Three residential neighborhoods (Rincon Point, Sandyland Cove, and Padaro Lane) are located along the coastline. Immediately to the west of Rincon Point is the County's Rincon Beach Park, which provides parking, beach access, and limited facilities. To the north and west of the park, the bluffs rise sharply.in a series of plateaus. The Southern Pacific main line parallels the bluffs and impinges on the shoreline bluff area from Rincon Park through the City of Carpinteria. Carpinteria State Beach Park, the primary recreation facility in this area, is located in the City of Carpinteria and extends from Linden. Avenue to just east of K Street. - Facilities for campers are also''provided by the Carpinteria Camper Park, north of, Highway 101 and adjacent to the City's western boundary. The County has jurisdiction over granted tidelands and.submerged lands in two areas of the Carpinteria coastline: Sandyland Cove (from the mouth of Santa Monica Creek to the City's western limits) and from the City's eastern boundary to the County line. These granted lands ex'tend t Ihree miles seaward from the mean high tide line. El Estero, a large coastal wetland, abuts the City of Carpinteria's westerly boundary. An isolated, highly-private community, Sandyland Cove extends the full length of the wetland and enjoys commanding views of the shoreline and mountain backdrop,. To the west of Sandyland Cove is a high- way commercial development,,'Santa.Claus Village, and a long stretch.of residential development along Padaro Lane.. 4.2.2 PLANNING ISSUES Urban/Rural Boundary The rural area of the.Carpin'teria Valley which encompassess the Valley's.agricultural lands, a number of rural residential neighborhoods, Carpinteria Marsh, and other foothill areas accounts for some 7,500 acres, 84 percent of the total acreage in,the planning area. Agriculture is the dominant land use in the Valley with an estimated 3,900 acres in production at this time. Urban development, i.e., residential, commercial, indus- trial, etc., is concentrated within the City of Carpinteria which now covers approximately 1,400 acres or 16 percent of the Valley's total acreage. Since its incorporation in 1965, the City has grown from a population of roughly 6,500 to an estimated 10,150 as of January 1, 1979. The City's most rapid growth occurred from 1970 to 1975, when the population increased from 6,982 to 9,325. During that period, three large residential subdivi- sions.and an industrial park1were annexed to the City, expanding the urban boundary to the north and east., The City's easterly expansion has -147-- paralleled Highway 101, both north and south, on non-prime soils. Annexa- tion of the Reeder parcels represented the only potential encroachment on prime soils in the eastern portion of the Valley; however, the Coastal Commission denied a permit to develop these parcels and the area has been retained in agricultural production. The residential subdivisions to the, north are located on prime soils (Class II). Other smaller annexations to the west have claimed lands of marginal agricultural value. At present, the City of Carpinteria's boundaries north of Highway 101 generally abut existing agriculture or prime agricultural soi Is. Because of the mix of urban and agricultural land uses in, the Carpin- teria Valley, qrban/agricultural conflicts sometimes occur along the urban periphery and in more remote areas of the Valley where neighborhoods have been permitted to develop. The proximity of urban development to lands in agricultural production has contributed to orchard theft andthe spread of avocado root rot on one hand, while the use offertilizers, herbicides, and agricultural machinery has,.on occasion, been of some nuisance to neigh- boring residents. The extent of the nuisance factor appears to be minimal at the present time. Along with other measures for the preservation of agriculture in the Carpinteria Valley, an urban/rural boundary is delineated on the land use plan map (refer to Figure 4-1). The proposed boundary provides a stable demarcation between the agricultural lands of the Carpinteria Valley and those areas appropriate for infi.11ing of urban uses for the foreseeable future. All lands meeting one or more of the criteria listed in Policy 8-1 are designated for agricultural use, and, therefore, defined to be within the rural area. The urban area has been expanded to include only those areas contiguous with the existing City limits where the agricultural potential is severely impaired because of poor soils and drainage c.ondi- tions or where conflicts with,surrounding urban uses exist (e.g., parcels fronting Via Real and Cravens Lane west of the City's existing limits (Areas 2 and 4) and an agricultural island adjacent to the industrial.park to the east (Area 14)). A detailed explanation of the rationale for each extension of the urban boundary follows. Overall, under the proposed urban/rural boundary, approximately 115 acres now located outside of the existing City limits wouldbe added to the urban area. An estimated 195 additional housing units could,theoret.ically be built in the areas proposed for urban expansion. The proposed boundary follows the existing western limit s of the City of Carpinteria from the ocean to just south of Highway 101, where the urban boundary extends westward to include two long, narrow parcels on either side of Carpinteria Avenue (Area 1). North of Highway 101, the boundary again extends westward to take in the Carpinteria Camper Park on North Via Real (Area 2) and continues further west to include three parcels in Area 4 bounded by Cravens Lane and North Via Real (APN 3-050-20,22,60). and the Sandpiper Mobile Home Park. As existing urban uses, the parcels in Area 2 and the mobile home park represent a logical extension of the urban boundary. The agricultural potential of the three parcels located between theseurban uses (Area 4),ls.severely limited by non-prime soil conditions, a high water table and poor drainage. At certain times of the year, -148- Of CARPINTERIA CALIFORNIA FIGURE 4-1 \WMMMMWMkNBl PROPOSED URBANAURAL BOUNDARY portions of these parcels are inundated because of the drainage problems that exist in the area. Therefore, these parcels have also been added to the urban area. The Hall parcel (APN 3-050-17) located to the northeast is not as severely restricted for agricultural uses as the parcels aligning North Via Real;,greenhouses or other annual crops having a shallow rooting depth.would be viable here. Consequently, this parcel is not included within the urban area at this time. To the north, the urban boundary encompasses the existing unincorpora- ted residential subdivision known as Santa Monica Gardens (Area 3) and continues north then east, following the City limits to Franklin Creek. Here the urban boundary is extended to include Areas 5 and 7. Area 5 contains the Boy's Club on the west and several small parcels currently 'planted to lemons on the east. Continued agricultural production on these parcels is inhibited by parcel size (about one acre each) and the presence .of a high water table, although soils are prime (Class II); the easternmost parcel at the bend in Foothill Road is further limited by a County Flood Control easement through the southeast section of the property. Area 7 is surrounded on three sides by urbanization; soils are prime but agricultural production is limited again because of a high.water table and there is no existing agriculture on the properties at this time. These parcels repre- ,sent a logical extension of the urban boundary. Parcel 6, on the other hand, is.ass.ociated@with the adjacent cel.ery transplant operation and is, therefore, designated for agricultural use and included in the rural area. Parcels 8 and 9, adjacent to the City's northern boundary and south of Casitas Pass Road, are also designated for agricultural use. Both parcels are located on prime soils (Class I and II) and currently support viable orchards. The urban/rural boundary then follows the City's existing limits along Casitas Pass Road and southeast to Carpinteria Creek. At this point, the boundary conforms to the existing mobile home park, proceeds south to North Via Real, and continues eastward along Via Real to the McKeon development. The Reeder parcels (Area 10) and two small parcels in Area 11 are, there- fore, excluded from Oie urban area. The Reeder parcels are located on prime soils and are partially planted to gypsophila at this time. While the western parcel in Area 11 is composed of prime soils, soils on the eastern parcel are non-prime (Class III); both of these parcels are designated for agricultural use because of their agricultural potential. Proceeding eastward, the boundary line follows the existing City limits, separating the McKeon development from rural lands to the north (Area 12). There are nine parcels in this rural area, ranging in size from two to seven acres. Although soils are non-prime, most of the parcels are planted to avocados (new plantings as well as producing trees exist), and a thick stand of oak trees.covers the eastern section. The sloping terrain and ranchette type of land use pattern that prevail in this area provide a @natural buffer between the prime agriculturallands to the north and existing dense,urban development to the south. Area 13, a rural residen- tial subdivision of 15 one-acre l.ots located to the east of Area.12, is also excluded from the urban area. -150- The urban line is extended to include a 25-acre agricultural island and a 4-acre parcel adjacent to.this parcel on the northeast (Area 14). Soils in this area are non-prime and agricultural use has been impaired by drainage and other problems created by surrounding urban development. Long term agricultural use of these parcels is further constrained because the area would not qualify for agricultural preserve status due.to the lack of contiguous agricultural lands to meet the 40-acre minimum-requirement. Finally, the urban boundary is extended to include Area 15, which is comprised of some 20 undeveloped acres that should be planned comprehen-, sively with other portions of the bluffs within the City's jurisdiction. (see section 4.2.3 for a'discussion of the proposed land use and conditions for development in this area.) These lands have no agricultural potential and are a logical extension of the urban area for visitor-serving uses because of the area's accessibility to U.S. 101,.ocean.views., and proximity to the dry sandy beach at Rincon County Park. Agriculture The policies' of the Coastal Act concerning agriculture call for the preservation of the maximum amount of prime agricultural lands and the. protection of the long-term productivity of soils. A discussion of these policies and the broad agricultural issues that emanate from them for the County's coastal zone are contained in Section 3.8. Local policies required to resolve these issues are.also-found in Section 3.8, Policies 8-1 to 8-8; these policies apply to agricultural uses throughout the County's coastal zone. This sectionfocuses on the specific agricultural issues for the Carpinteria Valley and the measures proposed in the land use plan.for addressing them. The following discussion is based on a special background study of Carpinteria Valley agriculture which assessed the economic viabil- ity and comparative advantages of existing agricultural activities in the Valley.* The study also examined trends in agricultural production and the impacts of greenhouse development on the Valley's primeagricultural soils, limited water resources, and scenic quality. To meet the goal of maintaining the maximum amount of prime agricul- tural lands in production, a land use plan for the Carpinteria VaIley must include the following measures: 1) delineation of a stable urban/rural boundary, 2) determination of minimum agricultural parcel sizes that will sustain agricultural use over the long term, and *This report was prepared by the planning staff and is on'-file at the County Planning Department (Agriculture in the Carpinteria Valley, February 1978). 3) policies for mitigating and preventing, where possib.le, adverse impacts caused by agricultural development on coastal resources. The proposed urban/rural boundary for the Carpinteria V.alley planning area is discussed in detail in the preceding section and.delineated on the map shown on Figure 4-1.' Minimum Agricultural Parcel Size Determination of a minimum agricultural parcel size that will best serve the goal of preservin ,g agriculture in the V-alley over t-he long term is dependent on many factors. In order to make this determination, the adequacy of existing zoning, distri 'bution of existing parcel sizes, and the impact of potential buildout on theagricultural economy over the long term need to be analyzed to evaluate whether changes in the established minimum .parcel sizes are needed and,, if so, the degree to which changes can be effected. In addition, an examination of the economic viability of the Valley's three major agricultural industries: avocados; greenhouses, nurseries, and field flowers; and lemons is required. This entails an understanding of past and existing trends in the area's agricultural production as well as indications for future agricultural options. An estimated 3,900 acres are in agricultural production in the Valley at this time; this represents 52 percent of the Valley's rural lands (including_Carpinteria Marsh and the existing residential neighborhoods). Avocados are the dominant agricultural land use, accounting for some 2,200 acres (56 percent of the total agricultural acreage), followed by lemons with 1,000 acres; 650 acres arein greenhouse andflursery use, and the, remaining 50 acres are planted to various vegetable crops. Avocados have flourished in recent years due to the Valley's prime growing conditions and the industry's expanding market potential. Although avocado root rot'poses a threat to production in some areas of the Valley over the short term, possibilities for developing disease-tolerant trees and other means of eradicating the disease exist over the long run. Also, even if root rot were to spread in the Valley, it would probably not signi- .ficantly affect production on the eastern.portion of the Valley floor because of thelexcellent soil conditions that prevail in that area. Since its introduction to the Valley in.1962, the greenhouse, nursery, and field flower industry has grown rapidly. The Valley's moderate climate, prime soils, relatively good air quality, and access to markets make the area especially desirable to greenhouse growers. There are now over eight mill.ion square feet of greenhouse developmentin the Valley, compared to under three million square feet in 1970 and only 100,000 square feet in 1962. The lemon market has been affected by periods of overproduction which have led to reduced prices and, t,herefore, lower returns to local growers. As a result, there has been a recent trend toward conversion to avocado and greenhouse production in the Valley. -152- Approximately 30 percent of the soils in the rural area are classified as prime (Clas's I or II). The remaining non-prime soils are predominantly Class III or IV; many of these soils are in productive agricultural use at this time. Only a few sections of the Valley have little or no.agricul- tural potential, e.g., steep foothill and mountainous regions and areas where fill has been deposited as a result of construction of the freeway. The County's Agricultural Preserve Program has beenhighly successful in the Valley. To date, 2,878 acres are enrolled in preserves, including some 55 acres of nurseries. In order to encourage the retention of smaller agricultural parcels in production, the Agricultural Preserve Program now includes in its "superpri'me" category a provision for growers who-own a minimum of five acres, of which 4.75 acres are fully planted and commer- cially producing land, to qualify for preserve status if they apply with other adjacent growers of equal or larger size' to meet the 40-acre minimum preserve.requirement. The existing agricultural zoning in the Valley is almost exclusively A-14, which permits a five-acre minimum parcel size. This zone, coupled with the Agricultural Preserve Program's superprime option, has been instrumental in holding the line against further urban encroachment in the Carpinteria Valley. However, a theoretical buildout of the Valley based on the permitted five-acre minimum parcel size would allow for approximately 800 additional parcels and corresponding number of potential residential units. The level of public services required to accommodate this increased residential use and the additional development needed to support a larger number of individually operated agricultural activities would exceed the Valley's.existing water resources and service system capacities, i.e., wastewater treatment and roads. For example, the amount of water needed to accommodate buildout under the existing A-14 zone far exceeds the area's current water supply (see Availability of Resources section below and Section 3.2). Sinc'e most of the rural area is not served by the Carpin- teria Sanitary District, new development would have to rely on septic facilities for the most part; this would be especially problematic in areas where high groundwater, steep slopes, and soi.ls with poor drainage prevail. Many new access roads would need to be constructed to serve the additional parcels and expansion,of Foothill and Casitas Pass Roads would,probably be required. The creation of smaller parcels and associated level of develop- ment would also lead to higher a:ssessed land values and limit the range of agricultural crops that could profitably be grown in the area. Thus, a buildout under existing zoning'would inevitably result in a transition away from agriculture as the principal land use in the Valley, establishing in its place a residential ranchette or estate type of land use pattern. Since this would not be consistent with the Coastal Act goal of maintaining the'maximum amount of prime agricultural.lands in production, some increase in the agricultural mi,n'imum parcel size is needed. -153- The major determinants in establishing an increase in the minimum parcel sizes for the Valley are the economic viability of the Valley's major crops, projections for viable agricultural options in the future, and the existing distribution of parcel sizes in the rural area. To determine the minimum economically viable parcel size for various types of agriculture, average costs of production and gross revenues per acre are used to estimate the net returns received per acre for production of a given crop. Then, assuming an annual expected net return orincome for the grower, the. number of acres needed to generate this income can be, ,estimated. These estimates are.greatly limited by the use of average cost and revenue data, which do not reflect factors such as the individual gIroweris management skills and the above average yields that are obtained in many parts of the Carpinteria Valley. Also, assumptions such as the cost of the land (or rent), which is a major fixed cost for all agricul- tural production and depends heavily on when the land was purchased, are necessary. Because,of these limitations and assumptions, estimates of the minim um economically viable parcel.size are tenuous and should not be used as the sole criterion in determining minimum parcel sizes. For illustrative purposes, however, greenhouses are the Valley's most profitable agricultural use per acre of production and could succeed on a minimum parcel as smallas five acres. At present, most of the Valley's greenhouses and nurseries are. located on parcels ranging in size from five to twenty acres, with over half of them on parcels of five to ten acres. Estimates of economically viable minimum parcel sizes for avocados vary widely. Assuming average County yields and prices received as the fruit leaves the orchard, it would take a minimum of fifty acres of avocados to produce an income of $18,000. Valley growers have.commented .that this minimum is too high, pointing out that many avocado operations in the Valley are currently viable on parcels as small as ten to fifteen acres. This is supported by the.fact that only ten percent of the existing avocado orchards in theYalley are on parcels of fifty acres or more and that three-fourths of the avocado orchards are in holdings of from five.to twenty-five acres. Currently, net returns,to a mature lemon orchard do not offset 'costs; and the high selling price of prime agricultural land in the Valley renders new lemon plantings economically infeasible at this time. Of the remaining 1,000 acres of lemons in the Valley, fifty percent of the operations are on parcels of five to ten acres in size; the remaining orchards range in size from ten to twenty-five acres, with only three of them s.ituated on parcels of fifty acres or more. Future viable agricultural options for the Valley could become limited if the -viability of the avocado or greenhouse industries is threatened. Historically, agriculture in the Valley has turned over from lower return _154- food crops (e.g., beans and tomatoes) to higher return specialty crops (from walnuts and apricots to today's avocados, lemons, and flowers). Increasing land costs in an urbanizing area have been a major contributor to this trend. Whether this trend could be reversed is a matter of conjec- ture. if land costs continue to increase, future agriculture viability will depend on the Valley's ability to attract even higher.return crops. The other major determinant.in establishing a minimum agricultural parcel size is the existing distribution of parcelsizes and acreage in the Valley. Acreage in the rural area of the Valley (excluding Carpinteria Marsh and the residential neighborhoods) is fairly evenly distributed (Figure 4-2). Approximately 15 percent of the acreage is in holdings of less than ten acres; 26 percent less than 15 acres; 37 percent less than 20 acres. The distribution of parcel sizes, however, is heavily skewed toward ,smaller sizes. As shown in Figure 4-3, 52 percent of the existing parcels in the rural area are less than 10 acres in size; 67 percent are less than 15 acres; and 78 percent less than 20 acres. Thus, ten acres is the threshold point at Which over half of the parcels'become non-conforming as to parcel size, an indication of the extent,to Which parceliz.ation has already occurred in.the Valley and the limited degree to,which change can be effected without measures such as recombination of lots or public acquisition. Based on the above findings concerning the economic viability of Valley agriculture and the existing land use pattern, a 10-acre minimum is the largest minimum parcel size that would be appropriate in Carpinteria Valley. Under the 10-acre minimum, theoretical buildout Would be reduced to 300 additional units, a reduction of more than half of the units now permitted under existing zoning. Lot splits would be limited to parcels of 20 acres or more, i.e., 80 percent of the parcels could not be further divided. Although the amount of water required to serve even this reduced buildout exceeds available resources, impacts on sanitary facilities and roads would be lessened. The land use plan proposes a range of minimi'm parcel sizes which will tend to strengthen existing agricultural patterns in the Valley and provide greater flexibility for changing',agricultural uses over the years. Five, ten, and forty-acre minimums are proposed to replace the blanket five-acre zoning. In the land use plan, a five-acre minimum is shown for the non- recharge area of the Carpinteria Groundwater Basin on the west side of the Valley between Arroyo Paredon and Sant,a Monica Creeks (refer to land use plan map). Agricultural uses in this area are limited by the presence of a high water table which restricts agricultural production to annual crops with a shallow rooting depth and to greenhouses. Most of the Valley's greenhouses are currently located in this area and continued greenhouse development here would be appropriate. 900 .817 800-- 702 700-- 688 ... .... 83 .... ... ... .... .... ... .... 600-- 588 580 521 500-- .... .... .... W .... .... .... w 412 LL 400-- 0 cc w ca ... 289 .... .... .... 300-- .... .... .. .... .... .... .... 4 60 255 .... .... .... .... .... .... .. .... 200- - .... ... ... .... . ..... .... .... ... .... .... .... ... 67 Ti-m .... .... ... .... .... .. .... .... 56 .... .... .... .... ... .... .... ..... .... .... 1 0-- 0 X. .... ... .... 0) M (m 0) 'm (R 4 PARCEL SIZE Q? 0) C? 0 0) 0) G) 0) 0 cy; 0 0i 6 6 0; le 9 C to to f-r co 0 CD %OF TOTAL. 4 11 11 11 13 6 9 4 4 0 2.62 4.54 8J8 2.45 9J.1 ACREAGE FIGURE 4-2 ACREAGE DISTRIIWTIO14 - CARPINTERIA VALLEY (Excluding Carpinteria Marsh and the Rural Neighborhoods) 6n-- 120 110 109 100-- %% % 93 9 0- so-- 70-- 59 60-- X'X (L 50 LL ... 0 Cr 42 CD 40-- z 35 30-- X., 20.- X 14 Ne. 12 10-- ... ... ... .... 5 4 3 a 4 2 2 0 + PARCEL SIZE CY co) W) to co T-9 CY cc p CY CD % OF ToTA L 24 28 15 11 9 3 4 1 1 0 .5 .8 1 ..2 PARCELS FIGURE 4-3 PARCEL SIZE DISTRIBUTION - CARPINTERIA VALLEY (Excluding Carpinteria Marsh and the Rural Neighborhoods) -157- A ten-acre minimum is proposed for agriculturally designated lands across the Valley floor and into the foothills on slopes of less.than 30 percent for the reasons previously explained. For agricultural parcels on slopes in excess of 30 percent, the minimum parcel size is increased to 40 acres to provide for the largerscale of production required to compensate for lower yields on steep hillsides and to reduce the level of grading for service roads and irrigation systems that leads to erosion. One area in the northeast portion of the Valley, which lies within the National Forest jurisdication and has slopes in excess of 40 percent, has been designated as a Mountainous Area with a 100-acre minimum parcel size. Agricultural development which requires removal of native vegetation is not permitted within designated mountainous areas. Under the range of minimum parcel sizes proposed in the land use.plan, approximately 56 percent,of the parcels in the rural area would be non-conforming as to parcel size as would approximately 21 percent of the rural acreage. Greenhouse Development The growth of the greenhouse industry over the last decade and pressures for continued expansion have raised several important issues for coastal planning and protection of coastal resources. Depending on the amount and type of coverage required, the cumulative impacts of greenhouses on the long-term productivity of soils, groundwater recharge, and on the ability of downstream watercourses to carry increased runoff can be signi- ficant. A large part of the greenhouse development in the Carpinteria Valley is located within the watershed of Carpinteria Marsh. Because irri- gation runoff is directed to natural drainage channels, i.e., Santa Monica and Franklin Creeks, cumulative impacts on the water quality of the marsh need to be monitored and preventive actions taken as necessary. These impacts are explored in greater detail in Section 3.8. Policies 8-5 to 8-7 have been developed to address these impacts and will apply to all new greenhouse projects in the County's coastal zone. The largest constraint to new greenhouse development in the Valley will be the Valley's limited water supply., On the average, water required for greenhouse production is an estimated 4 acre feet.per year per acre (AFY/AC), compared to an estimated 1 AFY/AC for orchards, the Valley's domina.nt crop. Consequently, conversions from open field agriculture to greenhouse crops will result in a net increase in water use. According to estimates of the Valley's water supply and demand balance, a surplus of approximately 950 AFY currently exists, and this surplus must be shared by agricultural and urban users (see Availability of Resources section below). Under the proposed water management plan for the Valley, 70 percent of the available surplus would be allocated for use in the unincorporated area (refer to Section 3.2). A portion of this water allocation would need to be distributed,to agricultural users in proportion to current levels of use, i.e., for orchards, greenhouses, and nurseries, to provide for an equitable distribution. Under current conditions, greenhouses would be entitled to approximately 44 percent of the water available for agricul- tural use. -158- Coastal Access and Recreation In the unincorporated portion of the Carpinteria Valley, existing opportunities for beach access and recreation are limited to the County Park at Rincon Point. Most of the demand for coastal recreation in the Valley is satisfied by the City of Carpinteria and primarily the State Beach Park. There are a few' sites along Padaro Lane and Santa Claus Lane where the public has gained access to the ocean by trespassing across private land. The Coastal Commission required the offer of a vertical easement for two of these sites along Padaro Lane and Beach Club Drive (APN 5-400-35 and APN 5-390-23); public access at both sites would require follow-through by the County. Because of the limitations due to lack of parking and the need to protect the slough, most of the demand for beach access and recreation will need to be satisfied by the City and State. beaches. Proposals for provision of new opportunities for limited beach access are contained in Policy 7-8. Habitat Areas El Estero, or Carpinteria.Marsh, is located immediately west of the City of Carpinteria. El Estero, 230 acres in size, is the largest wetland under County jurisdiction. Approximately 120 acres of the marsh are part of the University of California's Natural Land and Water Reserve System, and the remainder is privately owned, with 35 acres in an Open Space Preserve. On the land use plan map, the marsh is designated as "Open Lands" with a "Habitat Area" overlay which is adequate to protect it from the direct threat of development. However, indirect impacts such as sedimentation or toxic runoff from surrounding land uses can threaten its biological produc- tivity. The principal land uses in the watershed of Carpinteria Marsh include urban development within the City and agriculture, principally greenhouses and orchards, in the rural area. Runoff from excess irrigation and imp!ervious.surfaces related to these-land uses is now directed to the areals natural drainage channels, Franklin and Santa Monica Creeks, which flow directly through the marsh. Both of these creeks have been channel- ized for'flood control purposes, with a design capacity based.on existing land uses. The cumulative impact of increased runoff and sedimentation resulting from additional greenhouses, new orchard development in the foothills, or urban expansion on the water quality of the marsh and adequacy of flood control projects needs to be monitored. General policies for the protection of wetlands are included in Section 3.9. Also Policies 3-13 through 3-22 in Section 3.3 address development in watershed areas And thus would affect lands surrounding the Carpinteria Marsh. Section 3.9 also contains a specific recommendation. regarding the development of a comprehensive, long-range management program to ensure continued productivity of the marsh. _159- Hazards Carpinteria Valley has a high seismic hazard rating. The Carpinteria and Red Mountain Faults parallel, the Carpinteria bluffs from Carpinteria State Beach Park to the Rincon Point.area. Another fault, the Rincon Fault, parallels the coastline further inland. Large parts of the Valley are also subject to high groundwater and liquefaction. High groundwater can be detrimental to agriculture, particularly tree crops that require a greater rooting depth than annual crops. Liquefaction hazards present problems for intense building development. Other hazards include slope instability, which is limited to a small area in Toro Canyon, and tsunami runup, which could inundate much of the City proper, the slough, and some .agricultural areas. The 'County already has mechan-isms for addressing these issues in its grading and subdivision ordinances_@and building code. @Addi- tional.policies governing development in hazardous areas are included in Section 3.3. Shoreline bluffs and cliffs are subject.to undercutting and active slides. Considerable damage., evident throughout the area, resulted from the winter storms of 1978. Beach erosion has been mitigated in some of these areas. In the area south of Santa Claus Lane, heavy rock has been piled up against the top of the beach. The houses south of Sand Point Road are protected by a 3,300-foot long double sea wall system.maintained by a special district, the Sandyland Sea Wall.Association. In 1978, the County Public Works Department administered $15,1,000 worth of repairs due to damage caused by the previous winter storms. The sea wall system has proven effective.in preventing damage to the structures in the area. Future development, however, will require ample setbacks to avoid the need for new bluff protective devices. (Refer to Policies 3-4 through 3-7 in Section 3.3.) Flooding had been a major hazard throughout much of Carpinteria prior to recent channelization of Santa Monica.and Franklin Creeks. Creek channelizations have removed substantial areas within the City from the .100-year flood zone. Debris barriers and grade stabilizers have,been installed in the canyon areas to reduce transfer of flood debris and sedi- ment to the Valley floor. Additional channelization is planned along Casitas Pass Road which should remove much of the remaining flood hazard. Areas subject to flooding will then be limited to areas along Carpinteria Creek and Arroyo Paredon, the slough, and small agricultural areas outside the City. There are no plans at present'for channelizing Carpinteria Creek, as it poses only limited.hazards to development. Setback standards need to be developed, however, to guide future development occurring adja- cent to the stream. In addition to property damage from water and sediment, flood condi- tions have impaired the functioning of the slough as an important ecologi- cal system by de positing massive amounts of sediment as water passes through. Dredging of the slough is planned as part of the second phase of _160- work under the Carpinteria Valley Watershed Project. In addition, two silt basins will be constructed at'the points where Franklin and Santa Mon.ica Creeks enter the slough. Regulation of development i.n.the watershed of the slough is needed1to avoid impacts from,erosion and siltation. the land use plan responds to these issues in sev'eral ways. Areas within the 100-year flood plain are designated on the land use plan maps with the Flood Hazard Overlay. New development in these areas is subject to special policies which are included in Section 3.3. Policies 3-13 through 3-22 are intended to minimize erosion and siltation impacts from new development occurring on watershed lands. Housing Residential development in the.Carpinteria Valley is largely contained within several rural residential enclaves, namely Shepard's Mesa, Serena Parkl La Mirada, Ocean Oaks, and the shoreline neighborhoods of Padaro Lane, Sandyland Cove, and Rincon Point. A large condominium complex at the ,Santa Barbara Polo Grounds provides the only multiple-unit housing oppor- tunities in the Valley.. The remaining housing is accessory to agricultural operations. On the land use plan map, the boundaries of the residential neighbor- hoods listed above have been delineated, acknowledging the existing resi- dential use and defining limits for expansion. Low residential densities of one and three acres are de,signated within these neighborhoods, consis- tent with the goal of minimizing urban pressures on agricultural lands. New housing in the Valley should be incidental to agricultural operations, except for infilling within the existing neighborhoods. Commercial Development At 'Present, commercial development outside of the City of Carpinteria is limited to Santa Claus Lane, Which includes both highway strip and highway-related commercial activities. This development is out of character with a coastal setting; another architectural theme would be more appropriate. A camper park adjacent to the City's western boundary on North Via Real provides limited accommodations for visitors. In most areas, expansion of commercial uses in the rural areas of the Valley would be inconsistent with Coastal Act policies regarding concentra- tion of development and minimizing vehicle miles travelled. One exception is the bluffs area between the City's present easterly boundary and the County Park at Rincon. This area is proposed for inclusion within the urban boundary in order that it may be planned comprehensively with other undeveloped portions of Carpinteria bluffs; it is designated for Resort/ Visitor-Serving use on the land use plan maps. A detailed discussion of the rationale for this land use and conditions for development are located in Section 4.2.3. -161- Visual Resources The visual resources of the Valley include several fleeting views of the ocean from Highway 101 near Rincon Point; views of the ocean, islands,, and foothills from Rincon Beach Park; and a fleeting view of the ocean from U.S. 101 near Santa Claus Lane. In addition, there are scenic views of the ocean,.the.Channel Islands, and the mountains from the Carpinteria bluffs. The general visual quality of Carpinteria Valley is somewhat marred by the presence of billboards along the freeway within the City of Carpin- teria. The commercial strip development known as Santa Claus Lane obscures views to the ocean and is out of character with the surrounding natural and residential environment. As greenhouse development has proliferated, a conflict has emerged between Valley residents who live on the hillsides and growers who expand their greenhouse operations below. Some Valley residents object to the visual characteristics of the structures and the glare from their translu- cent rooftops, as seen from the hillsides. While this hillside visual impact is largely unresol.vable, the County has developed landscaping, lighting, parking, and setback requirements for al.1 new greenhouse develop- ment in order to minimize the visual impacts of these structures as seen from,U. S. 101 and along Valley roads. General policies addressing protection of visual resources are included in Section 3.4. Policies which concern the visual impacts of greenhouse development are found in Section 3.8. New development south of Hi ghway 101 in the vicinity of Santa Claus Lane,is subject to the View Corridor Overlay designation (refer to Section 3.4). Service System Capacities and-Availability of Resources Water The boundaries.of the Carpinteria County Water District encompass almost all of the Carpinteria Valley planning area including the City of Carpinteria; one area east of Toro Canyon,Road and extending into a portion of Serena Park is located within the Montecito County Water District. With the exception of several foothill areas in the northern part of the Valley, the entire District is located within the coastal zone. The District derives its water supply from the Carpinteria Groundwater Basin and surface deliveries from Lake Cachuma. The groundwater basin extends beyond the District's boundaries in.only two areas: to the west where the Toro Canyon Subunit is within the Montecito County Wat.er District and to the east where a small portion of,the basin is, in.Ventura County. _162- The safe yield of the groundwater basin is estimated to be 4,500 AFY and the District's annual future entitlement to Cachuma water it 39041 AFY. According to current water use,estimates, the District has an existing uncommitted surplus of approximately-950 AFY (Table 4-1). Thus, water use within the District is nearly equaT to the existing supply. Buildout under existing zoning and the land use plan would both require more water than the District can now supply. Under existing zoning, an estimated 2,686 additional units could theoretically be constructed in the,C.ity at some point in the future; approximately 500 units could also be'added by conversion of existing units to the higher densities permitted under zoning. Under the proposed land use plan, the number of additional housing units that would be possible is reduced to 1,155, largely the'result of the proposed change in the maximum number of housing units permitted on Carpinteria bluffs. In the unincorporated area of the CarpinterialValley, an estimated 1,070 additional housing units are permitted under the'land use plan compared to the'1,700 units allowed under current zoning. (See Appendix E.) An estimated 39500 AFY of additional water would be required to accommodate theoretical buildout under the land use plans proposed for the City and the unincorporated area. This potentialdemand for water far exceeds the-District's current supply. Consequently, a water management plan is.needed to en *sure that priori.ty,uses under the Coastal Act, as well as local priorities, are not precluded (see Section 3.2, Policy 2-8). A water management plan for the Carpinteria Valley must reflect the past efforts of the County, City, and Coastal Commission to resolve the water management issues of the Carpinteria area. These-efforts culminated a public-workshop'in the fall of 1978. The purpose of this workshop was to review existing water supply and demand data in order to reach a consen- sus on the uncommitted, water-surplus in the Carpinteria Water District. Also, public testimony was received concerning-the need to satisfy local as well as Coastal Act,priorities in a water management plan. Information gathered at this meeting formed the basis for the State Coastal Commis@- sion's precedential*action on November 14-15 in wh .ich the Commission found that: 1. The City of'Carpinteria, through its recent conservation efforts, has reduced water consumption for Municipal and Industrial (M&I) uses, thus increasing thetotal uncommitted surplus in the District. 2. The entire water surplus, not including water conserved by the City, should be reserved for priority uses'.under the Coastal Act, predominantly agriculture. 3. Forty (40) AFY of water would be allocated to the City for M&I uses during"the 1978-79 water year. Following commitment of this allocation, n 'ew development in the City Would be contingent upon proof of new surplus water*derived form 'Pontinued conservation efforts. -163- TABLE 4-1 CARPINTERIA COUNTY WATER DIStRICT .1.979 ESTIMATED WATER SUPPLY/DEMANDG) Water Use Supply Acre Feet/Year (AFY) Groundwater Safe Yield(2) 42500 Cachuma Planning Total 3,041 73,541 Water Use Private Wells(3) rM & j)(4) 1,800 Municipal and Industrial ls922 Agriculture (4) 22869 69591 Total Uncommitted Water Surplus 950 reserved for agricultural use in the County 655 30% reserved for M & I uses within the City 285 (1) These estimates are based on 1979 supply figures and five-year average water use data.for,the period 1974-75 to 1978-79. (2) This figure is likely conservative and may warrant a revision upward, perhaps by 250 AFY (Letter to Carpinteria County Water District, November 9, 1978, Geotechnical Consultants, Inc.). (3) Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. "Hydrologic Assessment, Carpinteria Groundwater Basin" (Letter to the Carpinteria County Water District, March 3, 1978,, Page 3). (4) This is a five year average for the period 1974-75 to 1978-79;.see Carpinteria County Water District letter to City of Carpinteria, July 23, 1,979, Page-4. -164- 4. In order to carry out Coastal Act policies on concentration of urban development, residential development in the rural neighbor- hoods of the Carpinteria Valley should be permitted in proportion to development in the City on a ration of 1 to 10.. Since 40 AFY of water was allocated to the City for the 1918-79 water year, 4 AFY would be allocated to the'County for residential use. In other precedential decisions, the Commission has denied permits for two back-up water wells on agricultural parcels and for a water well intended to serve orchard expansion into.the foothills. The Commission has also denied greenhouse development partially on the basis of increased water use per acre and possible depletion or contamination of groundwater resources. Thus, although the Commission has found that the entire water surplus should be reserved for agriculture, it has denied greenhouses in certain groundwater recharge areas of the Valley as well as orchard expan- sion into the foothills. Since these are the most. likely forms of new agricultural development in the Valley that would.require increased water for the foreseeable future, the water being reserved for agriculture has limited application at this time. Therefore, the entire water surplus should not be reserved for agriculture, but should be distributed between the City and the County on the basis of historical water use for priority uses under the Coastal Act as well as local priorities. In addition, agricultural water use should be allocated for open field crops (avocados, lemons, vegetables.,@,field flowers, etc.) and greenhouse production accord- ing to established water:use levels. Based on existing crop acreage and average water use per acre,.an estimated 56 percent of the water allocated for agriculture woul.d be Used for open field crops and 44 percent for greenhouses or cover.crop production. Wastewater Treatment Capacity The current capacity of the Carpinteria Sanitary District's wastewater treatment facility'is@ two million gallons per day. With an average dry weather peak flow of 1.6 million gallons per day, the facility is at 80 percent of capacity-a'nd is able to provide service for approximately 3,600 additional people (Appendix D), Th,is is farmore than the number of people that.could be served by the existing water supply. The entire urbanized area,is presently served by the District. In the rural area, a portion of Padaro.Lane was recently annexed to the District and plans are also underway to annex Serena Park. The remaining unincor- porated area relies.o6,septic tanks, although soil,and drainage in many parts of the Valley-have caused problems for septic systems. For this reason, some of the-.other residential neighborhoods in the rural area have considered annexation.to the District, but the high cost of extending lines into the rural area has historically precluded such action. Because of potential adverse impacts from existing septic systems,.in.the Sandyland Cove area on adjacent Carpinteria Marsh, this neighborhood may need to be annexed to the District at some point in the future. The extension of sewer lines into rural areas is addressed in Secti-on 3.2,-Policy 2-9. -165- 4.2.3 CARPINTERIA BLUFFS The a rea known as Carpinteria bluffs extends eastward from the-Chevron oil processing facility within the City of Carpinteria into the unincorpor- ated area north of the County's Rincon Park. There are two major blocks of undeveloped lands within this area: the 72 acres owned by Chevron and Exxon within the City to the west, and another 24 acres owned by Hancock and Ferry (APN 1-210-13, 16, 23, 24) in the unincorporated area at the eastern extent of the bluffs. Although located at opposite ends of the bluffs and separated by an area that is partially developed with industrial park uses, these two subareas offer opportunities for coastal-related recreational use and need to be planned comprehensively to ensure that individual land uses complement each other. Just inside the City's eastern boundary lies an undeveloped parcel (APN 1-210-2 *0) whichAs contiguous with the Hancock property. It, too, should be planned with the adjacent unincorporated parcels. The coastal resources of the eastern subarea of the Carpinteria bluffs include scenic views from the blufftops to the ocean and Channel Islands as well as views of the foothills and Santa Ynez Mountains across the Valley floor, proximity to the dry sandy beach at Rincon County Park, and opportu- nities afforded for coastal-related.visitor-serving uses because of the areals easy access to U. S. 101. Constraints to development in the area include unstable soils, bluff erosion, and the presence of the Red Mountain earthquake fault. The bluffs are tiered in this area, with the railroad running along the first tier . I above.the beach; rock revetments have been required to reinforce the bluff in several areas. Soil slippage and erosion are also evident as a result of winter storms. This segment of the bluffs. is particularly suited for visitor-serving uses because of the area's access to Highway 101, ocean views, and proxi- mity to Rincon County Park. Therefore, the land use plan calls for a visitor-serving type of development which could include a hotel, motel, or lodge with restaurant, along with tourist commercial activities (i.e., retail shoos) and other recreational amenities (i.e., swimming pool, tennis courts, etc.). The development should be of moderate scale in the range of 100 to 200 units and a maximum of two stories in height. In recent years , concern has been expressed that overdevelopment of visitor-serving facili- ties could occur on Carpinteria bluffs to the detriment of local commercial activity and community needs. The level of tourist activity that the area can support, in addition to Carpinteria State Beach Park and the limited visitor-serving facilities that exist within the City, has not been deter- mined. While-the bluffs are suited for some additional visitor-serving uses, proliferation of such,uses shou.ld be prevented., Allowing for one centralized resort developmenton this,24-acre site would accomplish this objecti.ve. -166- Therefore, a specific plan shall be prepared for the unincorporated portions of the Carpinteria bluffs (APN 1-210-13, 16, 23, 24) and contigu- ous City parcel (APN 1-210-20),. Such plan shall be subject to environ- mental review and approval by,the Planning Commissions of the County and City of Carpinteria. All future development shall be in conformity to the approved specific plan. The specific.plan shall conform to the following criteria: 1. Dedication of the following lands for public use shall be required: (a) a corridor, minimum 20 feet in width, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, for a hiking/biking trail. To minimize alterations to natural topography and vegetation and to take advantage of scenic vista points, the exact location and width of the trail shall be determined by the County and City. The costs of improv.ing the trail shall be borne by the applicant(s), not the County or City.- (b) a mini,mum of one public access corridor connecting Carpin- teria Avenue with the proposed trail. (c) all lands south of the Southern Pacific Railroad and north of the mean high tide line which are not currently in public ownership. 2. Permitted uses shall include a.hotel, motel, or lodge with restau- rant(s), tourist commercial activities,,and other visitor-serving amenities. Moderate scale overnight lodging facilities shall be permitted. 3. A visitor-serving development which does not at least in part require a coastal location in order to operate shall not be permitted. 4. A safe, public access to the dry sandy beach from the proposed development shall be provided, if feasible (e.g., a trail to the beach with a railroad overcrossing for pedestrians would be one alternative). 5. To the maximum extent possible, drought-resis tant vegetation shall be used for landscaping. 4.2.4 SUMMARY OF THE LAND USE PLAN MAP The most extensive changes proposed in the coastal plan for Carpin- teria Valley concern the land use designations for agricultural lands. In order to conform with-Coastal Act policies which require the maximum protection of existing prime agricultural lands, the land use plan proposes three agricultural designations for the Valley instead of the existing A-14 five-acre minimum agricultural zone, which is the current blanket -167- zone. The three designations consist of a 5-acre minimum (A-I-5) for a non-recharge, high water table area on the west; a 10-acre minimum (A-I-10) for all agricultural lands of up to 30 percent slopes; and a 40-acre minimum (A-I-40.) for all agricultural lands with slopes greater than 30 percent. Figure 4-4 illustrates the proposed land use map designations for the Carpinteria Valley planning area. Under the land use plan the A-I-10 designation would replace the existing A-14 zone throughout much of the western part of the Valley between Toro Canyon and Santa Monica Roads. A large parcel north of Arroyo Paredon Creek abutting the La Mirada neighborhood on the east and currently zoned 1-E-1 (one-acre residential lots) would be changed to agriculture under the A-I-10 classification, consistent with the criteria established for designating agricultural lands (Policy 8-1). In general, the A-I-10 designation is considered appropriate for this area because prevailing parcel sizes generally exceed ten acres and because the area is not ,subject to high water table problems. North of the Santa Barbara Polo Field and in a line extending eastward, many parcels are designated for 40-acre minimums because of the presence of slopes in excess of 30 percent. From Arroyo Paredon Creek east to Santa Monica Road and south of Foothill Road, much of the area has been designated for A-I-5, requiring five-acre minimum agricultural,parcels. Here 'the A-I-5 designation, is' appropriate because a high water table limits agriculture to shallow rooted crops or greenhouse,cultivation and because many smaller parc6ls'of ten acres or less already exist. The agricultural lands east of the urban limit line comprising much of the Valley floor and some of thehillside areas north of Casitas Pass Road would be changed from A-14 to A-I-10. Prevailing parcel sizes throughout th is area are generally ten acres or more. Much of the area is important for groundwater recharge and the deep alluvial soils, especially in the vicinity of Carpinteria Creek, support highly productive avocado orchards. The hillsides north of Foothil 1 and Casitas Pass Roads where slopes exceed 30 percent are proposed for the A-I-40 classification requiring minimum parcel sizes of 40 acres. The existing A-14 zone is unsuitable because it could lead to a proliferation of rural ranchette uses which would be incompatible with the agricultural policies of the Coastal Act. One area within the National Forest jurisdiction is designated as a Mountainous Area with a 100-acre minimum because of slopes exceeding 40 percent. A number of changes are also proposed in certain residential zones in the Valley. The western tip of Padaro Lane, now zoned for 20-R-1 and 1-E-1, respectively, would be changed to three-acre minimum lots. These lot sizes are more consistent with existing residential patterns and are more compatible with the scenic.qualities of the area. -168- North of U. S. 101 and Bailard Avenue a residential wedge currently zoned DR-2 (permitting half-acre minimum lots) would be changed in the land use plan to three-acre minimum lots. This residential area abuts the agricultural heart of the Valley and should be treated more as a transi- tional zone between urban and agricultural land uses. North of Rincon Point a rural neighborhood with one-acre and three- acre minimum lots is proposed instead of a mix of one acre (1-E-1) and one-half acre (20-R-1) residential zones. This area is decidedly rural in terms of use and character, and the existing zoning is incompatible with these uses. Within this neighborhood, residential parcels now zoned 6-R;-1 would be changed to one- and three-acre lots to be more consistent with existing land uses. The 6-R-1 designation for Rincon County Park would be changed to recreation and open space to be consistent with its park usage. In all, the land use plan for Carpinteria Valley would 'reduce the number of potential additional units in the Valley from the 1,700 permitted under existing zoning to an estimated 1,070 (refer to Appendix E). The number of additional units allowed on agriculturally designated lands would decrease from 460 units to 300. Also, through the process of,.a.djusting the boundaries of outlying neighborhoods, the potential number of additional residential units in*the one unit per acre category has been reduced signi- ficantly from 224 units to 76 units. -169- A-I' 0 A- .4 .10 q A ot N, A 140 k- -40 Padar 6\ 'A-1- 10 La e A-1- -15% 3 4 ri A-1 1 cit@ Sandyland N I Esterc A-1- 40 el 8 Carpinter'o A-1 A.1.10 col 1. Residential (1 du*/5 20 acres -@ 3.3 du/acre) A-I I 2 Recreation and/or Qpen Space 9 1 3: Residential ( I du/3acres - 3.3 du/acre) 10 4. Highway Commercial A -1- 10 -4 CD 5. Highway Commercial 1 6. Residential (1 du/3 acres 1.8 du/acre) 7. Cemetery .............. 8 Residential (3-3 du/acre !@ 9: Residential (4.6 du/acZ 15 10. Office and Professional 11. Carpinteria State Beach 12 12. Residential (1 du/3acres - 2D du/acre) 13 13. Visitor Serving Commercial 14. Rincon Beach County Park 01 15. Residential (1 du/3acres - 1 du/acre) 0 14 16. Educational Facility 17. Residential (1 du/3 acres - 1 du/acre) Mile Rincon lot. L18- Residential (4.6 - 12.3 da/acre) dwelling units . FIGURE 4-4 Generalized Land Use Plan Land Use Designations -see text tor detinitions Carpinteria Valley Planning Area 0 COMMUNITY FACILITIES OPEN LAND US County of Santa Barbara 0 INDUSTRIAL rVq Local Coastal Program 0 COMMERCIAL N N@ I AGRICULTURE MOUNT4ikU RESIDENTIAL ED OTHER OPEN COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY (see map list for densities) AIN RECREATION 7-L '3C 1978 RON MORGAN 4.3 Summerland 4.3 SUMMERLAND 4.3.1 CHARACTER OF THE PLANNING AREA Summerland is a small, hillside beach community. Much of the town is perched on a steep, south-facing slope which gives residents a commanding view of the Pacific Ocean and the Channel Islands. The character of the community is compact and informal. Lots are very small, streets narrow, and architectural styles diverse. Homes in Summerland are a mix of single family and multiple, some well-preserved and others badly run-down. The commercial district is small and quiet, consisting of several gas stations, 11mom and pop" markets, a boutique, a post office, etc. Along Summerland's main street, Lillie Avenue, commercial and residential uses merge into one another, adding to the informal quality of the community. Summerland is physically isolated from its waterfront by U.S. 101, except for an underpass which provides pedestrian and vehicular access to the beach through a small County park. The shoreline area, like the community, is informally arranged. It is a narrow band of parkland, park'ing lots, abandoned warehouses, a smattering of residences, tightly backed by the Southern Pacific main line and U.S. 101. North of Summerland's developed area are hillsides predominantly covered by native vegetation or planted to avocados and lemons. To the east are several large lemon orchards and oak woodlands which abut Toro Canyon Creek. Several residential enclaves also align Toro Canyon road in the rural area. 4.3.2 PLANNING ISSUES Urban/Rural Boundary Development in Summerland is now concentrated between Sears Street on the west, Whitney Avenue to the north, Greenwell Avenue to the east, and the Pacific Ocean to the south. Close to 400 housing units are now contained in this area and there is sufficient open land to accommodate additional units if supplemental water becomes available. However., the degree of infilling that will ultimately be possible within the existing urban area will be conditioned by prevailing geologic constraints, narrow streets, lack of parking, and the prevalence of unusually small lots (2,500 sq. ft. or less). Beyond the present urban boundaries, the character of the area is decidedly rural with over half of the acreage in agricultural use. The agricultural potential of the remaining acreage is severely limited by poor soils and@steep slopes. Development of these lands at densities permitted under current zoning would be inconsistent with the rural character of the area and contrary to the Coastal Act goals of concentrating urban development and preserving agriculture. Given Summerland's resource and geologic constraints and the need to ,minimize urban pressures on surrounding agricultural lands, delineation of an urban/rural boundary is necessary. The proposed urban/rural boundary shown on the land Use plan m:ap conforms to the existing Urbanized area to _171- the west and north, delineated by Sears Street and Whitney Avenue, respec- tively. On the west, an agricultural parcel and adjacent residenti@l enclave designated for half-acre and one-acre lots have been excluded from the urban area. To the north of the existing single family homes on Whitney Avenue, steep-slopes and unstable soils render the area unsuitable for dense urban development;..therefore, this area has also been excluded from the urban area and de signated for Residential Ranchettes (five to twenty-acre minimum parcels). .To the east, the urban/ rural boundary extends in a line running approximately east/west from Whitney Avenue, across Greenwell Avenue, and through the Roberts property (APN 5-210-01), to conform with the top of the existing knoll. The boundary then proceeds south along the eastern parcel lines of the Roberts and Bourgerie/Glenn properties (APN 5-210-01 and 36) to Via Real. This is a logical extension of the urban limit line given that further infilling within the present urban area will possibly be reduced because of existing geologic conditions and other constraints. In addition, the agricultural potential of the area is severely limited by the presence of non-prime soils and on-shore wind conditions. The entire area is located within the service areas of the Summerland County Water and Sanitary Districts. However, development over the foreseeable future may be hindered by the lack of a 'n adequate water supply and insufficient waste- water treatment capacity (see Availability of Resources section.below). Agriculture Although soils in the rural area are non-prime (Class III and IV) and the terrain is generally steep (slopes from,15 percent to 75 percent), an estimated 480 acres, or 58 percent of the rural lands, are currently in agricultural use. Given soil, slope, and erosion constraints, existing agriculture for the most part represents the agricultural potential of the area. Avocado and lemon orchards are the dominant agricultural land use, while a trend toward stabling of horses has been established in the heavily wooded areas along Toro Canyon Creek. Steep slopes and wind conditions are a deterrent to major greenhouse development in the area. At present, the remaining rural lands are in open space or partially developed neighbor- hoods. A.wide range of parcel sizes exists in the rural area; 50 percent of the parcels are ten acres or larger, accounting for 86 percent of the total rural acreage. Most of the agricultural parcels north of the town of Summerland are in holdings that exceed ten acres; smaller parcels are concentrated along Toro Canyon Road. . In recognition of the a rea's natural geologic limitations, resource constraints, and existing agriculture, land use designations for lower density residential.ranchettes and'larger minimum parcel sizes'for agricul- ture are needed in the rural area., -172- The.agricultural land use designations shown on the land use pl'an map are based on criteria contained in Policy 8-1 (Section 3.8). Policies 8-2 to 8-7 also apply to these agriculturally designated lands. In the Summer- land planning area, a 10-acre minimum parcel size for agriculture is estab- lished, consistent with agricultural minimums established for the Carpin- teria Valley. As stated above, 50 percent of the parcels (86% of the acreage) in the rural area would be conforming as to size under the 10-acre minimum. To reduce urban pressures on agricultural lands in the area, an urban/rural boundary is delineated on. the land use plan map as described in the previous section. Coastal Access and Recreation The recreational carrying capacity of Summerland's beaches is limited. Lack of parking and beach access points, and the narrowness of the coastal belt between the railroad and the bluffs, pose constraints on beach use beyond its present level during the peak summer months. Lookout Park is currently the only publicly-owned recreation area. It has recently been expanded to 3.4 acres in size and has a parking capacity of 74 spaces. The park is used to capacity during warm weather. Potential additional vertical accessways are available via the County right-of-ways along Morris Place and Carey Place. The beach area between the Summerland Sanitary District and Loon Point has been commonly used by the public 'for many years. Access is gained from Wallace Avenue and from a footpath at the western end of Padaro Lane. This informal access has contributed to problems of bluff erosion and litter due to lack of maintenance and facilities. Action by t he County is needed to solve these problems. General policies related to access and recreation are included in Section 3.7 along With specific recommendations for the Summerland area. Existing and proposed accestways and recreation areas are shown on the land use plan maps. Habitat Areas Habitat areas in the Summerland planning area include Toro Canyon Creek, which is bordered by dense stands of coast live oak, and the exten- sive kelp beds one-half mile offshore. The land use plan map reserves ' areas bordering Toro Canyon Creek for agriculture and low density residen- tial land uses. These uses are.consistent with the goal of habitat protec- tion. Policies related to the protection of oak trees, streams, and kelp beds are contained in Section 3..9. Hazards Surrounding Summerland are steep, undeveloped hillsides; soil stabili- ty in many of these areas poses moderate to severe problems. Landslide potential is of high severity for most of Summerland proper, as well as for the hills to the north. The heavy winter rains of 1978 caused serious -173- erosion and landslide problems throughout the area. Subsidence to the Southern Pacific Railroad railbed west of Padaro Lane is a further indication of the instabilities that exist. In addition to geologic hazards, the narrow band of oak groves along Toro Canyon Creek presents a high fire hazard during the dry season. These hazards pose severe limitations to new development throughout the Summerland area; therefore, -the pattern of new development should reflect these constraints. The land use plan map for the Summerlahd area shows continuation of the pattern of fairly dense residential and commercial development for the existing community of Summerland. Some vacant parcels are subject to slope and soil stability constraints and may never be developed. All new development is subject to the hazards policies in Section 3.3. The land use pl.an maps show the existing rural areas surrounding the community of Summerland in a combination of Agriculture and low density Residential Ranchette uses. Such uses are consistent with the identified constraints. Housing The community of Summerland currently provides substantial housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate incomes. In 1974, the annual median income was $89250., 62 percent of the median income for Santa Barbara County residents. According to Federal guidelines,,,Sumerland would be considered a low-income area. An estimated 42 percent of the residents who rented single family residences in the Summerland/Carpinteria Valley unin- corporated area in 1974 paid more than 25 percent of their gross income for housing, as did 44 percent of the renters in two-to-four unit dwell.ings. Thus, overpayment for housing was a problem for a large number of resi- dents. Also, almost half of the community'.s single family housing stock has been identified as being in need of major repair. These housing condi- tions and median income statistics have prompte*d the County.to target the town of Summerland for a housingrehabilitation prog@am financed'by Community Development Block Grant funds. In order to protect ex.isting low and moderate income housing opportu- nitiet in the Summerland planning area and to provide for new opportu- nities, where feasible, residential. development will be subject to the general housing policies contained in Section 3.5. A specific housing rehabilitation program for Summerland is called for in Policy 5-2. In addition,, multiple residential densities which encourage the provision of new low and moderate income housing are designated on the land use plan maps. Under the land use plan, approximately 328 units of potential new housing units in Summerland would be i.n multiple-unit developments. An additional.82 multiple units couldbe provided by converting existing units to a higher density permitted under the plan. Commercial Development Commercial development is limited to the main street,, Lillie Avenue, and primarily serves the town's shopping and service needs. Given the physical separation of the commercial area from the waterfront and the .congestion in both areasi large-scale visi,tor-serving commercial uses cannot easily be accommodated. -174- Most of the parcels along Summerland's main street, Li Ilie Avenue, are designated for a combination of Retail and Highway Commercial uses on the land use plan map. These designations are adequate to allow for development to serve visitors to the area. Visual Resources The visual resources of the area are the Pacific Ocean, beach area and bluffs, views to the Channel Islands, and the rural lands north of Highway 101. These visua-1 resources which.'establish Summerland's spatial identity and provide a scenic corridor for travelers along U..S. 101 need to be protected. Though physically separated from its waterfront area by U.S. 101, Summerland residents have@a strong visual tie to the coastline below. This visual relationship is somewhat marred by the abandoned industrial struc- tures that are scattered along the bluffs, and by the tangle of cars parked around Lookout Park and along the bluff area in the summertime. The .Southern Pacific Railroad's massive rock revetment intrudes on views from the beach and also hampers lateral access along-the beach during high tides. Landscaping and other des.ign measures should be undertaken to upgrade the area's scenic resources. The County Park Department removed some of the existing industrial structures at Lookout Park. However, several structures still remain. A recommendation for landscaping along Wallace Avenue is included in Policy 7-9. Other visual resources issues are addressed through policies contained in Section 3.4. Also, new development in the coastal area south of U.S. 101 between Fernald Point and Loon Point is subject to the policies associated with the View Corridor Overlay designation (Section 3.4). Service System Capacities and Availability of Resources Water Supply The Summerland area is serviced primarily by the Summerland County Water District. The District's boundaries extend west to Ortega Ridge Road and to a line some 1,,500 feet east of Greenwell Avenue, north beyond the coastal zone lineP and south to the Pacific Ocean. The Montecito County Water District serves a portion of the area east of the Summerland County Water District bounds; this area is mostly in agricultural and large lot residential use. The District is totally dependent on the Cachuma Project for its water supply. No groundwater formations underlie the Summerland County Water District; thus., there are no private wells in operation within the District at this time. A portion of the Carpinteria Groundwater Basin underlies the area serviced by the Montecito County Water District and some private wells are in operation in this area. -175- Since October 16, 1974 when water supply and demand reached approximate equilibrium, th; Summerland County Water District has had a moratorium on new water hookups in effect. The District's existing and projected water balances for the years 1975-2000 are shown in Table D-3 (Appendix D). As shown, an est.imated deficit of close to 200 AFY is projected for 1990, increasing to over 300 AFY by the year 2000. This deficit is due to the District's decreasing allotment from Lake Cachuma. Under the land use plan., an additional 635 housing units could theoretically be constructed in the Summerland planning area;,497 of these additional units would be within the urban area as defined on the land use plan map (see Appendix E). Approximately 200 AFY of supplemental water would be necessary to accommodate additional development within the urban area, since the District's present water supply is totally committed. Because of the District's existing moratorium on new hookups and the lack of groundwater resources, there will be little or no development in Summerland until such time as a permanent increase in the water supply is obtained. Should alternative sources of water become available, priorities for the use of this limited new supply will need to be implemented. Policies concerning these priorities,and the adequacy of water resources to provide for them are found in Section 3.2. Wastewater Treatment Capacity The Summerland County Sanitary District boundaries run from Ortega Ridge on the west to the Water District boundary on the east, beyond the coastal zone on the north, and the Pacific Ocean to the south. Existing wastewater treatment capacity is rated at 150,000 gallons per day (gpd) against an estimated wastewater flow of 115,000 gpd. Assuming the plant can operate at its rated 150,000 gpd, there is capacity for approximately 318 additional residents (Table D-4, Appendix D). Sewer lines.serve the existing community of Summerland but do not extend to the surrounding rural areas. Policies concerning the extension of sewer lines outside of existing urban areas are contained in the development section of the land use plan (Section 3.2). 4.3.3 SUMMARY OF LAND USE PLAN MAP Several major zoning changes are proposed for the Summerland area in order to achieve consistency with the policies of the Coastal Act and to properly reflect limited development potential due to resource constraints. The most extensive changes would take place in the rural lands to the north of Summerland's existing urban boundary. Much of this area is presently zoned for one acre residential use (1-E-1). Under.the land use plan, parcels in this area are designated for either agricultural use (10-acre minimum parcels) or residential ranchettes (5 to 20-acre minimum parcels). -176- In conformance with the extension of the urban/rural boundary to the east of Greenwell Avenue, the density of the parcels fronting Via Real is increased under the land use plan from the 8 units per acre permitted under existing zoning to 12.3 units per acre. The adjacent parcel to the north is designated for 3.3 units per acre on the southerly portion of the property that is located within the urban area and residential ranchettes (minimum.5 to 20-acre parcels) on the northern, rural portion. Another large area that is proposed for rezoning lies in the vicinity of Lambert Road and Toro Canyon Creek. One acre residential use (I-E-1) is currently allowed. The land use plan would eliminate the residential zone and replace it with a .10-acre minimum agricultural designation (A-I-10). The basis for this proposed change is that these 1-a'nds support viable orchards and are, therefore, classified as prime agricultural lands. According to the policies of the Coastal Act, prime agricultural lands are to be maintained in agricultural.use unless they are needed for the logical completion of neighborhoods or to promote orderly growth. Since this area is neither part of,an existing neighborhood nor necessary for urban growth, the agricultural designation is a more appropriate land use. Selection of a 10-acre minimum was based on agricultural acreage criteria set forth in the discussion of'Carpinteria Valley agricultural@,parcel sizes (see Section 4.2). An existing residentially zoned parcel west of Summerland bordered by Ortega Ridge and Ortega Hill,Road is Also proposed for A-1-10 agricultural zoning. Though nonprime, this parcel is in existing agricultural use and is not needed for Urban growth in the foreseeable future. Other zoning changes in the Summerland area relate to a proposed Recreation and Open Space designation for much of Summerland's waterfront area between U.S..101 and the Pacific Ocean, the removal of a residential zone abutting the Josten's property in favor of industrial park zoning, and relatively minor density decreases in several of Summerland's multiple zones. The magnitude of the proposed changes is most evident in the rural areas where existing zoning would theoretically permit some 640 additional residences compared with only 140 additional units under the land use plan. Within the urban boundary, the theoretical buildout under the land use plan is greater than that permitted under existing zoning because of the extension of the urban/rural boundary and corresponding increase in residential density. The land use plan would permit an estimated 497 units, compared to 423 units under existing zoning (refer to Tables E-6 and E-7, Appendix E). -177r- Rd. East .,.\\eA Santa-- (n U) East U Valley 0 0 19 @ 0 0 (0 16 17 Montecito 13 14 A-1 10 -%"0 12 .......... T: .......... M . ......... -X I., .......... -X "R. X. CID X.. ..... .............. CL X0 "I 2 Pt. A-1,10 8 A-1. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21 @3 25 27 28 ...... Hammond's Meadow 29 (see text for land use designation) 30 00 1 1 Camet ry 14. Residential (1.0 d.u./acre max.) 27. Park/Open Space 31 32 2: R.sid:,ti.1 (1.8 -12.3 d.u.'*/acre max,) 16. Educational Facility 28. Highway Related 3: Educational Facility 16. Residential (1.0 d.u./acre max.) 29. Institution/Governinent Facility 4 Visitor Serving Courmercial 17: P rk/Dpen.Space 30. Public Utility I t S. leide 11 1 4,1,-,12.3 d.u./acre ux.) E R:sid*ni I d.u./5 20 acres max.) 31. P:rk/Open space 6. Rest dent i:l (I .u./acre rax.) 19. Park/0'n Spa(cle 32. R sidential (1 d.u./5 - 20 acres max. 7 Residential (1.8 - 12.3 d,U,/acrg mx.) 20. Industrial Park 33. Residential (0.3 d.u./acre mx.) 6: Visitor Serving Conarcial 21. Residential (4.6 d.u./acre max.) 34. Residential (1,0 - 1.8 d.u.jacre max.) 1: 1: it din@l il: 11 '11:01 !.u ed 22. Central Business District 35. Residential (4.6 d.u./acre max.) 0 1,@, 11. ft.,dent,:, 3 7umj 23. Lookout Park 36. Residential (3.3 d.u./acre ux.) I Re den 1,0 - 1.8 24. Residential (4.6 d.u./acre max.) 37. Park/Open Space 12. Rest de t I II:.1 d:u:/:c- max 25. Public Utility 38. Residential (1.0 d.u./acre max.) 0 13. Re, ide"nt '.111d u ere ma.:@ 26. Central Business District 39. Residential (I d.u./5 20 acres max.) I dwelling units FIGURE 4-5. Generalized Land Use Plan Land Use Designations -see text for definitions Montecito/Summeriand Planning Areas 0 COMMUNITY FACILITIES OPEN LAND County of Santa Barbara 0 INDUSTRIAL Local Coastal Program 91 COMMERCIAL AGRICUL RECREAT r-3 =3 COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY RESIDENTIAL (see map list for densities) t if AL 4.4 Montecito 1978 RON MORGAN 4.4., MONTECITO 4.4.1 CHARACTER OF THE PLANNING AREA Montecito is considered to be among the most attractive residential communities in the County. it is noted for its.elegant homes, beautiful oak woodland setting, scenic waterfront, and ruggedly picturesque mountain backdrop. Montecito's waterfront consists of spacious residential estates, luxurious condominiums, the undeveloped Hammond's Meadow, two resort hotels, and a cluster of beach cottages. Some of the beach cottages and the waterfront residences in the Miramar Beach and Fernald Point area are located almost at sea level, just beyond the mean high tide line. The Southern Pacific main line separates the waterfront from a larger residential area which extends to U. S. 101. Homes in this area are somewhat-more modest, particularly between Olive Mill. and Humphrey Roads. North of U., S. 101, Montecito is almost exclusively residential. The dominant character of this large residential area is rural, in spite of densities which range from multiple to three-acre minimum lots. Because of residents' wishes, many service roads are narrow and winding, without curbs and sidewalks; native vegetation it abundant (particularly oaks and syca- .mores); most homes are custom-built and usually designed to be subordinate to the surrounding landscape. Several coastal streams wind their way through much of Montecito and greatly enhance the rural charm of the area. A few isolated agricultural parcels stillexist in Montecito. These parcels are found immediate ly north of Jameson Lane and east of Sheffield Drive, respectively. 4.4.2 PLANNING ISSUES Urban/Rural Boundary The entire Montecito planning area is classified as urban. The urban/rural boundaryi which extends,along Ortega Ridge Road to the east, serves as a demarcation between the rural lands surrou 'nding the town of Summerland and Montecito's low-density residential development. Agri culture; The Montecito Avocado Ranch (APN 7-34U -37, 38') is the 'sole producing agricultural parcel in the Montecitb planning area. Soils are classified as prime and, in Appeal No. 43-75, the State Coastal Commission ruled that the parcel should be maintained in agricultural use. This parcel has, therefore, been designated for agriculture on the land use plan map. Another large parcel (APN 5-060-7), locatedbetween Picay Creek on the west and Ortega Ridge Road on the east, was partially planted to lemons; -179- however, the lemon orchard has now been removed and the only current agri- cultural activity on the property is a non-commercial horse stabling opera- tioh. The topography of the parcel varies from a level area bordering the creek and extending eastward with Class II soils to sharply rising hill- sides composed of non-prime soils and geologically unstable conditions in some areas. Since only 10 acres (20 percent of the parcel) are potentially viable for agricultural use, the parcel has beendesignated for 1 and 3-acre residential use. Coastal Access and Recreation Existing opportunities for shoreline access and coastal recreation are limited in Montecito. Only two easements for access to the beach from the nea@est public road are 'now available for public use. One is opposite Butterfly Lane, along Channel Drive, and the other at the base of Eucalyp- tus Lane. Another potential easement connecting Eucalyptus La.ne to Hammond's Meadow has not yet been opened for public use. The County also has acquired a 20-foot wide lateral easement for the beach fronting the Miramar Hotel. Public use of beaches in the Fernald Point/Shark's Cove area has occurred for many years and is documented by affadavits on file with the County. Generally, people gain,access to this area by parking on North Jameson And walking along the San Ysidro and Buena Vista Creek channels. Overall,, lack of@parking facilities and available access points are serious constraints to efforts to expand access and recreation in Montecito. A potentially significant access and recreation site, known as the Hammond's Meadow, is presently zoned for residential development. A local citizen group, Hammond's Meadow*Preserve Inc., is exploring alternative methods to preserve some 11 acres of the site 'to continue existing meadow and beach recreational uses, including walking, swimming, and surfing. Their@proposal also envisions scientific and cultural,study of the archaeo- logically significant Chumash Indian village site which is alleged,to be the last well-preserved midden deposit along the Santa Barbara coastline.. The waterfront area.along,Channel Drive poses additional access and recreational issues, due to existing traffic congestion and potential for future development of vacant lots. The entire beach area 'along Channel Drive is commonly used by the public, but the only public access stairway, near Butterfly Lane, is in a deteriorated condition. Improvement of the existing access and provision of additional access points are warranted. The lack of available parking in the immediatV area and existing traffic congestion along Channel Drive complicate the access issue. Recommendations aimed at improving access opportunities are listed in Policy 7-10. In addition, Hammond's Meadow is designated as a site for Planned Development (see di.scussion in Section 4.4.3) and is subject to the public open space dedication requirements which are described in Sec- tion 3.2. -180- Habitat Areas Montecito's habitat resources include several coastal streams and -,their associated riparian environments, as well as roosting sites for the Monarch Butterfly. 'Policies,ai"med at protection of these habitat areas are found -in Section 3.9. Hazards A number of potentially active faults pass near or through residential areas in Mont6cito..'While these do not pose an immediate threat to development, future projects in these areas should be evaluated to minimize potential problems. Policies included in Section 3.3 call.for review of new development to determine potential geologic hazards. Several sections of the bluffs in Montecito are shored up by seawalls of concrete and rock to prevent undercutting and overtopping during high wave conditions. Structures in this area, especially along Miramar Beach, are subject to damage during winter storms. Private measures to protect property from wave damage,may interfere with the public's right to lateral beach access in the affected areas or mar the visual attributes of the coastline. Policies'governing construction of new seawalls and shoreline structures are in Section 3.3. A number'of streams in the Montecito area have flood plains which, during a 100;.-year flood, encroach on large areas of land, particularly downstream in the coastal zone. These streams are Montecito, Oak, San Ysidro, Romero, and Buena Vista Creeks. Flood hazards are increased by debris, deposited during winter storms or flash floods, which clogs the channels and reduces stream capacity, While several debris barriers have been constructed, complete flood protection works have been determined to be too costly to be feasible. More stringent controls are needed to provide greater protection to life and property. Areas within the 100-year flood plain are shown on the land use plan maps and are subject to the policies associated with the Flood.Hazard O'verlay designation. Housing There are no extensive areas of existing low or.moderate cost housing within the coastal zone of Montecito. To provide for balanced housing opportunities in this area of the coastal zone, some low 'or moderate cost housing will need to be required in new multiple-unit developments. An estimated 431 potential additional units could be constructed within areas designated for multiple.residential use on the land use plan, map. New additions to the housing stock.as well'as existing housing oppor- tunities for low and moderate income households will' be subject to the housing policies of-the land use plan., (Refer to Section 3.5.) -181- Commercial Devel.6pment The Miramar and Biltmore hotels are two, large visitor-serving commer- cial facilities in the Montecito coastal zone. The potential for major expansion of these facil,ities or new visitor-serving commerci,al development adjacent to the,coast in Montecito is constrained by the area's limited water resources,.traffic congestion and limited street capacities. Because of the existing water moratorium in the Montecito County Water District, new or expanded devel.opment will be dependent on private water wells unless alternative water supplies are found. The Coastal Commission has denied permits for high-yield wells in this area because of the concern that large withdrawals from the groundwater basin could reduce water levels to such an extent that seawater.intrusion could occur. How 'ever, the Commission has appr6v,ed one low-capacity well for a proposed Biltmore expansion and a back-up well for the Miramar with.conditions on the.rate of pumpage and the maximum amount of water use permitted, to mitigate potential adverse impacts"on the,groundwater resource. Visual Resources Montecito's primary scenic resources are the shoreline along Channel Drive, between the cemetery and.Olive Mill Road, and vistas from U. S. 101 toFernald Point as one travels west from Summerland to Montecito. Other scenic resources include.Hammond's Meadow and the shoreline from Eucalyptus Lane to Fernald Point. Under the requirements of Montecito s zoning ordi- nance (No. 453), all new development is subject to design review. Service System Capacities and Availability of Resources Water Supply The Montecito County Water District (MCWD-) services the Montecito, area with the exception of several private water purveyors. The District's boundaries are the Santa Barbara Cemetery on the west, Ortega Ridge Road to the east (the District also serves an area in the Summerland planning area along Toro Canyon Road), beyond the coastal boundary to the north, and the Pacific Ocean to thelsouth. The District draws its water from Jameson and, Cachuma Lakes, Doulton Tunnel, and from wells. On January 18, 1973, theMCWD initiated a water moratorium in antici- pation of a negative water supply/demand situation. The moratorium was, . I modified in May 1973 to.include a water allocation program and both remain in effect today. Since the County Health Department began keeping statis- tical records.on the number of private wells in November 1975, some 229 well permits have been issued. Private well development is of particular ..concern in the coastal..portion of Montecito's groundwater basin #3. Here, the concern exists:that high.yield well's locatednear the ocean may create salt water intrusion problems which could potentially degrade the aquifer. _182- Approximately 700 AFY of water would be needed.to accommodat e buildout under the land use plan. However, because of the existing water moratorium inthe District, development potential.will be limited until such time as a permanent increase in the District's water supply is realized. A District policy which allows 33 new permits over the next year is now in effect and applications are being accepted for the meters. However, under these limited resource conditions, priority uses under the.Coastal Act as.well as local priorities for water.use must be established, as discussed in Section 3.2 of the plan. WastewaterTreatment Capacity The Montecito County Sanitary District is bounded by Santa Barbara Cemetery and Ortega Ridge Road to the east and west, the Pacific''Oce'an to the south, and extends north beyond the coastal bouhdary line. Plant capacity has recently been expanded to .85 mgd. Current wastewater flow is estimated at .70 mgd. Assuming a .15 mgd surplus capacity, the plant can accommodate an additional 454 new residents (Table D-6, Appendix D). Since buildout under the land use plan would allow for a population increase far in excess of present plant capacity (Appendix E), expansion of the District's facilities would be required. However, because of the existing water moratorium in the Mo'ntecito County Water District., even the current capacity level of wastewater treatment is.not likely to be reached; any expansion would be contingent upon a pemanent,,increase in the water supply. 4.4.3 HAMMOND'S MEADOW Planning for Hammond's Meadow (APN 9-360-29, 30) is of special concern to the County because it is one of a few undeveloped coastal parcels within an existing urbanized area which offers diverse recreational and cultural opportunities. The site, Which comprises some 22 acres, includes broad, stretches of rolling grassland, a low bluff, and some woodl 'and area. views of the Santa Ynez Mountains from the bluff and beach area are spectacular. The coastal portion of the site has been enjoyed for years by sunbathers, surfers, and walkers. The parcel is z 'oned DR-12, which would theoretically permit development of 264 units on the site. In recent years, a portion of the meadow area has been recognized as,an important archae.ologi.cal resource leading to its inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places on May 19, 1978. Access to the meadow and shoreline is primarily f rom Eucalyptus Lane via the beach. At high tide this lateral beach access can be cut off. An easement does exist paralleling Edgecliff Lane to the north, but it has not been opened for public use. Parking-along Eucalyptus Lane is often .extremely congested. 'Users of Hammond's and Miramar beaches must often park several blocks away, and the resulting congestion is a nuisance to local property owners'. Although a visitor-serving development on Hammond' s Meadow could provide increased opportunities for public enjoyment of the area ' the, limited,road.capacity and existing traffic congestion in this area make such a use impractical. Therefore, this site is designated for Planned Development in the land use plan. In addition to the PD requirements listed in Section 3.2, development on Hamm Iond's Meadow shall be subject,to the following conditions: 1. The project may include up to 40 units provided that the appli- cant can demonstrate that the surrounding roads and other public or private services.(i.e., sewer, schools) are adequate to accommodate the proposed development and that the.project is consistent with all other policies in the land use plan. 2.-, Structures and other development shall be sited and designed in such a manner as to avoid destruction or disturbance of all archaeological sites of high significance which are listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 3. Structures shall be sited and designed to minimize impacts on public views from the dry, sandy beach to the Santa Ynez Mountains. 4.1 A minimum of 20 percent of the site shall be required for public open space and shall include the dry, sandy beach area. The remaining public open space shall be adjacent to the beach. 5. A limited amount of parking not to exceed six (6) spaces shall be provided for the public. In addition, that portion of the existing easement.along the southerly boundary of APN 9-360-30 (north of Edgecliff Lane) from Euca 'lyptus Lane to the east side of Montecito Creek shall be improved. The County shall also require dedication of an easement along the east side of Montecito Creek to connect the southerly easement with the beach, in exchange for the existing easement along the easterly boundary of APN 9-360-30. Adjustments to the fencing requirements stipulated in the existing @deed may be necessary to,implembnt this policy. See also Policy 7-10. .4.4.4 SUMMARY OF LAND USE PLAN MAP The land use plan for Montecito is, for the most part, consistent with existing zoning in the area, as highlighted in Figure 4-6. The most notable changes under the land use plan affect two of Montecito's larger parcels, the Montecito Avocado Ranch (APN 7-340-37, 38) and the Hammond's Meadow (APN 9-360-29,.30). These changes account for most of the reduction in potential additi.onal units from.the current 11352 units to. approximately 873 units under the plan (refer to Tables E-8 and E-9, Appendix E). -1.84- The Montecito Avocado Ranch pro erty, comprising some 35 acres and zoned for one-half acre lots (204-1@, would be designated for agricultural use under an A-I-5 (5-acre minimum) classification in the land use plan. This change is proposed to comply with the Coastal Act's requirement to protect prime agriculturaI lands whenever possible, and on thebasis of previous Coastal Commission rulings which have supported continued agricultural use for this parcel. The Hammond s Meadow parcel consists of 22 acres of oce6nfront land now zoned DR-12, permitting a potential. buildout of 264 units. Under the land use plan, the parcel would be designated for Planned Devel opment. Buildout would be restricted to no more than 40 uni-ts,, because of the limited street capacity of Eucalyptus Lane, limited water availability within the.Montecito'Cotihty Water District,, and as a result of extensive public hearings and input concerning the appropriate density for this parcel. North of Hammond's Meadow between the Southern Pacific main line and Jameson Lane is another vacant parcel (APN 9-320-3) of approximately 14 acres in size, currently zoned 6-R-2, permitting multiple development. The land use plan would change the land use designation to a single family density and limit development to 4-.6 units per acre'. Limited street capa- city and water resource constraints are principal reasons forproposing thi s reducti on in density. One other notable change concerns a 50-acre parcel (APN 5-060-7) in the easterly,end of Montecito's coastal zone in the vicinity of Picay Creek and Ortega Ridge-Road. The parcel is now zoned for one-acre residential development. The land use plan proposes to retain one-acre residential use of the bottom land in the,vicinity of Picay Creek and increase minimum lot sizes to.three@acres on the hillsides of the parce1just west of'Ortega Ridge Road because of geologic and slope constraints. -185-. Rd. C, East 0 38 ol an East Valley 0 Rd. Cr 0 @T, 19 0 B 10 Oe(o 39 15 10 17 18 14 ................. ...... ... .............. ...... ... 10 Montecito ...... A-IA C, x ..... ........... X-Xw::, ..X. 'A-1 40 ............... X Ul U18 :X@ M Fernald Pt. A-1-10 0 24 X'. 21 @3 1 2 3 4 .7 9 25 26 X of 6 x: Hammond's Meadow 9 (see text for land use designation) CID 30 36 x CM n t. I Cemetery 14. Residential (1.0 d.u./acre max.) 27. Park!Open Space. 31 32 33 Lo 34 35 37 Serena" Z. Residential (1.8 -12.3 cl.u.-/acre max.) 15. Educational Facility 28. Highway Related 3. Educational Facility 16. Residential (1.0d.u./acre max.) 29. Institution/Government Facility 4. Visitor Serving Cominercial Park/Open Space 30. Public Utility N NE: Resi dhti al (1 31. Park/O en Space 5. Residential (4.6 - 12.3 d.u./acre max.) I d.u.15 - 20 acres =x.) p 6. Residential (12.3 d.u./acre max.) 19. Park/Open Space 32. Residential @1 d.u./S 20 acres max.) 7. Residential (1.8 - 12.3 d.u./acre max.) 20. Industrial Park 33. Residential (0.3 d.u./acre max.) B. Visitor Serving Commercial 21. Residential (4.6 d.u./acre max.) 34. Residential (1.0 - 1,8 d,u./acre max.) 9. Residential (1.8 d.u.jacre max.) 22. Central Business District 35. Resicential (4.6 u.u./acre max.) 11. 1 il:n!il:ll (11:0 12.3 1.u./.cre wax. 23. Lookout Park 36. Residential (3.3 d.u./acre max.) 11. R:, ia nt 1 0 1.8 d.u./acre max.) 24. Residential (4.6 d.u./acre max.) 37. Park/Open Space 12. Residential (1.8 d.u./acre max.) 25. Public Utility 38. Residential (1.0 d.u. /acre max.) 0 13. Residential (1.8 d.u./acre max.) 26. Central Business District 39. Residential (1 d.u./5 - 20 acres max. dwelling units Mile -flIM4 'J.-ri FIGURE 4-6 Generalized Land Use Plan Land Use Designations -see text for definitions Montecito/Summeriand Planning Areas County of Santa Barbara 0 COMMUNITY FACILITIES OPEN LAND USES Local Coastal Program 0 INDUSTRIAL - EN AGRICULTURE I (10-40acre min.) 91 COMMERCIAL A RECREATION existing parks and RESIDENTIAL (open space =3 M COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY (see map list for densities) lu A@R 'A4 .......... .... . . ..... @"x MIWI a RE ff 51 '7 1 4.5 Goleta DC 1978 RON MORGAN 4. 5: GOLETA 4.5.1 CHARACTER OF THE PLANNING AREA The Goleta Valley planning area is bounded by the City of Santa Barbara and the Sandpiper Golf Course to the east and west, the coastal zone boundary to the north, and the Pacific Ocean to the south. Extending from the City of Santa Barbara's western boundary to More Mesa is a partially developed residential neighborhood in the Las Positas Valley. This area is likely to be annexed to the City of Santa Barbara in the. future as it is surrounded by lands under City jurisdiction. To the west of this area is the exclusive residential community of Hope.Ranch. The character of this community is rural; the topography, rolling. Hill and bluff-top parcels have spectacular views of the Pacific Ocean and Channel Islands. West of Hope Ranch is a large, undeveloped area known as More Mesa.* It comprises some 300 acres of mostly flat, naturally vegetated land which ends abruptly in a 5heer cliff over More Mesa beach - a popular local recreational area. An alluvial plain is located northwest of.More Mesa, formed by Atascadero Creek.' This flood plain suppo rts truck farming, greenhouses, and nurseries,. In addition to residential development, some truck farming and green- house activity occurs in the Orchid and Anderson Lane area. A line.of eucalyptus trees separates this greenhouse and nursery area from the Pacific Lighting property to the west, a large parcel which terminates abruptly at Goleta Beach County Park and the Goleta Slough. Much ofthe Pacific Lighting property, which is used for subsurface gas storage, is in agricultural use. Goleta Slough and Goleta Beach Park lie to the west of the Pacific Lighting site. Goleta Beach is a broad, sandy strip of land backed by the slough. The beach area includes Goleta Pier and a grassy picnic area. The slough, which is under the jurisdiction of the City of Santa Barbara, is approximately 400 acres in size and.is bounded by the airport to the north and west, and'a large mobile home park to the east of Ward Memorial Boule- vard. A remnant of Mescalitan Island (a noted archaeological site) ris 'es above the slough just'west of Ward Memorial Boulevard. The Goleta County Sanitary District's wastewater treatment facility is located on this site; it is surrounded by grazing lands and San Jose Creek's channeled water course. The slough is also bisected by Ward Memorial Boulevard. East of Fairview Avenue and south of Hollister Avenue is a commercial- residential area. The condition' of the area is run-down, with a particu- larly forlorn cluster of residences and commercial land uses located just east of the airport and north.of the grazing lands surrounding the waste- water treatment facilities. Portions of the area are located within the airport flightway. wVor tWe-purposes of this plan, More Mesa refers only to the undeveloped 300-acre portion of the area between Hope -Ranch and Orchid Lane, not the agricultural and residentially developed lands to the west that were historically part of the More Ranch. -187- West of Goleta Beach and the slough is the University of California at Santa-Barbara,,wh,ich includes the main campus and the Devereux Campus on the west side of Isla Vista. The U,niversity is preparinga separate Local Coastal Program for lands under its jurisdict ion. Isla Vista, west of the University main campus, is the most densely populated urban area in Santa Barbara County. Some 10,500 persons live within its approximately half-squa-re-mile confines'--most within a congested atmosphere of two-story apartments. Historically, Isla Vista has been a University-related bedroom community; currently 56 percent of the residents are U.C.S.B. students. While much of Isla Vista is developed, vacant parcels remain along the bluffs and in the northwestern section of the community. Some bluff-top parcels experienced severe cliff retreat in the winter of 1978, threatening several of thedwelling units located along Del Playa Drive. The beach below the Isla Vista bluffs is relatively narrow and is-intermittently scoured by wave action, especially during winter storms. Northwest of Isla Vista and the Devereux Campus is the University Golf Course, University Village, and the Santa Barbara Shores/Ellwood subdivi- sions, all private developments. There are large tracts,of undeveloped land surrounding the University Golf Couirse.and south of the Ellwood subdi- vision. The landscape consists of a broad beach backed by sand dunes and marshland south of the oil treatment facility, and high bluffs south of the Ellwood subdivision. Horse stabling activities now.occur on the large holding of Union Oil. Two groves of mature eucalyptus trees border this property, separating it from the Ellwood subdivision. The Sandpiper Golf Course marks the.Goleta planning area boundary on the west and Cathedral Oaks Road marks the northwest boundary. 4.5.2 PLANNING ISSUES Urban/Rural Boundary With the exception of the Goleta Slough, More Mesa, the Santa Barbara Shores area, and a few pockets of agriculture, the Goleta coastal zone between Hope Ranch and Ellwood is urbanized. The rural areas of Goleta are located outside of the coastal zone, extending into the foothills, and joining the.coast again west of Ellwood at the Sandpiper Golf Course. Thus, the only part of the Goleta planning.area where the urban/rural boundary is an issue is in the extreme western portion, in the vicinity of Santa Barbara Shores. Here, there is a large expanse of oceanfront land that is currently undeveloped. Agricalture has not'been a viable use of these lands over the years because of, non-prime soils, topography, and proximity to urban development, although a portion is now,being leased for. horse stabling activity. Therefore, this parcel is included in the urban area and planned for residential use,:and.the urban/rural boundary follows the eastern edge of the Sandpiper Golf Course.. The Boundary line then extends westward along Hollister Avenue to Highway 101, where it crosses thelfree- way and follows Cathedral Oaks Road to the north. -188- Agriculture Agriculture in the planning area is confined to the Anderson Lane area, portions of More Mesa east of Orchid Drive, and the Pacific Lighting property. These patches of agriculture are good examples of viable coastal agriculture within an urbanized area. Notwithstanding the lack of prime soils and presence of urban conflicts, some orchards, nurseries, and green- house operations have survived for several decades, and the continuation of these uses should be secured by appropriate land use designations. As shown on the land use plan map, agriculture with a five-acre mini- mum parcel size is designated for the area bounded by Anderson Lane on the east and the eastern property line of the Pacific Lighting parcel on the west, reflective of existing parcel sizes and the prevailing pattern of development. A ten-acre minimum is called for on other agriculturally designated parcels in the area.. New greenhouse operations in the area will be conditioned by the policies contained in Section 3.8, Policies 8-5 to 8-7. All of the other agricultural policies in Section 3.8 will,apply as necessary. Coastal Access and Recreation Two County parks, Arroyo Burro and Goleta, provide the principal public facilities supporting coastal recreation 'in the Goleta.area. Arroyo Burro, which is situated in the City of Santa Barbara, is approximately six acres in size and has 600 feet of ocean frontage, as well as parking capa- city for 159 cars. Goleta Beach Park is 29 acres in size, has 3,004 feet of beach.frontage, parking capacity for 600 cars, a fishing.pier, and hoist for launching boats. The County also owns 1.4 acres of oceanfront land on the Isla Vista bluff at the base of Camino Corto. However,.no beach access is provided at this site. Private beaches with facilities are located in Hope Ranch and Santa Barbara Shores, serving exclusively the residents of the adjacent neighborhoods. Residents of the area west of More Mesa share Use of the.private stairway 'at the foot of Orchid Drive. The University also has extensive beach frontage which is used by students as.well, as other residents. The only publicly owned access corridors connecting public roads to the beach are in Isla Vista at the bases of the following streets:, Camino Majorca, Camino del Sur, Camino Pescadero, and El Embarcadero. Therefore, only two major'beach parks and four access corridors are currently avail- able along this eight-mile stretch of coastline (excluding U.C.S.B.) to' serve the 691,000 residents of the Goleta Valley and other users. Arroyo Burro is situated within the City of Sant.a Barbara and is, therefore, not easily accessible by Goleta residents. Some of the demand for.beach access and recreation is satisfied by informal use in several areas., Most notable is use of More Mesa by summer crowds often exceeding 800 persons.- More Mesa has been the subject of much -189- controversy recently due to the issues of nude.sunbathing, dust, and automobile traffic. Informal use of the beach'south of Santa@Barbara Shores subdivision has also been extensive, although recently the gate to the road,. across from the,Union Oil property, allowing access has been locked Only residents of the subdivision and horse boarders have keys. Beache; adjacent to the University are commonly used by students and Isla Vista residents. In addition, the beaches adjacent to Isla Vista and Hope Ranch have been commonly used by the public for many years. Santa Barbara Shores and More Mesa offer the most potential in terms of increasing public opportunities for access to the beach. Specific recommendations directed at providing for suchluse areincluded in the. special discussions of these parcels in Sections 4.5.3 and 4.5.5. Habitat Areas The Goleta planni.ng area has several important environmentally sensi- tive habitats. These include several streams (Atascadero, Carneros, Tecolotito, and San Jose Creeks) that provide riparian habitat despite some channelization. In addition, Devereux Creek and several unnamed drainages feed into the Devereux Lagoon. Two wetlands, located in th,is planning area, are not under Santa Barbara County's jurisdiction. The majority of the Goleta Slough is within the jurisdiction of the City of Santa Barbara, and Devereux Lagoon and most of its adjacent dunes are under University of California ownership. Since surrounding land use activities affect wetland viability,, careful planning is needed for the adjoining land under County jurisdiction. Butterfly trees are found on the Price estate in Hope Ranch, the Pacific Lighting property east of the Goleta Slough, and an area adjacent t.o the'Santa Barbara Shores subdivision. These habitats need to be preserved, as the trees are essential for survival of the species locally. The More Mesa area consists of a relatively flat grassland broken by several shallow ravines which drain into Atascadero Creek. As More Mesa is one of the few remaining large undeveloped parcels in the Goleta area, it supports a range of animal species....The areas of particular value include the creek flood plain, oak savanna, and vegetation in the ravines. 'Large numbers of birds use the site for nesting and roosting, including the White-tailed Kite, designated as a "fully protected" species by the California Department of Fish and Game. (Refer to Section 3.9 for policies related to protection of the White-tailed Kite and Section 4.5.3 for discussion of land use proposals for More Mesa.) Currently the area suffers damage from unauthorized off-street motorcycle use. Should resi- dential or recreational development occur on the site, the More Mesa natural communities will need protection in order to insure their continued viability as habitats for the existing plant and animal species, particu- larly the White-tailed Kite. Harbor seals are often sighted in large numbers on off-shore rocks along the western end of More Mesa's shoreline, and may come ashore during _190- very low tides. As harbor seals are sensitive to the presence of humans$ restrictions on recreationalaccess to this area may be necessary. For these reasons, public 'access via the stairway at the end of Orc.hidLane should be limited to residents of the neighborhood and educational and scientific groups (see Policy 7-12). Vernal pools are found on several vacant parcels in Isla Vista: one along the bluffs, and two in the northwestern portion of Isla Vista. Vernal pools are rare and'fragile communities of special ecological signi- ficance. They are the result of rain or runoff in areas where drainage is poor and exist.only during the winter or spring. Weed cuttingto minimize fire hazar.ds,.foot traffic, and mosquito abatement practices can adversely impact vernal pools. Habitats that are.f.ound in the Goleta.pl.anning area are designated on the land use plan maps and policies addressing-their protection are found in Section 3.9. Hazards The entire Goleta Valley has a high seismic hazard rating. There are a number of faults in the immediate area and one., the More Ranch Fault, is classified as active. The area generally drained-by the Goleta Slough, including the airport but excluding the University and Isla Vista, is subject to tsunami runup. Due to high groundwater and soil cond.itions, this same area is subject to:high liquefaction hazard. The bluff and cliff areas are subject to sl'ides and erosion through- out. Measurements made in the area between Santa.Barbara and Coal Oil Point indicate cliff retreat averaging from three to ten inches per year. These are only average figures, as cliff retreat is a spasmodic event, frequently resulting in large chunks of soil breaking off nonuniformly. Housing in Isla Vista, particularly in the 6700 block of.Del Playa, is endangered by continued erosion. This has prompted efforts by affected property owners to explore the possibility of constructing seawalls to try and stabilize the bluff 'area. It is likely that seawalls.in the Isla Vista area would adversely affect lateral public access along the beach. New development in this area is subject to bluff setback requirements (Policy 3-4). In addition, mitigation measures to protect'existing struc- tures must meet the requirements of Policies 3-1 to 3-3 * Moreover, the land use plan specifies a lower residential density for the seaward portion of Del Playa so that adequ-ate setbacks can be provided in new develop- ments. Serious beach erosion also occurred during the 1978 winter storms, leading to localized and temporary sand removal which exposed several old pier footings from previous oil activity, especially in the Ellwood area. Some of these footings were cut back, but several remain. Stormconditions also led to a loss of low-lying bluff and auneareas along the beach in the vicinity of Devereux Dunes and to the west. Substantial portions of the,Goleta Slough and the area it drains, including the airport, are subject to flood hazard. Federal funds may soon be available for flood control which would involve improvements to stream channels flowing into the slough. Improvements would include channeliza- tion, channel widening and'deepening, removing cross channels, and enlarg- ing the existing basin. While there may be some.loss of riparian habitat, in several instances riparian habitat could be preserved by constructing. diversions around it. According to County Flood Control, the net impact of the project would.beto reduce.flood.hazard, imp .rove flushing and tidal exchange, improve mosquito abatement, and generally enhance the slough as an important habitat. The County has suggested to the Federal Government that one part of the original.flood control project be deleted. This item calls for improvements for segments of Atascadero and Maria Ygnacia Creeks. As portions of these two creeks flow through agricultural lands, it is not felt.-that the expense of channelization is-merited at this time. tonse- quently, these areas would be left Jn a' flood zone for the foreseeable future. The.land use plan maps designate all areas.that are within the 100-year flood plain'with a Flood Hazard Overlay. Housing There are three identifiable residential neighborhoods in Goleta's coastal zone: Isla Vista, Ellwood and University Village, and.Anderson 'Lane/Shoreline Drive (More Mesa),i Portions of Hope Ranch and pockets of residences scattered along Fairview Avenue are also within the coastal zone, creating a wide diversity of housing opportunities in this area. According to t.he 1975 Special Census, Isla Vista had 4,019 housing units. Seventy-four'percent of these units were multiple dwellings of five or more units. In 1975, overpayment (i.e., rent exceeds 25 percent of gross,monthly income) was a problem for 81 percent of the rental households in,Isla Vista in dwellings of two to four units and for 79 percent of those structures of five or more units. This situation is reflective of the fact that Isla Vista provides the principal housing opportunities for U.C.S.B. students and more recently for elderly persons; thus, incomes are low and rents proportionately high. In 1975, median incomes in Isla Vista (Census Tracts'29:01 and 29:02) were $3,792 and $5,730, respectively, both less than 60 percent of the County's median income.in 1975 and, therefore, considered very low. One of the recurring complaints about housing conditions in Isla Vista is that most of the residential units are owned by absentee landlords and/or rental companies. As a 'result, some local interest has been generated for establishing housing coo pe.ratives which would result in more local control of housing conditions. Another program for,,improvi,ng the.condition..of the existing housing stock would be rehabilitation; however.,- the County has not identified Isla .-192-' Vista as a priority area for rehabilitation funding at this time. Oppor- tunities for providing additional, new low and moderateincome housing in Isla Vista areseverely limited by lack of vacant land and water and a prevailing consensus in the community that little if any new residential development is desirable. In the Ellwood/University Village area (Census Tract 29:04), the 19.75 Special Census noted 2,786 units with 31 percent of the total units single family residences and 51 percent, multiple residences of five or more units. According to the County's Housing Condition Survey (June 1977), 99 percent of the housing in this census tract was in A or B condition. It can be inferred from these results that the housing is either new, nearly new, or in good repair. The median income in Census Tract 29:04 Was"$8,085 in 1975, 60 percent of the County media*n. Although not as low as in 'adjacent Isla Vista, this low-income level is again an indication of the area's proximity to U.C.S.B. and provision of student housing. Forty-three percent (43%) of the rental households in Census Tract 29:04 paid more.than 25 percent of their gross monthly income for housing in 1975. Typical of a university-related neigh- borhood, 6.3 percent of the households were renters. In the rest of the coastal zone in the Goleta planning area, there are a number of widely varying housing neighborhoods. Beginning at the City of Santa Barbara'.s western boundary, the coastal zone extends inland about 1,000 yard's and includes part of-Hooe Ranch. Housing in this area is exclusive and of an estate nature. To the west of More Mesa, a small subdivision surrounding Orchid Drive extends south to the bluffs. Residences aligning Anderson and Dorwin Lanes also provide housing opportunities along this portion of the coastline. Jn some cases, these residences are integrated with greenhouse activities on relatively small lots. The large, undeveloped Tots that remain in this area are suitable for agricultural (greenhouse) use. A large mobile home park is located east of Ward Memorial Boulevard, and isolated residential enclaves are intermingled with light industrial and commercial activities east of Fairview, directly under the airport's flight line. Housing in this latter area is adversely impacted by conflicts with commercial, indust rial, and airport uses. Residen'tial development in the Goleta planning area will be subject to the housing policies of the land use plan (Section 3.5). The plan allows for nearly 1,000 potential additional units in multiple residential zones in Golet,.a (excluding Isla Vista), a portion of which will.be required to be affordable to low and moderate income households. In addition the plan specificAJ,ly calls for an additional 60 units of low and moderate income housigg,each on More Mesa and Santa Barbara Shores, and 100 units on the W e,@t' Pev __Are,qx property, as a condition of approval for planned residential dgwe 1, 9pmpnt in these areas. -1,93- In Isla Vista, another 1,000 units would be possible under proposed multiple-density land use designations. Given the extremely dense develop- ment that exists in.1sla Vista at this time, this buildout should be viewed as a maximum. Reductions in density will be required as necessary to reflect the community's needst- individual site constraints, etc. Commercial Development Commercial development within the coastal zone is concentrated around Hollis ter Avenue and in Isla Vista. South of Hollister and east of Fair- view, there is an area of mixed commercial and residential uses. Isla Vista's commercial development is along Embarcadero del Mar and Embarcadero del.,Norte south of Pardall. The commercial areas along Hollister and in Isla Vista serve primarily the needs of the local neighborhoods and are almost completely built out. Visitor-serving commercial activities within the coastal zone are limited to a few restaurants in downtown Goleta and in Isla Vista; there are no campgrounds or overnight accommodations in this part of the County s coastal zone. (There is a motel close to the airport within the City of Santa Barbara's limits and other motels located further inland along major traffic arteries.) Visitor-serving facilities would be possible alterna- tive land uses for More Mesa and Santa Barbara Shores. However, the need for these facilities is questionable as the City of Santa Barbara, located just ten miles east of Goleta, provides the majority of visitor-serving accommodations for the South Coast. West of Goleta, the State parks which extend from El Capitan to Gaviota provide ample opportunities for overnight camping. Any vi.sitor-serving development in.the Goleta area should be closely tied to the carrying capacity of the road system and not preclude local day use of shoreline areas. Visual Resources There are g enerally very limited views from public roads to the ocean in the Goleta area. Glimpses of the ocean may be seen along Via Roblada in Hope Ranch., from Austin Road and Orchid Drive near More Mesa, along Ward Memorial Boulevard,- from select points.along Del Playa in Isla Vista, and from the@west end of Hollister Avenue just before it connects with U.S. 101. There are several large vacant oceanfront parcels that constitute the areals most significant scenic coastal resources. These include More Mesa, the Devereux slough area, and Santa Barbara Shores. Any development of these sites should be designed to maximize open space and minimize visual impact on the character of the area including views of the ocean and moun- tains. Special policies to guide future development on these parcels are included at the end of this section. Other general policies regarding the protection of coastal visual resources are found in Section 3.4. -194- Industrial and Energy Development Several, important energy facilities are sited in the Goleta planning area. Pacific Lighting Service and Supply Company owns several parcels in the vicinity of the slough and airport which it uses for gas storage. Gas is stored underground in depleted oil structures and used to meet peak winterd6mand. Pacific Lighting leases some of the acreage west.of Ander- son Lane to agricultural users. Station KTMS also maintains two broadcast- ing towers-there. In addition, Pacific Lighting has equipment related to the facility itself, including-injection pumps, wells, tanks, and.other related equipment on the site. Just west of Devereux Lagoon, there are a number of oil facilities. Aminoil maintains a marine-terminal, which is used to ship oil from its own production wells onshore at Ellwood and fr 'om Arco's Platform Holly. The terminal consists of two large storage tanks and associated pumps. These facilities are very visible from the beach; better screening could be provided. Under permit conditions established by the Coastal Commission and the County, increased production from Arcols field may proceedonly if stringent air quality standards can be.met. Incentives were established allowing greater production if lower emissions could be achieved at the marine terminal. To this end,, Aminoil is improving tank seals and install- ing vapor recovery on the tanks. Arco and Aminoil have al'so a small oil processi.ng plant very close to the Aminoil terminal facilities. This plant draws oil from subsea comple- tions in a State tidelands lease. This facility is depressed below grade and well-screened. Operations at this facility.are currently suspended, pending renovation. Oil from this facility would normally be shipped through the Aminoil marine terminal. Service System Capacities,and Availab.ility of Resources Water Supply The Goleta County Water District and the La Cumbre Mutual Water Company are the principal water purveyors in tfie Goleta area. The Goleta County Water District boundaries.generally extend westerly to the Embarca- dero Subdivision, though an outlying area in the vicinity of El Capitan is also included in the District. The District's eastern terminus is near Las Positas Road, while its northern boundary lies beyond the coastal zone and the Pacific Ocean marks its southern boundary line. The La Cumbre Mutual Water Company boundaries cover, the Hope Ranch area. Lake Cachuma is the District's primary water source, although ground- water is pumped from District Wells. La Cumbre Mutual Water Company buys water wholesale from the Goleta County Water District and also draws groundwater from its four wells. -195-, In December 1972, the Goleta County Water District imposed a water moratorium on new hookups on the basis that its water supply was less than demand. The morat,prium,has remained in effect and strong conservation measures have.been imposed by the District in recent years. The La Cumbre Mutual Water Company is not in a moratorium condition. The Goleta County Water District has adopted Resolution 900,.which states that the Board of Directors of the Goleta County Water District will attempt to acquire, subject to receiving a prior favorable vote of the Goleta Water District electorate,, add.itional water supplies to allow for reasonable agricultural and urban expansion over a twenty Year period The District defines "reasonable expansion" to'be either at the rate of .@% per :annum, requiring 1,500 acre feet per year by the twentieth year.or at 1% per annum necessitatingan additional 3,000 acre feet per year within the District in the twentieth year. The land use plan for the Goleta planning area (excluding Isla Vista) allows for an estimated 2,790 potential additional units; this includes the 300 units that would be possible under the Planned Development alternative for More Mesa, 500 units stipulated for the West Devereux property, and 300 for Santa Barbara Shores. Another 1,059 units would be.possible in Isla Vista. However., unless supplemental water is'made available, lack of water will severely constrict development in the Goleta area. Should the areal swater supply be augmented through conservation, wastewater reclama- tion, or other means, priorities for the use of the limited water surplus within the coastal zone will be necessary (see Section 3.2, Policy 2-7). Wastewater Treatment Capacity The Goleta and Isla Vista Sanitary Districts service the Goleta area. The Goleta Sanitary District's boundaries are Fairview Avenue and the Hope Ranch boundary to the east and west, and the Pacific Ocean to the south. The Isla Vista Sanitary District's boundaries extend west to approximately Winchester Canyon Road, east to Fairview Avenue, north beyond the coastal boundary, and south to the Pacific Ocean. The Goleta Sanitary District's wastewater treatment plant serves both sanitary districts. Current plant-capacity is ra ted at 8 mgd against an estimated wastewater flow of 6.23 mgd.' There is sufficient.excess capacity to serve an additional- 16,1090 people. (Refer to Appendix D.) The Goleta and I sla Vista Sanitary Districts' sewer network can serve the levels of growth possible in the land use plan although some improve- ments within the system will b.e required according to a study by Brown and Caldwell Engineers (March 1976). -196- 4.5.3 MORE MESA More Mesa is one of the few remaining, large oceanfront parcels in the urbanized South Coast area which has not been developed. It comprises some 300 acres which are divided into seven parcels (APN 65-320-1,2,4,7,8,9, 1O)e All but 35.5 acres are owned by Columbia University. The area is relatively flat, sparsely vegetated, and is,surrounded by residential and agricultural land uses., Soils on the site are mostly non-prime. More Mesa is currently zoned "DR-2" which would allow for residential development of two dwelling units,per gross acre, with a potential buildout of 600,units. The site is being used by ORV enthusiasts, and the beach area below More Mesa receives as many as 800 visitors on warm, sunny days. Because of its extensive undeveloped nature,,More Mesa supports A range of animal species including the White-tailed Kite, a hawk which is designated as a "fully protected".bird by the*Department of Fish and Game. Several problems exist as a result of the informal use of More Mesa by motorcyclists and beach goers'. Cyclists have prompted numerous complaints to the County from;adjacent residents because of the noise and dust they generate. They have denuded existing vegetation and disturbed indigenous animal species. Beachgoers congest nearby Vieja D*rive with their cars and have contributed to bluff erosion at the easterly end of More.M'esa where they descend a steep, informal pathway.to the beach. From a coastal planning perspective, More Mesa presents opportunities for providing Coastal Act priority land uses as well as other local land use needs. However, if a successful balance of.uses is to be realized, careful attention must be given to the following factors which constrain potential development of the site: habitat areas, recreational uses, flood and.seismic hazards, scenic values, and the limited access to the site from major traffic arteries. -Potential uses of the site that 'would be'consistent with Coastal Act policy would include agriculture, visitor-serving facilities, and residen- tial.development. In addition, a segment of the local population has argued that the site should be largely retained in open space. Problems do exist, however, with some of these. potential land uses. Agricultural use of More Mesa could conflict with the need for habitat protection, public access, and protection of More Mesa's visual resources. Because of the non-prime nature of More Mesa's soils,greenhouse develop- ment or possibly'cut flowers would be the only viable forms of agriculture that could exist on the.site. Extensive development of greenhouses would destroy the habitat of the White@-tailed Kite and the area's scenic values, and constrain the possibilities for developing public access to the beach area due to problems of vandalism. Provision for large-scale visitor-servi-ng facilities on More Mesa encounters other problems. Lack of nearby freeway access from U.S. 101 means that out-of-town traffic would need to be,rduted along a congested Hollister Avenue, and through a residential neighborhood. The site is. isolated from the' area's two major tourist destination points the Gaviota _197- Coast and the City of Santa Barbara. More importantly, More Mesa is a significant local recreational resource for beachgoers and a large influx of visitors could preclude,use.of the beach by local residents. For these reasons it would appear that More Mesa would be an inappropriate location for a major visitoe-ori6nted facility. Maintaining the site exclusively in open space would present the County with a major fiscal obligation. Public funds for the .purchase and maintenance of open space and parks are scarce and competition among such sites is fierce. In addition, given the South Coast's critical hous,ing needs and More Mesa's proximity to the University and other employment centers, it could well serve as an important new residential site. A planned residential,development on More Mesa would permit a diver- sity of residential units (rental apartments., condominiums, single family) and provide hoUsing opportunities for persons of.moderate income. Although affordable housing is a local priority,the Coastal Act specifies that visito.r-serving commercial recreational facilities have priority over private,residenti 'al development (Sec. 30222)., For the reasons stated earlier, it is clear that commitment of-the entire site to a commercial use would not be appropriate. Since More Mesa, especially the beach area, has been su bject to exten- sive historical public use, it is important that granting of a significant area for public recreation,be required as a condition of development. This .Would enhance opportunities for publit recreation in the Goleta area, which are currently limited to Gole ta Beach and Arroyo Burro. It is unknown at this time whether development of the site would result in removal of the White-tailed.Kite. Clearly, development,of parking lots, structures, etc., would result in the loss of viable habitat for many of.the species that now use the area. Although the oak trees that the kites use for roosting and nesting could be protected, keeping 200-250 acres in natura,l grassland for feeding would not be possible unless struc- tures were allowed to exceed three stories. Special study of More Mesa is needed to determine whether preservation of grassland on More Mesa is necessary.for the survival of the species locally or whetherthe kites can range distances for feedingand.continue to Use More Mesa mostly for ,roosting and nesting. More Mesa is designated for Planned Development in the land use plan. In addition to the PD requirements described in Section 3.2, development of More Mesa shall be subject'to the following conditions: 1. A specific plan shall be prepared for the entire site (APN 65-320-1,2, 497.8.9,10) which incorporates all of the conditions listed below and conforms to all other policies of the.land use plan. The specific plan shall show the locations of roads and structures, and indicate the amount and location of openspace for habitat preservation and public recreation. The specific plan shall be subject to environmental review under County CEQA Guidelines. -198- The specific plan and accompanying environmental documents shall be submitted to the Planning Commission, who may recommend additional conditions for development of the site., In adopting the specific plan, t.he Planning Commision shall specify the number and type of housing units, open space requirements, habitat area to be protected, etc., for each.of the parcels which is under separate ownership. 2... A maximum of 300 residential units may be.developed on the site of which 20% shall be affordable to persons of moderate income. 3. As a condition of approval, 20 percent (60 acres) of the site shall- be dedicated,to the County or other public agency for public recreational ,use. The majority of the dedicated area shall be adjacent to and include the dfy sandy beach. Access road(s,), parking area for 300 cars, beach access via stairway(s), restrooms, bikeway, and walking trail shall be provided by the developer(s). A sum of money (to be determined by the Departments of Parks and,Public Works) to cover costs of maintenance of these recreati,onal facilities for a period of five years shall be deposited with the County or responsible agency. 4. In order to.preserve open space.and protect. *v- iews to the foothills, structures shall be clustered to the maximum extent possible on the northern portion of the property excluding a11 habitat sensitive areas. 5, All development on the site, including structures and roads,, shall be sited and designed to avoid areas used for nesting and roosting by the White-tailed Kites., @.6. To the maximum extent feasibl.e, vegetation consisting of drought- tolerant species shall be used for landscaping. 4.5.4 WEST DEVEREUX PROPERTY This + 240 acre parcel (APN 73-090-10,13,50), which is owned by the University@_Exchange Corporation and IMS Financial Corporation, is bordered by the ocean to the south, the'Devereux Lagoon to the southeast,, Storke Road to the east, the University Village subdivision to the north, and the vacant Union Oil property.(Santa Barbara Shores) to the west. A major portion of the site (66 acres) is currently,developed as a golf course. A further 40.5 acres are leased to Arco and Aminoil.; a marine terminal and small processing plant have been developed on their leases. The rest of the property is currently undeveloped. The undeveloped portion of the site is characterized by gentle slopes covered by natural vegetat-ion. Several unnamed drainages and Devereux Creek flow through this property into the.Devereux Lagoon. The area between the golf course and oil facilities is bisected by a road processing and transversed by berms, averaging several feet in height, which run generally in an east-west direction. Extensive,erosion has taken place in this area and the resulting sedimentation is, ad'versely affecting the Devereux Lagoon. Extensive ORV use exacerbates this situation. -199- FIGURE 4-7 WEST DEVEREUX PROPERTY Golf, Cours Married Student Housing 0 0 0 Oil Storage oool Tanks Devereux Lagoon -260- The southern tip of this property consists of sand dunes which. are. sparsely vegetated due to excessive recreational (sunbathing, horseback riding, picnicking, etc.) and ORV use. This area, unlike the dunes which are within the Univers.ity Ecological Reserve, is not protected by fencing or signs. A road and trail running along the western boundary of this parcel currently provide beach access for residents of the surrounding rIesidential neighborhoods. Just to the north of the dunes is a large pond area,used as an oil sump. The beach and dune area is particularly scenic despite the intrusion of the oil storage tanks into,the viewshed. This parcel along with the Devereux Campus of U.C.S.B. and the Santa Barbara Shores property consti- tute valuable open space, scenic, and habitat resources for residents of the.Goleta Valley ''Careful planning of'the'site-is needed to ensure pro- tection of the natural resources of the area And preservation of the Devereux Lagoon as a viable wetland habitat. The development potential of this site is constrained by a number of factors including the need to provide a substantial buffer around the oil facility due to problems of safety, noise, and odor, and the need to protect dune and adjacent wetl,and habitats. The site is inappropriate for a visitor-serving use because of the oil faci-lity,,the fragility of the dunes area, and the residential character of the surrounding developments. Residential development would be an appropriate use on those portiom of the site which are north of the existing golf course and adjacent to the existing residential neighborhood, as well as the area fronting Storke Road. The majority of the area south of the golf course should be kept in open space to ensure preservation of the dune and slough habitats and to provide an adequate buffer around the oil facility. The oil facility is viewed as a long-term land use and is therefore designated on the land use plan maps as Coastal. Dependent Industry. Development on the remainder of the site shall be subject to the PD requirements in Section 3.2 and the following conditions: 1. A specific plan shall be prepared for the entire site (APN 73-090-10, 133, 5.0) which incorporates all of the conditions listed below and conforms to all other policies of the land-use plan. The specific plan shall show the locations of roads,and structures and indicate the amount and location of open space.for habitat preservation and.public recreation. The specific plan.shall be subject to environmental review under County CEQA Guidelirves. The'specific plan and accompanying environmental,documents shall be submitted to the Planning Commission, who may recommend additional conditions for development of the site. In'adopting the specific plan, the County shall speci the number and type of housing units, open fy e - , space.requirements, habitat area to be protected, etc., for each of the parcels. _2Q1 2. A maximum of 500 residential units, of which 20% of the units shall be affordable to persons of low and moderate income, may be permitted provided that the existing-66-acre'golf courseis retained in its present use. The,development rights on the golf course at the rate of 70 density credits shall be transferred by the owners of the golf course to the owners of the remaining 174 acres. 3. In addition to the existing golf course, a minimum of 55 acres (exclud- ing the area now developed for coastal dependent industry) shall be retained in,public and common open space to meet a minimum 50 percent open space requirement. The public open space shall include a trail easement to allow public access from Phelps Road to the beach and a small public parking area for 20 cars at the trailhead. 4. Attractive fencing around the dune area shall be provided to keep out horses and ORVs. Signs shall also be posted informing the,public of the fragility of the area-and requesting that they keep off the dunes. 5. The property owners shall work.with the University and the County to ensure that the specific plan for the area includes appropriate miti- gating measures to protect.the Devereux Lagoon. 4.5.5 SANTA BARBARA SHORES South of,the existing Santa Barbara Shores/ Ellwood subdivisions is a large tract of vacant land. This area, owned by Union Oil and the Security Pacific Bank, is 233 acres in size (APN 79-210,12,13,14,15,17,18,24). The land is currently zoned 6-R-1 and 7-R-1, which would theoretically allow development of 1,072 units.on the site. The parcels are vacant, except for the Union,Oil holdings which are being.leased for horse stabling activi- ties. Agricultural potential is limited by the non-prime soils (Class III and IV) and wind exposure of the site'. Santa Barbara Shores is fronted by a wide sandy beach and high bluffs which are subject to erosion. The property owners in the adjacent subdivi- sion have an agreement with Union which allows them access to the beach. There is a road from the top of the bluff down to the beach as well as some old restroom facilities; however, the road, parking area, and structures were heavily damaged during the 1978winter storms. The beach is also used extensively by the public; the main access points are from the deadends of north-south streets in the adjacent subdivisions. This site is one of the few remaining large tracts of vacant ocean-. front land within the urbanized South Coast area. Careful planning is needed to ensure that the scenic, recreational, and open space values of this site are not diminished by future development. The plan designates the site for Planned DevelopmentOn addition to the PD requirements in Section 3.2., development-of Santa Barbara Shores.shall be subject to the following conditions: -202- 1 A specific plan shall be prepared for the entir e site (APN 79-210-12, 13, 149 15, 17, 18, 24) which incorporates all of the conditions listed below and conforms to all other policies of the land,use.plan. Each parcel in separate ownersh.ip,'under the specific plan, may satisfy separately all development conditions imposed on the entire site. Each parcel in separate ownership, underthe specific plan, may be consid- ered separately in determining the maximum number of housing units to be developed on the site. The specific plan shall show the location of roads andstructure sites, and indicate the location and amount of common and public open.space. The specific plan shall be subject to environmental review under County CEQA Guidelines. The specific plan and accompanying environmental documents shall be submitted to the Planning Commission, who may recommend additional conditions for development of the site. In adopting the specific plan, the Planning Commission shall specify the number and'type of housing units, open space requirements, etc. for each parcel. 2. A maximum of 300 residentiallunits may be developed on the site of which 20% shall be affordable to persons of low and moderate income. 3. Existing stands of eucalyptus trees that border the property to the north shall be preserved. 4.5.6 SUMMARY OF LAND USE PLAN MAP The proposed land use plan.for the Goleta Area, including Isla Vista, would reduce potential additional units by about 1,300 dwelling units; current zoning would permit about 59100 units, while the proposed land use plan would reduce allowable buildout to about 3,800 units. A significant amount of this reduction is the result of proposed changes for the area's large, undeveloped lands designated for residential use, i.e.., More Mesa, Santa Barbara Shores, and West DevereUx.. Planned residential developments With necessary reductions in density are stipulated for these areas because of their outstanding resource values and opportunities for coastal access. In addition to reducing potential buildout, the land use plan would, in response to Coastal Act policies, expand the limited beach access and coastal recreational opportunities in Goleta Valley, protect habitats, provide for substant 'ial hew low-moderate housing opportunities,, and preserve the few viable pockets of agriculture that are found in Goleta's coastal zone. A Planned Development des ignation would be applied to the area's large undeveloped parcels that fall within the urban boundaries of the land use plan to help implement these objectives. These undeveloped parcels include More Mesa, Santa Barbara Shores, and the West Deyereux properties. More Mesa, which comprises some 300-acres and is presently zoned DR-2 permitting up to 600 units would,, under the Planned Development Exchange designation, be permitted a buildout of 300 units:. Twenty percent of the units would be reserved for persons of moderate income under the provisions of -203- the plan. Existing informal beach access and recreational uses of More Mesa would be formalized and enhanced by requiring that 60 of the 300 acres be dedicated to the County or other,public agency for public recreational use. Since More Mesa is the habitat of the White-tailed Kite, it is proposed that any development be sited to avoid areas used for nesting and roosting. The West Devereux property which lies northwest of the Devereux Campus of the University of-California, Santa Barbara, is some 240 acres in size and zoned DR-10 and 6-R-1. The land use plan assumes that the existing golf course and oil facility which occupy the land will remain as on-going uses and designates the remaining.130 acres for Planned Development. Up to five hundred units could be developed; twenty percent of the units would be reserved for persons of low and moderate incomes. Since the coastal portions of the West Devereux property are valuable as part of a larger dune and Devereux slough habitat, the land use plan would require a substantial open space requirement to include areas adjacent to the beach Fencing, signing, and other measures are proposed as conditions to ensure continued viability of the wetland, and slough habitats. In the case of Santa Barbara Shores, located west of the Devereux property and zoned for residential use (6-R-1 and 7-R-1, permitting a theoretical buildout of 1,072 units), the land use plan calls for a resi- dential planned development of 300 units. Other changes in current zoning are proposed for the Anderson Lane area, which is presently a mix of low density residential and agricultural uses. The land use plan would support a continuation of agriculture in this area by designating parcels currently in production as A-1-5 and A-1-10. In Isla Vista, density reductions are proposed along Del Playa in response to the hazards of cliff retreat which necessitate larger blufftop setbacks. In addition, the area designated for commercial use along. Pardall Road has been expanded. -204- T r R CD state St. 1) 0 Goleta 0 101 Hollister Ave 12 G Cr. Laguna 101 Lr-L 13 -11? sr- Blanca 7 19 20 14 'c 5-4? 0 E . . . . . . . . . . -t UT Hope Ranch 461 ever aux@i@i@@ S lou h....*. A-1- 5 A-1-10 A-1-5 Santa Barbara 16 17 18 190, al Oil Pt. 3 4 5 Goleta Pt. More Mesa I Santa Barbara Shores 6 (PD) 21 P'.) (13D) C@l - un I . Residential 0.3 30 du*/acre max.) 12. industrial Park 2. Coastal Dependent Industry 13. Residential (12.3 du/acre 22 3. Educational Facility 14. Industry 4. Residential (3-3 - 30 du/acre max.) 15. Public Utility 5. General Commercial 16. Goleta Beach County Park 6. Educational Facility 17- Residential (1.8 du/acre 7. West Devereux - PD 18. Residential (1.8 du/acre 8. Residential (4.6 di acre) 19. Residential. 1 8 du/acre 0 3 Residential (30 chy/a-cre) 20. Residential 1:0 du/acre 109: Open Space 21. Residential @l - 3 du/acre) 1-1. Educational Facility 22. Arroyo Burro County Park Miles dwelling units If. VAR C9 4 FIGURE 4-8 Generalized Land Use Plan Land Use Designations -see text tor detinitions Goleta Planning Area COMMUNITY FACILITIES OPEN LAND USES County of Santa Barbara INDUSTRIAL Loca( Coastal Program AGRICULTURE I and 1[ (5-100 acre min.) COMMERCIAL El RECREATION (existing County parks) L @agun. Jan.. =i c= c=3 COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY RESIDENTIAL E3 (see map list for densities) 61, 4.6 Gaviota Coast 0. 1978 RON MORGAN 4.6 @GAVIOTA COAST 4.6.1 CHARACTER OF THE PLANNING AREA With the exception of several onshore oil production, treatment, and storage facilities and a few small pockets of residential development, the coastline between Ellwood and Gaviota is rural. Prominent.features of this area include a section of broad coastal terrace, rolling grass-covered hillsides, scenic coastal canyons, and coastal promontories. Perennial streams flow through many of the canyons, sometimes forming small.wetlan.ds at their mouths. Tecolote Canyon, at the easterly end of the planning area, is the site of the Embarcadero subdivision, 1which consists of single family,'custom residences on lots of one acre or more. Immediately.south of the subdivi- sion, across U.S. 101, is the popular Haskell.'s beach. Coastal develop- ments in this general area include the-Ellwood Pier, the Sandpiper Golf Course, and the Arco and Aminoil facilities. To the west, the foothills of the Santa Ynez Mountains recede to form a broad coastal terrace in the vicinity of Dos Pueblos.Canyon. This area supports the most agriculturally diverse activities between El lwood and Gaviota, including some cattle and sheep grazing, lemon and avocado orchards, and greenhouses. Las Varas Ranch, which lies just west of Dos Pueblos Canyon, is anothercoastal agricul tural area that has been planted to avocados in recent years. To the west of Las Varas Ranch, the coastal shelf broadens, reaching its greatest width in the vicinity of the Edward's Ranch, then narrows dramatically to reveal highly scenic El Capitan Point. El Capitan*.a State Beach Park, is a wide rocky point with dense coastal woodlands. Outstand- ing specimens of oak and sycamore are prominent near the creek mouth and several meadows in this vicinity give the area a unique l.ook and open atmosphere. The beach area to,the west of.El Capitan Point and the upland recreation facilities (picnicking and camping) make El Capitan one of the more popular of the State beach parks. North of U.S. 101, along El, Capitan Creek, is a private recreation facility and the horse stables of El Capitan Ranch. A network of roads is visible from U.S. 101, remnants of an aborted residential development proposed for the El Capitan.Ranch in the early 1970's. Beyond the El Capitan area the coastal foothills intrude on the coast- line to Refugio State Beach Park. A line of palms which borders the beach and a sharp, precipitous point are RefUgio's distinctive features. West of Refugio the coastal terrain becomes more rugged; U.S.. 101 clings to a narrow band of coastal -terrace. A bridge crossing is required at Arroyo Quemado Creek, one.of a number of coastal creeks which cut sharply through the sandstoneoutcroppings at the base of the Santa Ynez Mountains. A small cluster of beach homes lies just west of the trestle at Arroyo Quemado. Other develo pments in..:the area include the County's sani- -206- tary landfill at Tajiguas, the Getty Gaviota.Marine.Terminal, Sunburst Store and Restaurant, two gas stations, Vista Del Mar School, and Gaviota State Beach Park. Gaviota Canyon forms the westerly boundary of the planning area. The canyon supports an extensive riparian hab-itat and forms a sharp break in the land forms to the east and.west. 4.6.2 PLANNING ISSUES Urban/Rural Boundary The utban/rural boundary conforms to the eastern parcel line of the Sandpiper Golf Course, the proceeds westerly along Hollister Avenue to U.S. 101, across the freeway,-'and north on'Cathedral Oaks Road. Consequently, the Gaviota Coast is located entirely within the designated rural area. The principal land uses specified in the land use plan are agriculture, public recreation, and coastal dependent industry.. Due to lack of services, i.e., sewer,, roads, schools, fire and police protection, and ,limited water resources, this area is not suitable for urban development at the present time. Agriculture Agricultural activity includes some lemon and avocado production along Highway 101 and in the canyons from Ellwood to El Capitan; a large green- house operation west of Naples; and grazing on the foothills north of High- way 101. The only area where there is sufficient land south of Highway 101 to the shoreline for coastalagriculture is between Naples and El Capitan, and-,it.,is here that the Do s Pueblos Orchid Company and several large plant- ings of lemons and avocados are found. Outside of this area, orchards are limited to select, narrow canyons north of Highway 101; grazing is the only other major form of agriculture at the present time. Soils throughout this portion of the coastal zone are generally non- prime; although'some Class II soils and isolated pockets of Class I soils are found in the coastal canyons. None of the agricultural parcels in the coastal zone east of Refugio is under preserve status. However, extensive preserves exist in Refugio Canyon and in most of the.coastal zone in.the vicinity of Tajiguas, Arroyo Quemado, and west of Canada de la Huerta to Gaviota. Existing zoning is a mixture of "U" (Unlimited Agriculture, 10-acre minimum) ang "AG" (General Agriculture,:100-acre minimum). Permitted uses in both zones include all types of agriculture, oil and gas production, and single family dwellings. Given-that prime*,agriculture exists on a number of parcels now zoned U and that the character of the area is decidedly rural, a ten-acre.minimum parcel size is inappropriate. Also, west of El Capitan, existing 100-acre'zoning,is-inadequate for the non-prime agricultural operations that prevail there. -207- The land use plan for the Gaviota Coast, calls for Agriculture II, 100-acre minimum parcel size, for the agricultural lands between Ellwood and El Capitan. Agriculture in this area is a combination of prime and non-prime pursuits; lemon and avocado orchards, a substantial greenhouse operation, and some grazing exist. The 100-acre minimum parcel size designation is appropriate 'for this type of agriculture and the rural setting in which it is taking pl'ace.. West of El Capitan, the land use plan calls for a 320-acre minimum parcel size, an increase over the existing 100-acre zoning. This increase is needed to reflect the predominance of non-prime agriculture in the more remote, westerly regions of the Gav.iota Coast. Although a 320-acre minimum is not an economically viable parcel size for cattle grazing operations,* it serves.to strengthen agricultural use of the land by reducing the potential for rural residential development. Coastal Access and Recreation The coastal zone between Ellwood and Gaviota is a recreational resourceof State-wide importance. Three major State parks, El Capitan, Refugio, and Gaviota currently provide recreational opportunities for local as well as out-of-County visitors. Approximately ten miles of coastline. and 3,047 acres are now in State ownership. Together, these parks provide 630 parking spaces and 291 camper sites.. The State also has plans for expansion of its park holdings easterly from El Capitan and westerly from Refugio, as well as for a new acquisition at Haskell's Beach. One of the reasons for these acquisitions is the increasing demand for camping facili- ties. Vehicle turnaways at the three State parks along this coastline averaged 147 per day during the summer months of 1975 and peaked at 471 on July 4. Moreover, according to PARIS (Parks and Recreation Information System) projections, a 35 percent increase in the existing number of camp- sites is needed to meet recreation demand by 1990. State acquisition and development, of new parks in this planning area is complicated by several factors. Park development to date has focussed on the provision of overnight camping facilities, particularly for RV's, which require grading, paving, and alteration of natural vegetation for construction of level pads needed by RV's. Such development may conflict with Section 30251 of the Coastal Act which requires that development mini- mize the alteration of natural 'landforms. While RV's have experienced considerable increase in popularity over the past years, rising costs of the RV's and gas may.make this form of recreation infeasible for people of moderate incomes in the near future. Consequently, careful consideration should be given to the irreversible commitment of limited coastal resources for development of RV facilities. Another complicating factor is that areas along this coastline outside existi.ng State parks are already used extensively for recreation by mostly local residents. There are over ten sites along this stretch of coastline where the public now gains vertical access to the beach. On the summer *The Agricultural Extensi6n Service, University of California, estimates that a@minimum of 1,800 acres is needed. -208- weekends, well over 200 cars are.parked along Highway 101 or adjacent side roads by users of these beaches. Some b 'f these popularly used beaches have recentlybeen acquired bythe State or are proposed for future acquisition. Therefore, careful planning will be required to ensure that existing local users are not displaced and that the.environmental carrying capacity of the natural en'vl'ro'nment is not exceeded as a result of increased levels' of use. Bicycle trails are being planned,to provide increased access to this coastal area. A trail connecting UCSB to El Capitan is being jointly planned by the County Transportation Department, Cal'trans, and the State Department of Parks and Recreation. The.lihk between El Capitan and RefUgio has recently been completed. Funds have also been allocated to acqui're land for a bikeway that would connect Refugio to Tajiguas. This trails' system may help to lessen the need for committing coastal.land to parking-lots as well as to mitigate the'impact of recreationally oriented traffic on local air quality. In order to complete*the system, vertical easements to connect the,bicycle trail to the beach need to be provided, especially at the beaches that are currently popular destination points. Recommendations for improving access opportunities along the Gaviota Coast and policies which provide a framework for. futureState Park develop- ment are included in Section 3.7. The land use plan maps also show exist- ing and proposed recreational areas and accessways. Habitat Areas .The Gaviota Coast supports many small habitats such as streams, tide- pools, and butterfly trees, important marine resources such as kelp and fish, and three unique habitats: a reef, harbor seal.hauling ground and rookery, and native grassland. There are nine perennial and at least seventeen intermittent coastal streams along thi.s portion of the County's coastline. Adjacent agricultural uses including orchard development and cattle grazing may have adverse effects on stream habitats. All of the Gaviota coast streams-have.been altered by storm"sewers where Highway 101. intercepts their paths to the,coast. Small wetlands occur at the mouths of Canada del Refugio, Las Llagas, Dos Pueblos,,.Tecolote.' and Bell Canyon Creeks. The coastal canyons also provide suitable environmental conditions for butterfly trees; these have been noted.at Barro Canyon, Del Cementeria Canyon, an area just west ofArroyo Quemado., and near Dos Pueblos Canyon. Some of the butterfly trees in'this area have.been the subject of research by the University of California. The rocky intertidal areas between Ellwood and Point Conception have been recommended for preserve status (California Coastal Plan, 1975; County Conservation Element). Thiscoastal area is relatively undisturbed and its tidepools are of scientific interest. -209- Adjacent to the old townsite of Naples is an intertidal and subtidal reef which.extends a mile or so out to sea. Naples reef has many recreational and scientific values due to the large number and diversity of organisms that inhabit the area. Several research projects are currently underway at the reef through the Marine Science Institute at UCSB. Due to the uniqueness and value of the area for scientific study, :recreational uses of the area may need to be limited in the future to prevent degradation of habitat values. A harbor seal hauling and pupping ground exists,seasonally on the sandy coastal area between Dos Pueblos and Eagle Canyons. Since harbor seals will not hau.1. out on beaches that have been disturbed by people, these small po cket beaches need to be protected from intense recreational uses. A small patch of native grasslands is located on the coastal bluffs west of Ellwood Pier. Native grasslands are sensitive to disturbance; disruption to this plant community increases its vulnerability to takeover by European weedy plant species. Since native grasslands are now rare in the entire State, remaining areas should be preserved. Plant communiti,es in this,area are typical of much of the coastline and include coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and southern oak woodland. Cattle grazing in this planning area may affect oak regeneration in the savanna. When seedling oaks are grazed, there is no potential for regener- ation* An endangered plant, black figwort (Scrophularia atrata), is found in an area westerly of Las Varas Canyon. Environmentally sensi,tive habitat areas found in this planning area are designated on the land use plan maps and protected by policies listed in Section 3.9. Hazards The entire area carries ahigh seismic hazard rating. There are a number of faults clustered in the vic 'inity of Ellwood, including Glen Annie, Las Varas, Dos Pueblos, and Eagle. Tsunami hazards are limited to a number of the canyon mouths, including Canada de la Gaviota, Refugio Creek, Canada del Corral, Canada del Capitan, and Bell Canyon. Liquefaction hazards are limited to Tajiguas Creek and Canada del Refugio. In foothill areas, a high landslide hazard exists. Large parts of this planning area are characterized by narrow sandy beaches backed by steep bluffs which are subject to wave action and erosion. In a number of instances,, beach facilities at parks are subject to damage during high wave and flood conditions. In several locations, the railroad embankment is endangered by bluff.erosion. Seawalls have been erected at several locations to protect the base of the bluffs. 210- The County does not have detailed flood hazard information for the .non-urbanized areas between Ellwood and Gaviota. A moderate fire hazard rating exists for shoreline areas, increasing to extreme hazard in the foothills and beyond. Localized fire hazards also exist in or near wooded canyon or creek bed areas. Since the Gaviota Coast is not planned for urban development, these hazards do not pose major threats to,life or property. Allowable develop- ment. is subject to the hazards.policies contained in Section 3.3. Commercial- Development Exi'sting commercial visitor-serving activities are limited to two service stations along Highway 101 and the.Sunburst RestaurantA.t.-Gaviota Vil.Jage. A privately operated campground is situated north of Highway 101 near,El Capitan. Given.the State's plans to expand its park ownership in this area and thecommitment of remaining lands to agriculture, opportuni- ties for expansion of visitor-serving facilities would appear to be limited. According to Section 30222 of the Coastal Act, visitor-serving uses have priority over private residential development but not over agriculture or coastal dependent industry., Existing accommodations for visitors along the Gaviota Coast, although extensive, are limited to camping and RV facilities. While there may be a demand for a visitor-serving facility such as a lodge in this area, conversion of agricultural land to a higher intensity use could create tremendous pressure on.surrounding agriculture, particularly grazing lands. Since the Gaviota Coast is within easy commuting distance of Goleta and Santa Barbara, the area has been subject to considerable development pressure in the past. There are only two s'ites that appear suitable for commercial visitor- oriented use in this planning area. The 64-acre site@ known as Haskell's beach is an appropriate site for resort use given its attractive beach, secluded location, access to the freeway, and close proximity to the Sand- piper Golf Course. This parcel does not have any agricultural potential and is not needed for coastal dependent industrial use. This property is designated for Resort/Visitor Serving use in the land use plan along with the existing restaurant, store and gas station complex at Gaviota. Another potential future site for a resort facility is the Dos Pueblos Canyon. This site is low-lying and thus development would not be visible from the freeway. Since Dos Pueblos also has a particularly scenic beach area, it could reasonably be viewed as a destination point for visitors. Since there are other sites within or closer to the urban area which should be developed for visitor-serving uses prior to Dos Pueblos, no accommoda- tion is made for such use in the land use plan at this time. Visual Resources The coastal zone between Ellwood and Gaviota is an area of unique scenic value. The entire viewshed is a traveller's delight, as it provides beautiful contrasts between the ocean on one side and the canyons and foot- hills on the other. Two types of development, energy and recreation, have affected the visual resources of this area. -211- Energy facilities, mainly oil and gas facilities, including oil wells, proc essing facilities, storage tanks, offshore platforms, and marine terminals have been located at numerous sites along the coast in this area. These facilities are linked principally to offshore wells and are generally well-.screened to protect views to the ocean. Energy companies have indicated that additional onshore energy facilities may be needed in the future. In addition, a number of areas between-Ellwood and Gaviota north of Highway 101 may be possible sites for future power plants since they were not designated for exclusion by the Coastal Commission. In the event that any new energy-related facilities are constructed in this portion of the coastal zone, the visual quality of the area will need protection. Recent State park expansion has been characterized by development of facilities for recreational vehicles at high densities. At El Capitan, RV pads have been constructed adjacent to Highway 101. The landscaping, when mature, will mitigate some of the visual impacts of this development; however, it will also impede coastal'views. Future development will need to be carefully sited and designed to avoid impacting visual resources in this area.. Between Tajiguas Creek and Gaviota, a number of billboards have been erected which detract from the s.cenic quality of the area. These will be subject to removal.after May 1979. Residential development in the planning area is scattered and well-screened from the highway. The development potential of-the Gaviota Coast under the land use plan is limited; however, permitted development should be carefully sited and desi.gned to be subordinate to the rural character of the area. Several policies in Section 3.4 are directed at protection of the visual resources of this area. For example, su,bstantial areas south of U.S. 101, where the highway traveller is afforded-ocean views, are designated as View Corridors and are thus subject to special policies regarding view protection. In addition, the plan recommends that this area be designated as a State Scenic Highway (Policy 4-8). Other visual resources in the area, which include the foothills and moun "tains,to the north, are mostly.outside the coastal zone and,therefore not under Coastal Act jurisdiction. Industrial and Energy Development The majority of the County's ener.gy-related facilities are located between Ellwood and Gaviota. The area includes nine facilities for processing of oil and gas, two marine terminals, as well as some onshore oil production activity. These facilities were built mostly during the 1960's to serve production in the State Tidelands. Production in the Tide- lands has been declining historically; consequently, many of these facili- ties are functioning with considerable excess capacity. Production from State leases may increase temporarily if market conditions improve and producers are successful in applying enhanced recovery techniques within a more stringent regulatory environment. These sites also represent poten- tial processing areas for oil recovered from Federal leases. Some of these facilities would need upgrading to become operational under current regula- tions. -212-@. Arco Ellwood Facility. Arco is currently upgrading its oil and gas processing facility near Ellwood, just west of the Sandpiper Golf Course, to handle increased production from Platform Holly in its State Tidelands lease. There is sufficient room on the 4.5-acre parcel to accommodate the present expa Insion plans; however, further expansion beyond the present .site may be difficult. Production from-the.faci.lity will be tankered from the renovated Aminoil marine terminal facility at Coal Oil Point. Aminoil Ellwood Facility Aminoi.1 's activity on its 143-acre parcel west of Eagle Canyon dates ba@k to the 1920's. While only a small number of the 60 onshore wells are currently producing, enhanced recovery could be applied to increase the number of producing wells. Aminoil has long-term plans for using its acreage as a consolidated staging area for offshore production. While this is unlikely at the 'moment the company still foresees possible offshore development of a platf@rin on State lease 2.08 .with associated onshore production and support facilities, and a new marine terminal which would replace the present facility at Coal Oil Point. Shell Capitan Oil Facilities. Shell has been producing oil from wells in the vicinity of Corral CaFy-o-n for the past 40 years. Crude is processed at the site and is trucked to Shell's Santa Maria field, where it is blended with Santa Maria crude prior to transfer to a refinery. These facilities are scattered about the uplands area north of Highway 101, and are highly visible to motorists. Shell will continue to produce as long as it is economically feasible, and may consider tertiary recovery techniques. Exxon Las Flores Canyon. Exxon purchased approximately 1,500 acres near Las Flores Canyon and planned to establish an oil and gas processing facility to'handle production from its Santa Ynez unit.- The oil and gas processing facility was approved by local and State agencies; however, Exxon found unacceptable the conditions imposedby the Coastal Commission allowing only interim use of a marine terminal pending a pipeline feasibility study. Exxon has constructed an offshore'separation and treatment facility which floatsin Federal waters near Platform Hondo. Crude willbe tankered from the offshore.facility and gas will probably be brought onshore. Due to its size, the Exxon,parcel may be a desirable location for consolidating facilities with those of other operators in the area. Exxon has a marine-terminal at the mouth of Canada del Corral, although it is not operative. Recently, the Pacific Offs hor-e Pipeline Company, an affiliate of Southern California Gas Company, announced plans to construct a gas processing facility at the Las Flores site. The Company is proposing to purchase gas being developed by Exxon in the Santa Ynez unit and transport it to shore by pipeline. The proposed site for the facility is outside coastal.jurisd,iction although the pipeline will pass through the coastal zone. -213- Phillips Tajiguas Gas Facility. Phillips operates a gas :processing plant on a narrow four-acre site just west of Tajiguas Creek, between Highway 101 and the railroad. The facility is.well-shielded from the.. road, There is considerable excess capacity at the facility at present. "Phillips current- ly has no plans to expand the facility. Shell Molino Facility. Shell processes gas from the Molino field in its State Tidelands lease on a 50-ac@e site north of Highway 101, in a small canyon (Canada de Huerta) just west of the County sanitary landfill site. There is considerable excess capacity at the facility and land for expan- sion up the canyon. Gettx Marine Terminal at Gaviota. The G etty marine terminal is the site of a major consolidated facility, though actual activity at the site has declined over the years. At one time, there was a small residential community established on the site for local employees, but this has been dismantled. The facility sits astride Highway 101. On the north, Chevron processes gas from offshore leases and Pacific Lighting Service and Supply Company operates a gas pumping station. South of Highway 101,.Getty.leases storage capacity to North County,producers, who truck oil in and out as required. Arco has a small oil and gas processing facility there.also. Texaco's gas facility, not now in operation, lies on a separate parcel. adjoining Getty's to the west. Collectively, the parcels are screened from the road; although the storage tanks are visible, they have been painted a dull green to blend with the environment. Adequate acreage exists both within the Getty facility and the Texaco parcel for some expansion. Expanston would have.to be assessed for impact's on adjoining state beach areas, particularly if activity at the marine terminal increases.. Other Facilities. Most of the coastal zone lands north of Highway 101 have not been designated by the Coastal Commission as inappropriate for power plants and thus represent potential development sites. However, the util- ities have not announced any plans for such development in this area. Service System Capacities and Availability of Resources Between Ellwood and Gaviota there are two service system extensions of the Goleta County Water District. A ten-inch water 1 'ine serves existing residences in the Embarcadero subdivision, and a 33-inch pipeline extends west of Goleta to the El Capitan area.. Both of these serviced areas are under the constraints of the Goleta Water District's moratorium. The remaining area, which is largely in agriculture, depends upon private wells. The area between Ellwood Canyon and Gaviota was investigated by the USGS (1968) which concluded that theaverage annual recharge was 6,000 acre feet per year. Actual safe yield would be less.,because some subsurface outflow would be necessary to prevent seawater intrusion. Present pumpage in the Ellwood-Gaviota area is.reported to be 1,720 acre feet per year. -214- The land use plan for the Gaviota Coast reflects the rural character of the planning area. Agriculture with 100 and 320-acre minimum parcel sizes is the dominant land use designation; thus, new development will be primarily accessory to the area's large-scale grazing and farming activities. Buildout under the land use plan allows for only 115 new units. The area's available resources are.adequate to accommodate this level of rural development. 4.6.3 SUMMARY OF LAND USE PLAN MAP In order to further the protection of agriculture along the Gaviota Coast and encourage concentration of development within the already urbanized areas of the South Coast, increases in minimum parcel sizes are proposed for lands between Ellwood and Gaviota. Much of the area is now zoned "U", permitting minimum parcels of 10 acres; there are also pockets of land zoned for 100-AL throughout the planning area. The land use plan would establish an A-II-100 designation for agricultural lands between Ellwood and El Capitan and an A-II-320 designation westerly of El Capitan, thus discouraging further parcelization which would be detrimental to sustained orchard and grazing activities. Areas which are currently serving offshore oil and gas development are designated for Coastal Dependent Industry.@ The Sunburst Store and Restau- rant complex at Gaviota and the Haskell's beach property are designated as .Visitor-Serving Commercial. The existing community of Arroyo Quemado is shown as Rural Residential. The proposed land use changes would reduce potential additional units along the Gaviota Coast from a theoretical 1,560 units under existing zoning to 115.units. The land use plan also proposes.an expansion of recreational opportu- nities along the Gaviota Coast to include the establishment of vertical easements at some eight popular informal access points. These access points would be connected by a proposed bicycle trail stretching from Santa Barbara to Gaviota. The plan also calls for the acquisition and develop- ment of new recreational sites to.increase opportunities for coastal depen- dent and related recreational uses., Designated sites include Haskell's Beach, Dos Pueblos, Edwards., and.Tajiguas. -215- 101 Los SAN7A Padres National Forest 10 - 0 as YNEZ 0 cc Cruc7 0 0 4) 0 0 a) 0 MOUNTAINS a, 0 -Vt3@20 Gaviota Pass 0 Wu C) L) 1C. 20 0 CA uaviota ajigii@iii- \A- 31_32 0 Capitan 1 2 3 4 1 3 0 101 3 6 7 A - 1U1 - 10 0 9 "@'@Navles A-Ir-100 10 1 Gaviota Beach State Park P C F 2: Highway Related Commercial C Elwood 44W 3. Goastal Dependent Industry 4. Educational Facility 0 C Naples Reef 5. Rural Residential (1 d.u.*/40-100 Ac. max) . . . . . . . 6. j1q A/ Proposed Park (Tajiguas Beach) 7. Refugio State Park 8. El Capitan Beach State Park 9. Proposed Park (Edwards Ranch) Coal Oil Pt 10. Resort/visitor' Serving Commercial 10 1 3 4 U. Proposed Park (Haskell's Beach) 0 5 1 3 12 12. Residential (4.6-30 du./acre max) Santa Barbara Shares dwelling units Miles (PD) FIGURE 4-9 Generalized Land Use Plan Land Use Designations- see text for definitions Gaviota Coast Planning Area CO IMMUNITY FACILITIES OPEN LAND USES County of Santa Barbara 0 INDUSTRIAL Local Coastal Program 91 COMMERCIAL AGRICULTURE 11 (100-320acre min.) RECREATION existing or proposed N @E_- C, CM C3 COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY RESIDENTIAL (parks and open space) (see map list for densities) 41 4.7 North Coast J01978 RON MORGAN 4.7 THE NORTH COAST 4.7.1 CHARACTER OF THE PLANNING AREA The coastal boundary@sweeps northward at Gaviota, taking in the water- shed of the Santa Ynez Mountains, narrows at Jalama, then moves inland again to encompass the Guadalupe Dunes and the Santa Maria River mouth. (Vandenberg Air Force Base is not subject to local land use controls.) Notable features of this 64-mile stretch of coastline include broad coastal terraces and bluffs, rolling oak woodlands, grasslands, spectacularly rugged coastal headlands, and coves. Hollister Ranch, which extends from Gaviota State Beach Park west to Cojo Creek and includes some 14,400 acres, consists of a broad coastal terrace intersected by coastal streams, several of which are perennial. The Ranch is famed for its pristine coastline and its prime surfing points which include Drakes Bay, St. Augustin6s, and Cojo Bay, the proposed site for an LNG facility. In recent years, the Hollister Ranch has been subdivided into 135 ranch estates of approximately 100 acres each. Some 50 single family homes have now been constructed on the Ranch; the homes are often accompanied by' accessory dwellings, some agricultural development,,.and reservoirs. An extensive network of roads has been built to serve the residential develop- ment. Other developments on the Ranch include three beachside cabanas which are located along the coastline, and the Hollister Ranch Guard Station, immediately west of Gaviota State Beach Park. All of the Hollister Ranch is in an agricultural preserve. To the west and north of the Hollister Ranch is the Bixby Ranch, totaling some 24,000 acres. This expansive holding comprises two subareas known as the Jalama and Cojo Ranches, which meet at the San Julian Ridge. Cojo Ranch lies south of the ridge and has panoramic views of the coast. Portions of the area generally known as the Cojo Ranch are not owned by Bixby; Chevron and Arco also have extensive land holdings in the area. Jalama Ranch, to the north, takes in much of Jalama Creek's extensive drainage and forms a nearly complete watershed. Cojo Ranch's coastal terrace is very broad and is bisected by ephemeral stream courses. Government Point and Point Conception are its most outstanding features. Government Point is a massive, flat-topped promontory with a deep and often quiet cove immediately to its eastern shore. Point Conception, by contrast, is a jagged promontory surrounded by turbulent waters. The Point Conception lighthouse and its ancillary structures fuse with the rugged topography, making the area a well-known landmark. -217- The Point Conception area is of great interest to biogeographe.rs. As a result of the seaward movement of the relatively cold California current north of Point Conception, a cold water biota is found north of the Point and a different warm water biota occurs to the south. The area between Point Conception and Jalama Beach County Park is comprised of rocky intertidal areas, broad sandy beaches, and a coastal wetland at the mouth of Jalama Creek. From Jalama Beach County Park north to'the State Park near Point Sal the entire coastline is under the jurisdiction of Vandenberg Air Force Base and is restricted to the public except for areas adjacent.to Ocean Beach County Park (Surf)'at the mouth of'the Santa Ynez River. The Surf area includes wetland and dune habitats. Point Sal,,to the north, besides being of biological interest because of its distinct and well-deVeloped plant communities and the species compo- sition of its rocky intertidal area, is one of the most picturesque points in the County. Its rugged scenic features extend to Mussel Point, another jagged coastal promontory.. Three large natural bridges have been carved out of Mussel Point by wave action. Dunes in the vicinity of Mussel Point reach a height of 450 feet and then gradually taper off in elevation as one moves north. The dune environment continues to the Santa Maria River mouth which forms the northern boundary of.the planning area. A small County park and the Thriftway oil drilling operation are situated just south of the river mouth. 4.7.2. PLANNING ISSUES, .Urban/Rural Boundary This area is ent,irely rural. Agriculture is the principal land use, incl-uding large-scale gr.azing and vegetable production. Non-agricultural .uses are limited to some low density residential development on the Hollister Ranch and scattered energy-related development. Agriculture Agriculture in the coastal zone from Gaviota to Point Conception and north to the San Luis Obispo County line encompasses the grazing operations of Hollister and Bixby Ranches., as well as multiple crop vegetable produc- tion and grazing southwest of Guadalupe. Of the 14,400 acres on the Hollister Ranch, about 100 acres are irri- gated for intensified agricultural uses (some 60 acres are planted to avocados, with the balance of the irrigated acreage in flower production). An estimated 1,000 acres are used for dry farming, i.e., production of oats, barley, wheat, etc. Portions of the Ranch areused for cattle grazing; the.Ranch is entire.ly in agricultural preserve and zoned 100-AL. Soils-are non-prime, except for patches of Class II soils close to the .coast. -218- ,acres and is primarily a livestock The Bixby Ranch comprises 24,000-, operation. There are from 3,000 to 4,500 head of cattle on the Ranch at this time. Most of the Ranch is in agricultural preserve except for two areas in the western portion south of Jalama Road,.an area east of Govern- ment Point, and Jalachichi Basin. One area'known as the Ramajal Field is irrigated for agricultural production. Soils Are almost exclusively non- prime. Zoning is 100-AG, 100-AL, and U. From Point Sal to the San'Luis Obispo County line, there are about 2,000 acres in large-scale grazing and vegetable production. Most of this area is in agricultural preserve; it is currently zoned 100-AG with some.U zoning along the Guadalupe Dunes. To sustain the long@-term viability of agricultural lands, large-lot zoning is needed throughout this area. The land use plan recognizes that the prevailing 100-acre zoning in the North Coast area does not represent a viable minimum parcel size for agricultural grazing operations. According to the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of California, a minim 'um of 1,800 acres is'needed for viable cattle ranching-. The inappropriateness of the 100-acre minimum is further evidenced.by the recent'subdivision and development of the Hollister Ranch. As a result of parcelization into 100-acre holdings, agriculture on the Ranch has become secondary to residential uses, an amenity to a rural'lifestyle rather than an economically viable activity. Moreover., development even at the low densities..@allowed on the Ranch has. resulted in increased demand on limited water resources, the construction of impoundment reservoirs, and scarring of formerly pristine h1illsides to Accommodate service roads and houses. 'Clearly, such development is contrary to the Coastal Act goal of preserving agricultural lands. In recognition of the conflict between local zoning and Coastal policy, the land use plan specifies a higher mini- mum parcel size for agriculturally designated lands on the North Coast to strengthen agriculture as the principal use. A 320-acre minimum parcel size is stipulated. This is a one-half mile squ .are parcel, which, although well below the required minimum for viability, wo uld strengthen agricul- tural use and reduce the number of potential new parcels and attendant residences by 70 percent. In addition, under the provisions of Policy 8-8 (see Section 3.8), clustered residential development on a small portion of the large ranches in this area (i.e., 10,000 acres or more) would be considered as a means of sustaining the agricultural use of the land. Resources and public services would have to be adequate to serve such development and clustering of structures would be required to retain the maximum amount of land in agric ultural use. Coastal Access and Recreation There are only four areas along this 64-mile stretch of coastline that. provide opportunities for public access and recreat.ion:, Rancho Guadalupe County Park, Point Sal State Park, Ocean Beach County Park, and Jalama Beach County Park. These four',parks represent a total of 1.3 miles of linear ocean frontage.@ _219- The roads leading out to Jalama and Point Sal are narrow and winding. Jalama Beach provides 105 camper sites; the other three parks are restricted to day use only. Point Sal provides no-facilities and, at Guadalupe., the facilities are limited to trash cansand portable toilets. Although the County does 'not own any beach frontage at Ocean Beach County Park, Vandenberg Air Force Base allows unrestricted public access along 3.5 miles south of the park. (Access is closed during missile launches.) The five miles of beach north of the park are open on weekends and holidays during daylight hours to the first 50 people; however, prior permission must be obtained from the Base Game Warden. There is a substantial amount of informal use of beaches in this planning area. Some of the best surfing in California is found along the Hollister Ranch. Most surfers gain access to the Ranch by boat. The Guadalupe Dunes area has become a popular area for dune buggy enthusiasts. Most of the use is on privately owned land south of the County Park to Mussel Point. This activity is having adverse impacts on plant communities and archaeological resources in the area. The dune buggies also pose hazards to others using the beach for fishing and walking. Point Sal and Guadalupe Dunes have become popular spots for hang-gliders in recent years . At Point Sal, extensive foot traffic on the bluffs may be contributing to increased erosion. At.Guadalupe, the problems caused by hang-gliders are similar to those of the dune buggies, since vehicles are used to transport the hang-gliders out onto the dunes. Lack of roads and military restrictions present the principal barriers to expanding opportunities for access and recreation in this planning area. Neither the County nor the State has any immediate plans for acquisition in this area. Opportunities-for limited, low intensity,recreational uses, such as a hiking trailalong portions of the coastj are needed; however, careful planning.will be necessary.to ensure that the extensive natural resources (i.e., dunes, marine organisms, plant species, least tern nesting sites) are protected. The land use plan makes several proposals for expansion of public recreational opportunities in the-North Coast. These.include recommenda- tions for coastal hiking trails along,the Bixby and.Hollister Ranches.and expansion of the publ.ic parks at Jalama.and,Guadalupe. .(Refer to Section 3.7 for details.), Habitat-Areas Gaviota to Jalama Th e coastal zone broadens at Gaviota to take in many natural communi- ties. The entire area is rural and is, therefore, a pristine environment for many of the common native animal species such as the red-tailed hawk and mule deer. The area is characterized by plant communities such as dense stands of southern oak woodland, coastal-sage scrub, chaparral, and grasslands areas with individual coast live oak trees. Endangered plants in this area include Eriodictyon calitatum, Cirsium rhothophilum, and Dicentra ochroleuca. 7-alifornia wal,nut, Juglans calT-fornica, is a disjunct @-Iant species found along Jalama Creek. -220- An area of special botanical interest is Jalachichi Summit. Bishop pine (Pinus muricata), a tree rarely found in Santa Barbara County, persists here with other north coast vegetation, an unusual occurrence in an area dominated by chaparral and grassland. Marine habitats include pristine rocky headlands and tidepools, harbor seal hauling grounds, and kelp beds. Many interesting intertidal inverte- brate habitats (headlands and tidepools) are found along the coastlines of the Holli.ster and Bixby Ranches at such points as Razprbacks, Drakes, Panoches, and Ranch House Point. Harbor seals'are found at Drakes and Panoches. Other portions of this coast may also be suitable habitats for the seals. Offshore fishery resources include steelhead, spiney lobster, squid,.clams, halibut, rock crabs, and abalone'i as well as some of the most productive kelp beds in California. The riparian habitats from Gaviota to Jalama consist of twelve peren- nial and fourteen intermittent creeks. Since riparian areas support a large number,and diversity,of species, these creeks warrant protection. Jalama Creek is large and located almost entirely within the coastal zone. boundary. This creek is very scenic and supports many water-loving organisms s.u ch as the western pond turtle and Monterey salamander. In addition, a small wetland is located at the Jalama Creek mouth. Surf, Point Sal, and Guadalupe Spectacular and unique coastal environments are found in the coastal area from Vandenberg Air Force Base north to the San Luis Obispo County border. Large and extensive sand dunes, scenic coastal bluffs, offshore rocks, interesting intertidal areas, and a wetland are theenvironmentally sensitive habitats in this. portion of the Santa Barbara County coastline. One of the most distinctive and sensitive ecosystems within this, coastal area is the dune habitat. The Gudalupe Dunes extend from the mouth of the Santa Maria-River south to Mussel Point. The dunes are as high as 450 feet in some places, and an endangered bird, the Least Tern nests in various locations in the dune complex. Unauthorized offroad vehicle use here has scarred much of the area. The Santa Maria River mouth consists of 40 to 50 acres of tidal mudflat area and is a good waterfowl and shorebird habitat. Endangered plant-species found in the wetland and dunes area include Castilleja mollis, Cirsium rhothophilum, C. loncholepis, Erigero foliosus, and Monar- della crispa. In addition to the Santa Maria River, another perenniaT stream, Corralitos Canyon, is located near the inland coastal zone boundary. Point. Sal is located just south.of Mussel Point and is a highly scenic area., Many of the plant communities here are in excellent condition. Of special note is the coastal bluff vegetation on the-steep cliff slopes at Point,Sal. This is the best example. of the'coastal bl-uff community on the -221- Santa Barbara County mainland, and, in the spring, giant coreopsis covers the bluffs with yellow blooms. Rare plants such as Sanicula hoffmannii, Dudleya blockmanae, and Dichondra donnelliana are also in the vicinity. The intertidal area at Point Sal shows outstanding numbers of inverte- brates and is an interesting exampl-e of intertidal zonation. Just offshore is Lion Rock, a seabird roosting and sea lion habitat. Commercial and fishery resources in the vicinity of Point Sal include abalone in rocky areas, Pismo clams and, at 10-40 fathoms, vermillion, lingcod, boccacio, olive, blue, yellowtail, whitebelly,.and rosy rockfish. The'entire Surf area is under Federal jurisdiction with the exception of a 36-acre park belonging to the County. The wetland area of the Santa Ynez River adjacent to the park consists of salt marsh, mudflats, shallow tide channels, and open water, and is frequented by many water-associated birds. Another significant ecosystem, the Surf dunes, is in the vicinity of the County park. Recreational uses of the Surf area need to be regulated to protect the resource values,of the area. Environmentally sensitive habitat areas found in the North Coast area are,designated on the land use plan maps. Policies addressing their pro- tection are found in Section'3@9. Hazards The coastal zone from Gaviota to Point Arguello is in a high seismic hazard area. Except for a high seismic hazard band between Purisima Point and Point Sal, the,remaining coastal area lies in a moderate hazard zone. The most significant faults are the Santa Ynez Fault, including its north and south branches, and the Pacifico FaultP which are in the Bixby/Hollis- ter area; several other faults lie in the vicinity of the North Coast, including the Honda Fault, Lion's Head Fault, and Pezzoni Fault. Tsunami hazards are limited to the mouth of the Santa Ynez and Santa Maria Rivers, and to a small beach area between Purisima Point and Point Sal. Large sections of the coastline between Gaviota and Point Arguello, including substantial sections inland at Hollister and Bixby Ranches, are subject to high sl,ope instability, while areas north of Point Arguello along the coast are generallystable. @Due to low population densities and lack of development, damage resulting from beach and bluff erosion has been minimal. In a number of locations, attempts have been made to protect the railbed by erecting sea- walls at the toe of the cliff. Fire hazard is moderate along the coastal terrace between Gaviota and Point Arguello and becomes extreme along the rest of the North Coast. Detailed information is not available on flood hazards outside of urban areas. Hazards would be concentrated in the numerous canyon beds which could be flooded on a seasonal basis. The.Santa Ynez River is subject to extensive flooding conditions in the valley areas., but this.is outside the coastal zone. -222- Since the North Coast is,not planned for urban development, these hazards do not pose major threats.to life or property. Allowable development is subject.to the hazards policies in Section 3.3. .Housing Since large-scale agricultural operations and a rugged coastline characterize this area of the coastal zone, housing is primarily incidental to agricultural uses. However, as a means of sustaining the existing large, non-prime ranches of 10,000 acres or more, additional residential development may be permitted when clustered on a small portion of the property. (Refer to Section 3.8) Commercial Development There are currently no commercial visitor-serving facil'ities in the North Coast. The only opportunities for.public access to the coast are provided by parks at Jalama, Surf 'Point Sal, and Guadalupe. Theland use plan makes no provision for visitor-serving facilities in the North Coast -because such.use wouldlead to conversion of agricultural lands inconsis- tent with Section 30222@of the Coast.al Act. Visual Resources The scenic quality of the coastal zone in the North Coast planning area is outstanding. The rural charac ter and tremendous diversity in land- scapes combine to make this area a visual resource of national signifi- cance. Most of the coastal zone north of Point Sal State Park has been designated as a National Nat'ural Landmark due to its unique scenic and resource values. General policies directed at the protection of visual resources are contained in Section 3.4. Between Gaviota and the Santa Maria River., public access roads are extremely lim.ited. The principal corridors to the ocean are along Jalama Road to Jalama Beach County Park, Route 246 to Ocean Beach County Park, Brown Road to Point Sal, and West Main Street to the Guadalupe.Dunes. While the corridors themselves provide beautiful rural views, vi ews to the ocean and along the coast are generally not, available until the public areas are reached at the 'ends of the roads. Therefore, no view corridors are designated on the land use plan maps. Industrial and Energy Development Energy facilities are limited to isolated locations in the area between Gaviota and the Santa Maria River. Union has production and processing facilities at Government Point and a marine terminal at Cojo. Thriftway has a small production island along the beach at Guadalupe. Activity in this area may increase. Both Husky and Union have leases south of the Santa Maria River and plan to conduct exploratory oil drilling in this area. The:Public Utilities Commission has selected Point Conception for the location of a liquefied.natural gas terminal. Finally, lease #53 -223-: could lead to an increase in offshore exploration and production activity which may impact the coastal zone due to the need for onshore facilities to support oil and gas development and the possibility of oil spills. The land use plan designates Union's marine terminal-and processing facilities as Coastal Dependent Industry. Policies governing future energy developmentin the coastal zone are found in Section 3.6. Service System Capacities and Availability of Resources There are no public water or sanitary services provided in the North Coast planning area. Groundwater resources are sparse; the Santa Barbara County Water Agency has estimated that the safe yield of the groundwater basins in the Point Conception area is something less than 2,000 acre feet per year. For this reason, there is limited irrigated agriculture, and residential units are completely dependent on private wells and on-site waste systems. Existing water resources are adequate to serve the 257 .additional units that would theoretically be possible under the land use plan for the North Coast. 4.7.3 SUMMARY OF LAND USE PLAN MAP For the Point Conception, Guadalupe Dunes, and Point Sal areas which comprise the North Coast, the land use plan proposes a substantial increase in minimum parcel size requirements. Most of the area, now zoned for 10 and 100-acre minimum parcels (U and 100-AL, respectively), would be desig- nated A-II-320 in the land use plan requiring minimum parcels of 320 acres. This increase is deemed appropriate because the land holdings (i.e., Bixby Ranch) are generally very large and could be subject to extensive parceli- zation under existing zoning. Such parcelization could.undermine sustained ranching.operations and thus jeopardize the agricultural viability of the entire area. Existing zoning would permit up to 883 potential additional units, while the proposed land use plan would reduce the number of new housing units to 257, -224- A-11 100 Rancho Guadalupe ---Lu Is County Park Guadalupe Open Land Santa A-II-32 Maria Fit. Sa I Pt. Sal Beach State Park M a S? Casmalia 101 4\ S. Purisima Pt. VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE Los Alamos Ocean Beach County Park Surf Lompoc R, Fit. Arguello /VE MOUNTAINS 101 Los Padres Nit. Foi Jalama Beach A-II-320 County Park Pt. Conception Gaviota Beach Educational 0 5 10 State Park Facility I , , - , i Coastal Dependent Miles Industry Coastal Dependent Industry FIGURE 4-10 Generalized Land Use Plan Land Use Designations- see text for definitions North Coast Planning Area County of Santa Barbara 0 COMMUNITY FACILITIES Local Coastal Program 0 1 NDUSTRIAL OPEN LAND USES 17-1 C:3 COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY F7 17 AGRICULTURE U (100-320acre min.) & RECREATION (existing parks) LAND UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION r7= OPEN LAND -225- 4.8 The Channel Islands LC-)1975 RON MORGAN 4.8 THE CHANNEL ISLANDS The Channel Islands that lie within the County of Santa Barbara are San Miguel, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, and,Santa Barbara. San Miguel and Santa Barbara Islands are owned And managed by the Federal Government. Only the islands under the jurisdiction of the County of'Santa Barbara (i.e., Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa) are discussed here. 4.8.1 SANTA CRUZ ISLAND Santa Cruz Island is located in the Santa Barbara Channel, 19 miles .south of the mainland. The largest of the Channel Islands, Santa Cruz Island is 24 miles long, ranges,from 1.5 - 6.6 miles in width, and has approximately 60 miles of coastline., Santa Cruz IsTand is-62,000 acres in size. Santa Cruz Island is the mos t:topographically varied of al I the islands. The highest point on the islandlis 2,450 feet; it is flanked on the east and west by a range of peaks, many of wh.ich reach an elevation in excess of 1,700 feet. The predominant central valley, which lies below the. southern slope of the main ridge, runs approximately east-west along a fault bordered by volcanic and sedimentary rock.ridges. Although the coastline is steep and rugged, this island has many anchorages and landings. Other interesting features of the coastline include sea caves and pocket beaches. The vegetation on Santa Cruz Island is diverse. Plant communities here range from somewhat op en communities such as grasslands, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral to wooded groves of oak woodland and closed cone pine forests. The central valley and narrow.central region of the ' island are characterized by grasslands and oak woodl.and. Coastal sage scrub is found on south-facing slopes on the south side of the island, while chaparral and woodlands are found along the moist canyons and north-facing.slopes. Land Use Recreational and commercial uses of.-the waters surrounding Santa Cruz- Island are increasing. Access to the general public is available only by private boat and yachtspersons anchor at the many small harbors throughout the island. A permit with conditions and restrictions for the purpose of protecting the island's resources 'is required from the private owners in order to land on Santa Cruz Island. On land, recreational uses such as hiking are limited to daytime. Sport and commercial fishing take place around Santa Cruz Island;'skindivers harvest abalone, rock scallop,- California Sheephead,_ spiney lobster, kelp bass, and other species. The western 55,000 acres of Santa Cruz Island are operated as a cattle ranch. The base of this operation is a ranch in the central valley; cattle -Z26- are transported to and from the island by boat. Recently, the Nature Conservancy purchased 12,500 acres and negotiated a,conservation easement for the remaining 42,500 acres'of this cattle ranch. The eastern portion of the island, bor 'dered on the west by a ridge of low mountains, is opera- ted under separate ownership for sheep grazing. On this sheep ranch, a p group of buildings and a house for the ranch-foreman are located at Scor- pion anchorage. Other structures on this Oorti,?n of the' island.include a group of buildings at-Sm.uggler's Cove. Feral pigs and feral sheep also*range on the rugged northern portion of the island. A.hunting club, hbused,at Christy Ranch, and an archery club serve a function in the control of these destructive animals. Another important. activity on Santa Cruz Island is research. Two research station installations are located in the valley; the University of California field station approximately one mile west of the cattle ranch headquarters and the General Motors Research station to the east at Valley Anchorage. Permission has also been granted to other researchers and[or institutions to conduct biological research on the island. A naval communications station is located atop a ridge running near the middle portion of the island. The Coast Guard maintains a navigation light on Gull Island on the south side of Santa,Cruz Island. 4.8.2 SANTA ROSA ISLAND Santa Rosa Island is located three miles east of San Miguel Island, six miles west of Santa Cruz Island, and approximately 27 miles from the mainland coast. Santa Rosa is about 14.5 miles long and 10 miles wide. It is the second largest of the Channel Islands with 53,000 acres. The 45-mile shoreline of Santa Rosa Isl and ranges in character from rocky sea bluffs to sandy beaches. Dunes of various ages are found near the east, west and north sides of the island and scenic sea caves also dot the shoreline. Compared to Santa Cruz.1sland, the topography of Santa Rosa Island is of lower relief. The highest point on the island is Soledad Mountain at 1,574 feet in elevation. Soledad Mountain is located near the center of the island. On the north and east shore there are a number of canyons, many of which are the result of recent dissecti-on of marine terraces. Much of Santa Rosa Island is annual gra's 'sland. The grassland commu- nity covers virtually all of the flat terraces, slopes and rolling ridge tops of the island. Coastal dune vegetation is found on the dunes on the east, west and north sides of the island. On the south side of the island, there are some areas of. scrub vegetation. -227- More-vari ety is found in the-gullies and canyons where trees such as oak and'toyon are found. The best developed vegetation includes the grove of torrey pines on the coast east of the ranch; and the oaks, toyon, willows, and island cherries in Lobo Canyoh.-,These species plus island ironwood and pines are found on the north slope of Black Mountain. Willows and eucalyptus trees.occur near the ranch. Santa Rosa Island is very windy, and this has given a windpruned aspect to the vegetation on the seaward exposures and along the crests of ridges. In,the more protected canyons and leeward,slopes, the vegetation attains a. more upright aspect.-, Land Use ..Beca.use.Santa Rosa Island is fairly remote and lacks suita,ble.anchor- ages, it is not intensively used for recreation. A landing permit system is also in existence on this island. As with all of the Channel Islands, the offshore area of Santa Rosa Island is used for commercial and recreational fishing. The California Department of Fish and Game reports that spiney lobster, abalone, rock scallop, rockfish, kelp bass, ahd.California sheephe'ad have been taken by skindivers in these waters. The major land use act:ivity on the island is cattle grazing. Vail and Vickers maintain ranching facilities and a pier on the Channel side of the island at Beecher's Bay. The cattle,boat operated for this island also provides transportation for the livestock'on Santa Cruz Island. Fera.1-pigs are also found on Santa Rosa-Island. Groups are occasion- ally permitted to hunt introduced Roosevelt Elk and Kaibab mule deei- on this island. Several military installations have been developed on the island and have been abandoned. These installations include an air base with a pier at Johnson's Lee along the south coast as well as.radar installations located on the high peaks above Johnson's Lee. Many passable roads origi- nate from Beecher's Bay and stretch,out across the island.. These roads connect with Southwest Anchorage, Johns'ones Lee, and the high western portion of the island. 4.8.3 RESOURCES OF SANTA CRUZ AND SANTA ROSA ISLANDS Marine Mammals Taken together, the Channel Islands of Southern California host the largest, most diverse pinniped population to be found in the temperate waters of the world and represent a mix of northern and southern faunal types. Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands., alone,-now provide relatively undisturbed hauling grounds for harbor seals and sea lions only. In the 1950's, a'Steller sea lion rookery.was noted on the south side of Santa -228- Rosa Island and the potential for reestablishment of this species exists. The Guadalupe fur seal and the California sea otter are two other marine mammal.species that once existed on.San.ta Cruz and Santa Ros.a Is.lands. These species are currently extending their ranges and 'may one,day reestab- lish on these islands. Land Mammals ..Relatively.few land mammals exist on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands The most conspicuous,ani.mal, the island'fox (Urocyon littoralis), is list;d as rare by the California Department.of Fish @i_nd Game7.-This animal is distributed throughout the islands *' The subspecies, Urocyon littoralis santacruzae, is found on Santa Cruz Island and U. littoralis santarosae is Tound.on Santa Rosa Island. There are other uncommon or endemic animals such as spotted skunk, Santa Cruz island gopher snake and the Pacific slender salamander Ion these i,slands. Several.species of rare and endangered snails and slugs are also found on both islands. Seabirds Islands are important seabird habitats,.although current seabird populations on the islands are only remnants of what they once were. The seabirds in the area of Santa Cruz and Santa,Rosa Islands use a wide variety of marine and coastal habitats. Island cliffs, bluffs, and off- shore islets are utilized for nesting:, while nearshore waters, inter-island, channels, and oceanic waters of the California current are utilized for feeding and rafting. Brant's Cormorant, Pelagic Cormorant, and Pigeon Guillemot nest on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands.. In addition, Western Gull and Cassin's Auklet nest on Santa Cruz Island. The California Brown Pelican has been known to.nest on Scorpion Rock at Santa Cruz Island and.is accorded special protection by the California Department of Fish and Game as a rare and endangered species., Land Birds The number of land bird species on Santa Rosa Island is limited, largely due to low habitat diversity. Santa Cruz Island supports 40 to 50 species of resident land birds; however, this number of species is , I relatively small in comparison to similar habitats on the mainland. About a dozen of these birds are'subspecies endemic to the islands. The unique Santa Cruz island scrub jay is a well-differentiaied island race. Formerly, the Southern Bald Eagle, and American Peregrine Fal,con, nested on. Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands. Plants Many outstanding plant communities.and interesting rare and endemic plants occur on Santa.Cruz and Santa R osa Islands. Of all the California Islands, Santa Cruz supports the largest number of plant -communities due to its large,size and varied topography. Cl.osed cone pine'forests (Pinus muricata).c.an be found in several areas. Some elements (Lcer ma6-rophyllum, -229- Arbutus menziesii, etc.) of the,mixed evergreen woodland community are d on a few canyons on the north side of the island. A unique type of 'woodland, the Channel Islands woodlands, is well represented on Santa Cruz Islandt where it is characterized by Cercocarpus betuloides var.-blancheae, Heteromeles arbutifolia, Lyonothamnus flortbundus, Prunus-iXonii, Quercus agrifolia, Quercus macdonaldii and Quercus tomentella. Chamise chaparral, -coastal sage scruT,--an-J-Channel Islands chaparral can also be found on Santa Cruz island. Patches of native grasses,still per ist on portions of si Santa Cruz Island in spite of heavy grazing. There are relatively fe1w trees on Santa Rosa Island. These include three types of oak,,two pines, cottonwood, cherry, and ironwood. Of these trees, the island ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus SSD. asplenifolius), island oak (Quercus tomentel-f7a, and island cheery 1@ru nus.lyonii). are jound only on the California islands. The Torrey,Pine Pinus torreyana) is found only on Santa Rosa Island and at one mainland locality, Mar, twenty miles north of San Diego. Santa Rosa Island has three endemic plant taxa: Dudleya blochmanae ssp. insularis (Live,Forever), ArctostaphXlos confert-i"forT(Manzanita), and -G-171a tenuflora ssp.. ho fmannii (Gilia). Another interesting resource that adds to the educational and research value of Sant,a Cruz Island is the Willow Creek fossil flora located in Sauces-Canyon. These fossil remnants' of pleistocene plant association that are currently extinct on the island-add to the knowledge of ancient plant distribution and climates. Ntertidal Areas Due to their location in a transition zone between northern and southern faunal regions, Santa.Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands support a rich diversity of intertidal life. Invertebrate species such as barnacles, abalone, anemones, starfish, and crabs occur in greater abundance on the islands than on the mainland.- The extens@ive rocky areas,. superior water quality, and relatively-undisturbed nature of the Santa Cruz Island and Santa Rosa Island intertidal areas contribute to this abundance and diver- sity. These coastal, waters provide a valuable resource,for educational, scientific, recreational, and commercial fishingAnterests alike. In addition, these rocky intertidal areas are important food sources for seabirds and marine mammals. Because these resources are so valuable and are vulnerable to distur- bance from oil spills, poor water quality,,and over-harvesting, their importance has been recognized by,incl.usion in a California oil and gas sanctuary which prohibits oil development within a three-mile area. In addition, the State Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)'has desig- nated the islands as an "Area of Special Biological Significance." The islands were designated because.they were found to contain "biological communities of such extra'ordinary,@even though uhquanti,fiable, value that -230- no acceptable risk of@change in their environments as a result of man's activities can be entertained." (RWQCB)* Historic and Archaeological_Resources Humans have a long history of occupation-on the islands. Radiocarbon dating of a human femur by Phil Orr of-the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History suggests human occupation of Santa Rosa Island at least 10,-000 years before the present. The.most recentof the Indian cultures on the islands was the Canalino Chumash. These Indians occupied the islands at various population densities until their demise in the early nineteenth century after contact with European disease and culture. Early Spanish explo,rers,,vi.sited the islands as early as,the mid-sixteenth century.' By the mid-ni,neteenth century,, white settlers arrived and introduced grazing animals, a use which persists to the'present. This rich history of exploration and settlement has produced some of the'most Outstanding examples of archaeological and historical resources in the coastal zone'.of-California. Many of the archaeological sites on the islands are relatively u.nd.isturbed. Reasons for this include the lack of development, relative isolation, and few -burr'owing rodent.populations to disturb sites,. The excellent stratification of the island.sites areof special interest to researchers. Research and Education These extraordinary biological and cultural resources have made the islands @invaluable for scientific and educational studies. Scientists are provided'with many unique and.rare species of plants, animals, birds, f.ossil'forms, and,geological@ structures to study. Biologists, for example, are able to compare island and mainland individuals of similar species and the phenomena of island endemism,-gigantism, and dwarfism. The historical and archaeological resources provide valuable records for.study ofearlier cultures and societies due to.the unique ness and pristine condition of many of the sites. 4.8.4 COASTAL ACT POLICIES The,policies from Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act which are most perti- nent to the planning issues for the islandsinclude: 30240. (a) Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within such areas (b) Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat areas and parks 'and recreationareas shall be sited and ,designed to prevent impact's which would significantly degrade such areas,-and shall be compatible 'With the continuance of such habitat areas. -231- 30230. Marine resources shall be maintained, enhanced, and, where feasible, restored. Special protection shall be given to areas and ,species of special biological or economic significance. Uses of the marine environment shall be carried out in a manner that will sustain the biological. productivity of coastal waters and that will maintain healthy populations of all species of marifie organisms adequate for long-term commercial, recreational, scientific, and educational purposes. 30221. Oceanfront land suitable for recreational use shall be protected for recreational use and development unless present and foreseeable future demand for,public or commercial recreational activities that could be accommodated on the property i's already adequately provided for in the area. 30222. The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities designed to enhance public oppor- tunities for coastal recreation shall have priority over private resi- dent,ial, general industrial, or,ge.neral!commercial development, but not over agriculture or coastal-dependent industry. 30224. Increased recreational boating use of coastal waters shall be encouraged, in accordance with this division, by developing dry storage areas, increasing public launching facilities, providing additional berthing space in existi ng harbors, limiting non-water- support facilities, provi-ding harbors of refuge, and by providing for new boating facil-ities in natural harbors,.new protected water areas, and in areas dredged from dry land. 30263. (a) New or expanded.r.efineries or petr ochemical facilities not otherwise consistent'with-the provisions of this division shall be permitted if: ... (4) the facility is not.located in a highly scenic or seismically hazardous area, on any of the Channel Islands, or within or contiguous to environmentally sensitive areas; ... '30250. (a) New development, except as otherwise provided in this Aivision, shall be located within, contiguous with, or in close proxi- mity to, existing developed areas able to accommodate it or, where such areas are not able to accommodate it, in other areas with adequate public services and where it will.nothave significant adverse effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources. 4.8.5 PLANNING ISSUES Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Island s are relatively isolated; access is not.readily available to the general public, and development pressures have not been great. However, the Channel Is-land.8 are nationally known for their unique and undisturbed'habitats, natural, beauty,and cultural signi- ficance. Therefore, theseislands require special protection from incom- patible land uses to protect their incomparable resource values.. -232- Existing and potential threats to 'island resources are discussed below. Feral Animals Uncontrolled grazing by feral animals has resulted in the greatest destruction to island natural resources of any activity on Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands. Although grazing activity is now appropriately managed in most areas, sheep and cattle overgrazing in the past caused the decline of native grass species in the same manner as on the mainland. Feral sheep from the early days have persisted in large areas-on Santa Cruz Island. (There is a controlled sheep ranching operation on the eastern portion of Santa Cruz Island.) Currently a hunting club keeps the number of feral sheep down but total eradication, an extremely difficult task, is needed,.to solve the problem. Severe erosion is occurring in areas where sheep ha,ve removed most of the vegetation, and overgrazing is preventing the regpnera- tion of new plants.. Feral pigs a,re also found on Santa Rosa and San,,t-,'a,.Cruz Islands where they cause extensive disturbance and destruction by upr@66t-,-_inq native herbs in the moist grasslands. Recreational Trespass Th@,e@-l@i,.&,-14'andsi,-,,p,a,rticularly Santa Cruz Island, are popular destination poirf-t`s@ f6r1-`Ya'd- jeapT`e, and the number of vessels visiting the islands increases each@yZr. Unfortunately, not all people who go ashore obtain landing permits which specify strict rules on allowable uses. As the unauthorized recreational uses increase, impacts from these uses may result in greater disturbance of the islands' ecosystem. These include distur- bance to animals, trampling of plants, frightening of marine mammals, trail development, and. collection of intertidal organisms. Because species have smaller populations on islands and recolonization from the mainland or other islands is less likely, plants and animals are more vulnerable to local extinction. It. is possible that the numbers of native island species could decline if human traffic increases from the present relatively low level without propermanagement. Archaeological sites may also be threatened 'by va,ndalism with increased recreational use. Othrercu:rrent @issues which result from uncontrolled recreational uses include, - problems of.litter, sewage disposal, and safety. Sewage dumped from boats into the more popular harbors may be affecting marine water quality Ond garbage and litter are being left on the islands. Also, wild- fire potential increases with recreational use as does the probability of - -1.111; .I ri n peloplebe g lost or injured. While the small anchorages and natural ha',r@bors ,, Or adequate protection for boats during fair weather, the smurrounding the islands can be exceedingly hazardous during storm tonditi.46s. These problems may increase without proper management of r al uses in the future. -233- Commercial and Sport Fishlio Although the islands' intertidal and subtidal areas are still quite rich in.commercial and game species, conflicts occur now between commercial and sport fishermen. Regulations dilter for the two groups, and each believes the other may contribute to depletion of these resources. There is some sentiment among members of the local scientific community that a subtidal marine reserve should be established to allow for repopulation of depleted species. The specific area that has been suggested is on the west end of Santa.Cruz Island between West Point and Black Point. Energy Development Energy development in the Channel may threaten the islands. Oil development will increase as a result of Lease Sales 35 and 48, as will the amount of tanker traffic in the Channel. Oil spillage will, therefore, continue to pose a constant threat to island resources. In addition, a site near China Harbor (Santa Cruz Island) was considered for a potential LNG plant. Of the four offshore sites evaluated, this site was found to be least appropriate because of potential impacts on coastal resources. It is possible, however, that other industrial uses may be proposed in the future. It is unlikely that the impacts of major,energy or industrial facilities could be mitigated to avoid irreversible impacts on island resources. Space Shuttle Plans to launch the space shuttle over the no rthern Channel Islands, with attendant sonic booms of staggering proportions, could physically destroy much of the rocky cliffhabitat and seriously threaten breeding populations of seabirds and marine mammals, Careful analysis and monitor- ing of these threats is necessary to insure adequate protection of the islands. 4.8.6 LAND USE PLAN PROPOSALS Land Use Designations The islands have been used for low-intensity agriculture for many years; a major change in this historical land use coul.d have significant unba"lancing effects on the present equilibrium of the ecosystem. There- fore, Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands-are designated as Agriculture II. The minimum permitted parcel size is 320 acres. Santa Rosa Island is eligible for a clustered residential development under the provisions of Policy 8-8. A separate set of resources-maps showing all known environmentally sensitive habitat areas has been prepared for the islands. All development within these habitat areas shall be subject to the specific habitat protec- tion policies*in Section 3.9. (Archaeological and historical sites are not mapped.) -234- Policies and Actions The following policies andlactions are proposed to ensure long-term preservation of the natural resources of,Santa Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands: Pol icy 1: Agricultural activities should continue to be carried out in a @manner consistent with historical-practices, future technology, and good cultural practices, and with.the maintenance of natural flora and fauna, preservation of soils and.topography, and protection of the quality of surface and-subsurface waters. Policy 2: Prior to the issuance of a permit for any major grading or constructJon, the site to be disturbed shall be inspected by both a qualified archaeologist and biologist, to be selected jointly by the applicant and the County. If archaeological or environ- mentally sensitive habitat resources are found, measures to miti- gate or avoid impacts shall be required for issuance of a permit. (For the purposes of this policy, major grading or construction is defined as any project which is subject to environmental review under CEQA and does not include general rule and categori- cally exempt projects.*) Policy 3: Introduction of any non-native animal, other than cattle, sheep, horses, dogs, and domestic fowl, or plant species which could be detrimental to the ecological equilibrium of the islands is prohibited. Policy 4: Construction of major facilities for commercial and/or recrea- tional purposes is prohibited except where found not to have significant unavoidable adverse impacts. In this context, major harbor facilities mean development involving construction of breakwaters, permanent slips, or related commercial support facil.ities (i.e., gas stations, restaurants) for use by visitors to the islands. Upgrading or expansion of existing pier facili- ties or moorings for agricultural, educational, scientific, or low-intensity public recreational purposes may be allowed with a conditional use permit. Policy 5: Light recreational uses, both public and private, may be allowed with a conditional use,permit provided that the kinds, intensity, and location of uses are managed to avoid impacts to all habitat, archaeological, and historical resources.. The existing hunt clubs and landing permit systems which are operated by the property owners shall be allowed to continue at their current levels without permit requirements. *State of California En vironmenial-Quality Guidelines; Article 6, Section 15060 - General Rule, and Article 8, Sections 15100-15124 Categorical Exemptions. -235- Policy 6: Permitted development.shall be sited and designed to be subordi- nate to the natural setting. Construction of new above-ground structures in excess of 1,000 square feet excluding structures for agricultural'purposes shall be subject to design review by the County Board of Architectural Review.. Action 1@ The County in consultation with the Department of Fish and Game, the landowners, commercial and sport fishing groups, and other interested persons shall determine whether certain intertidal and subtidal areas adjacent to the islands qualify for preserve status. Such preserves, if established,, shall not be used for commercial or sport fi.shing. Permitted uses shall be limited to non-appropriative recreation (i.e., diving or photography) and scientific research. The County shall also work with these groups to determine thefeasibility of prohibiting all uses, including overnight anchoring of boats, within and in close proximity to marine bird.nesting sites and pinniped rookeries during the time when such u�eswould create disturbances to those habitats and the species utilizing them. Action 2: Until such ti me as feral animals are eliminated from the islands, the County should encourage and support efforts by landowners or other interested parties to protect areas with significant native vegetation by fencing or other such enclosures. Action 3: The County shall encourage the nomination of Santa Rosa and Santa Cruz Islands to.the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, the following'policies from Chapter 3 of the land use plan shall apply to Santa.Cruz and Santa Rosa Islands: Section 3 3 Hazards: All poli ies Section 3:9 Environmentally Secnsitive Habitat Areas: All policies Section 3.10 Archaeological and Historical Resources@ All policies See also Section 3.8 Agriculture, Policy 8-8 C:zl C40 C:i, C@o C::3 C-71 114c:* vr-@ "PC= C0,1=` 4:Z4 4) CZ4 West Point C=3 C:3 lc@@j C= ocm= on Anchorage San Miguel SawMlers Is Sandy Beechers Santa Cruz island Cove Point Anacapa Is- A-11 320 Valley Santa Rosa Island An chorage 1619e A-1(-@320 C2 coo c4rzxt:zi C=3 nsons C3 co C:@ N ctum 0 I i A A A I P A C I F I C 0 C E A N N. ckup,.- jr/rii Generalized Land Use Plan Channel Islands Planning Area Land Use Designation am text for CIO finition County of Santa Barbara Local Coastal Program AGRICULTURE It 320 acre min. 1=3 cm C=3 COASTAL ZONE BOUNDARY 40 LAND UNDER FEDERAL JURISDICTION L4 U1 lu Definitions APPENDIX A DEFINITIONS CHAPTER 3 3.2 DEVELOPMENT 30106. "Development" means, on land, in or under water, the place- ment or erection of Wn-y solid material or structure; discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid, or -thermal waste; grading, removing, dredging, mining, or extraction of any materials; change in the density or intensity of use of land, including but not limited to, subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410-of the Government-Code), and any other division of land, including lot splits, except where the land division.is brought about in connection with the purchase of such land by a public agency for public recreational use; change in the intensity of use of water, or of access thereto; construction,'recon- struction, demolition, or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public, or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agri- cultural purposes, kelp harvesting, and timber operations whith are in accordance with,a timber harvesting plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Z'berg-Neiedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (commenc" ina with Section 4511). Structure As used in this section, "structure" includes, but-is not limited to any building, road, pipe, flume, conduit, siphon, aqueduct, telephone line, electrical -power transmission and distribution line, and fences and walls exceeding six feet in height. 30114. "Public works" means the following: (a) All production, storage, transmission, and recovery facilities for water, sewerage, telephone, and other similar utilities owned or operated by any public agency or by any utility subject to the juris- diction of the Public Utilities Commission except for energy facili- ties. (b) All public transportation facilities, including streets, roads, highways, public parking lots and structures, ports, harbors, air- ports, railroads, and mass transit facilities and stations, bridges, trolley wires, and other related facilities. For purposes of this division, neither the Ports of Hueneme, Long Beach, Los Angeles, nor San Diego Unified Port District nor any of the developments within these ports shall be considered public works. .(c) All. publicly financed recreational facilities and any develop- ment by a special district. W All community college facilities. A-1 3.3 HAZARDS Floodway and Floodway Fringe The floodway is the channel of a stream, plus any adjacent flood plain area, that must be kept free of encroachment in order that the 100-year flood be carried without substantial increase in flood height. As minimum standards, the Federal Insurance Administration limits such increases in flood heights to 1.0 foot, provided that hazardous velocities are not produced. The area between the floodway and the boundary of the 100-year flood is termed the floodway fringe. The floodway fringe thus encompasses the portion of the flood plain that could becompletely obstructed without increasing the water-surface elevation of the 100-year flood more than 1.0 foot at any point. Hillside H,illsides are defined as lands with slopes exceeding twenty percent. Watershed Watersheds are defined as regions or areas drained by a network of surface or subsurface watercourses and have the potential for impacts-on coastal streams, wetlands, estuaries, and groundwater basins through runoff and percolation. 3.5 HOUSING Definition of Low and Moderate Income In accordance with the regulations of the California Housing Finance Aqency, "persons of low and moderate income" are defined to include all the following: (1) A "very low income family" is a family whose income does not exceed 50 peYcent of the medin income for the area, as deter- mined by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger families. (2) A "low income family" is a family whose income does not exceed 80 perIent of the median2income for the area, as determined by ' 11' HUD with adjustments for smaller or larger families, except that income limits higher or lower than 80 percent may be estab- lished on the basis of its findings that such variations are necessary because of the prevailing levels of construction costs, usually high or low incomes, or other factors. lGenerally defined by HUD as a county; 2adjustments as made by HUD. A-2 (3) A II moderate income family" is a family whose income does not exceed 120 pT rcent of the medir income for the area,'as deter- mined by HUD with adjustments for smaller and larger famflies. (4) For purposes of this section "family" includes an elderly, handicapped, disabled, or displaced person and the remaining member of a tenant family as defined in Section 201 (a) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. A generally accepted definition of affordable housing is that for which costs do not exceed 25 percent of the family gross income. Housing costs include rent or mortgage payment, property takes, insurance, heat.and utilities, and maintenance and repairs. Definition of Housing Condition Condition A New, near new, housing under construction and older housing which has been exceptionally well maintained. Condition B Housing where minor deficiencies are apparent, where roofs need repair work, buildings need painting and other weather protection, garage doors are sagging or inoperable. Housing where an expenditure of from $1,000 to $5,000 and good ongoing maintenance will extend the useful life of the building beyond a 40-year period. Condition C Housing where major deficiencies are apparent, often without foundations, roofs sagging, paint and weather protection work needed, some structural failures in porches and steps. These are. usually older buildings (pre-building code) whose original construction was inadequate or buildings which have had little or inadequate maintenance. Buildings in this condition, unless rehabilitated, could be beyond,reasonable economic repair within a three- to ten-year period. "C" condition housing would likely require a $5,000 to $20,000 expenditure and a program of sound maintenance to provide the building with an additional 40-year life. Condition D Dilapidated housing which had deteriorated beyond reasonable economic repair. The term "reasonable economic repair" is meant to mean that a sum of money in excess of 50 percent of the as-is value of the building would be required to rehabil- itate the dwelling to livable standards. Source: Santa Barbara County Housi ng Condi- tion Inventory, June 197-7.- lGenerally defined by HUD as a county; 2adjustments as made by HUD. A-3 3.6 INDUSTRIAL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT 30107. of Energy facilityll means any public or private processing, producing, generatingl.sFo-ring, transmitting, or recovering facility for electricity, natural.gas, petroleum, coal, or other source of energy. Aquaculture Aquaculture is the culture of plants and animals in an aquatic medium. 3.8 AGRICULTURE Definition of Prime Agricultural Lands Section 51201 of the California Government Code: (1) All land which qualifies for rating as Class I or Class II in the Soil Conservation Service land use capability classifications. (2) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in the Storie Index Rating. (3) Land which supports livestock used for the production of food and fiber and which has an annual carrying capacity equivalent to at least one animal unit per acre as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture. (4) Land planted with fruit- or nut-bearing trees, vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of less than five years and which will normally return during the commercial bearing period on an.annual basis from the production of unprocessed agricu.1-- tural plant production not less than two hundred dollars per acre. (5) Land which has returned from the production of unprocessed agri- cultural plant products an annual gross value of not less than two hundred dollars ($200) per acre for three of the previous five years. 3.9 ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREAS 30121. "Wetland" means' lands within the coastal zone which may be covered per155F-EaTly or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. A-4 Definitions of other commonly used terms include- Biota: all plants and animals ocurring within a certain region. Coastal Strand: a plant community found i.n sandy beaches and dunes scattered along the entire coast. The vegetation is low or prostrate, often succulent and late flowering. Coastal Sage Scrub: a plant community found on dry rocky or gravelly slopes below 1,000 feet composed of shrubs, one to five feet tall. Community: an assemblage of plant and animal populations occupying a given area. Chaparral: a dense, sometimes impenetrable plant community found on dry s1opes and ridges. Chamis.e, toyon, scrub oak, ceonothus, and manzanita are dominant species. Disjunct: a plant or animal species found in an area outside of its-usual. range. Ecosystem: a system formed by the interaction of a community of organisms with their environment. Estuary: that part of the mouth or lower course of a river in which the river's current meets the sea's tide. Hybrid: an offspring of two animals or plants of different variety or species. Intertidal: of or pertaining to the seashore region that is above the low-water mark and below the high-water mark. Invertebrate Fauna:. animals lacking a backbone and int ernal skeleton such! as a sea anemone. Marsh: a tract of low, wet land, often treeless and periodically inun- dated, characterized by grasses, sedoes, cattails, and rushes. Mudflat: a mud-covered, gently sloping tract of land, alternately covered or left bare by tidal waters. Reef: a ridge of rocks or sand at or near the surface of the water. Relict: a persistent remnant of an otherwwise extinct flora or fauna. Salt Marsh: a marshy tract that is wet with salt water or flooded by the sea. Salicornia Marsh: a wetland or marsh area in which the dominant vegetation is pickleweed (Salicornia spp.). A-5 Sloughs: an area of soft, muddy ground, swamp, or swamplike region; a marthy or reedy pool, pond inlet, backwater, or the like. Subtidal: the area just beyond the intertidal zone not subject to tidal fluctuation below the low tide line. Tideflats: a marshy, sandy, or muddy nearly horizontal coastal flatland which is alternately covered and exposed as the tide rises and falls. Tidepool: an accumulation of sea water remaining in a depression on a beach or reef after the tide recedes, occupied by a variety of plant and animal species. RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Animals (California DeDartment of Fish and Game) An animal whose existence is threatened by one or more conditions as listed below is considered rare and endangered. 1. The mortality rate exceeds the birth rate. 2. The species is not capable of adapting to environmental change. 3. The species' habitat is threatened by destruction or serious disturbance. 4. Survival is threatened by the unwanted introduction of other species through predation, competition, or disease. 5. Environmental pollution threatens the species' survival. Fully Protected Status (Fish and Game Code) 3511. Fully protected birds and parts thereof may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuances of permits or licenses to take any fully protected bird and no such permits or licenses heretofore issued shall have any force or effect for any such purpose; except that the commission may authorize the collecting of such species for necessary scientific research. Plants (California Native Plant Society) A plant is rare if: 1. It exists in only one or a very few restricted localit ies. 2. It occurs in such small numbers that it is seldom seen or collected regardless of its total area. A-6 3. 'It exists only on.a type of habitat that is likely to disappear or change for any reason. A plant is endangered if: 1. It is actively threatened with extinction and not likely to survive unless some protective measures are taken. Marine Mammals Protection Act (1972) Public Law 92-522: This Act establishes a moratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals and-marine mammal products. Additionally the Act encourages "efforts to protect the rookeries, mating grounds, and areas,.of,similar significance for each species of marine mammal from,the adverse effect of man's action." A-7 'Land Use Definitions LAND USE D61NITIONS The following definitions describe the principal permitted uses for each land use designation (see also Table 3-1 in Section 3.6, Policy 5-10 in Section 3.5, a nd Policy 8-8 in Section 3.8). AGRICULTURE The purpose of an agriculture designation is to identify and preserve agricultural land for the cultivation of plant crops and the raising of animals. Lands eligible for this designation include, but are not limited to, lands with prime soils, prime agricultural land (see Appendix A), land in.existing agricultural use, land with agricultural potential, and lands under Wil liamson Act contracts. Plant crops include food and fiber crops, orchards, field crops, nuseries, and greenhouses. Animal raising includes grazing and stock raising activities. In addition to such uses, agricul- tural lands may be utilized for a limited number of other uses, including related or incidental residential uses, buildings and structures related to the agricultural use of the site, and uses of a publi 'c works, public service, or public utility nature. In the coastal zone, oil drilling and related activities are permitted in AG II. Agriculture 1 (5 to 40 acres minimum parcel size) This designation applies to acreages of prime or non-prime farmlands and agricultural uses which are located within or adjacent to the generally urbanized areas. Agriculture I uses include, but are not limited to, food, fiber, orchards such as citrus, avocado, and walnuts, flower and vegetable growing, berries, vineyards, field flowers, nurseries, and greenhouse operations. Only structures related to these activities, single family residences (one unit per specified minimum parcel size), and guest houses (one per parcel,-no kitchen) are permitted. Additional dwellings (struc- tures or trailors) for workers engaged full-time in agriculture on the farm or ranch on which the dwelling is located may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit. Raising of animals for commercial purposes, the boarding of animals, riding stables and animal husbandry services are also permitted as conditional uses. Agriculture 11 (40, 100, 320 acres minimum parcel size) This designation applies to agricultural uses which include, but are not limited to, field crops, orchards, vineyards, truck crops, apiculture, aviculture, cattle, horse and animal ratsing, and pasture and forage crops. Only structures related to these activities, single family residences (one NOTE: Only the definitions for classifications used in the coastal zone are included here. For other designations, refer to the.Comprehensive Plan. B-1 (one unit per specified minimum parcel size), and guest houses (one @per parcel, no kitchen) are permitted under this designation. Additional dwellings (structures or trailors) for workers engaged full-time in agri- culture on the farm or ranch on which the dwelling is located may be allowed subject to a conditional use permit. Greenhouses and low intensity recreationally oriented facilities such as hiking trails, stables, and campgrounds may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit if they conform to all other policies specified in the land use plan. PARK AND RECREATION AREAS Existing Public and Private Recreation and/or Open Space The purpose of this designation is to provide opportunities for various forms of outdoor recreation ' of a public or private nature, which require access to open spaces and natural settings for their realization. These open space recreational uses include, but are not limited to, the following: public parks containing facilities for picnicking, camping, riding, hiking, walking, biking, on a day or longer use basis; flood . control easements providing access to and along stream channels and other drainage areas; and golf courses. Structures or other facilities shall be limited to those required to support the recreational activities. These may include parking areas, corrals and stabling areas, picnic and camping areas, trails, water and sanitary facilities, safety and first aid stations, ranger stations, and limited concession facilities. Other recre- ational structures and facilities of a more intensive.nature, such as .swimming and tennis clubs, may also be permitted. However, intense commer- cial recreational development shall be limited to areas designated for commercial uses. For example, fairgrounds, amusement parks and large indoor recreational complexes, along with visitor-serving faci.lities such as hotels and Motels, are not permitted in areas designated for recrea- tion. Proposed Public Access Corridors or Recreation Areas This designation identifies those lands suitable for future access corridors and recreational areas. MOUNTAINOUS AREAS (40 and 100 acres minimum parcel size) The purpose of this designation is to delineate land having an average slope in excess of 4.0 percent and isolated table land surrounded by slopes exceeding 40 percent. These lands have extreme fire hazards and a minimum of public roads and services. These areas. shall be kept free of intensive development to preserve them for such uses as watershed, scenic enjoyment, grazing and certain low-intensity residential uses (not to exceed one principal residence and one guest house, no kitchen, per specified minimum parcel size). B-2 OPEN LANDS (100 or 320 acres minimum parcel size) These areas are lands which have, outstanding resource,values, are subject to environmental constraints on development, and have no agricul- tural potential. One principal residence and one guest house (no kitchen) per specified minimum parcel size are permitted in this category provided that the dwelling is sited to minimize impacts on sensitive areas. Resource dependent uses such as sand-mining and oil well drilling may be al-lowed subject.to a conditional use permit. RESIDENTIAL LAND USES Density is the primary parameter within which residential land uses are defined. Density is used to describe the number of dwelling units permitted on an acre of land or, in later tra.nslation into zoning, the number of dwelling units permitted on a lot of a given size. Within urban areas, residential uses permitted may include child day care, family care homes, fraternities, sororities, dormitories, guest houses (no kitchen), boarding-and lodging houses, 'in addition to single and multiple family dwelling units. Special care homes and mobile home and traflor parks may be permitted with a conditional use permit as specified in the County Zoning Ordinance. The following three designations merit special attention. Rural Residential (40 - 100 acres minimum parcel size) and Residential Ranchette (5 - 20 acres minimum parcel size) The intent of these designations is to provide for low density resi- dential development that will preserve the rural character of an area and minimize the services required by smaller lot development. Rural residen- tial and residential ranchette lands are generally' of marginal agricultural value. Uses permitted within these areas include single family dwell -ings, all forms of agriculture permitted under the Agriculture I designation, except greenhouses, buildings and structures incidental to lightagricul- ture, and agricultural hobbiest activities. However, these agricultu 'Pal uses are permitted and encouraged only as long as appropriate performance standards regarding noise, traffic, dust, etc. can be met. Livestock for commercial sale, kennels, and market gardens may be permitted subject to a conditional-use permit. Intensive commercial animal husbandry would not be permitted. Planned Development The Planned Development@designation has been given to large, unde- veloped parcels suitable for residential uses The purpose of this desig- nation is to prevent piecemeal development by requiring that the entire parcel be planned and developed as a unit. Use.of flexible and innovative design concepts is encouraged. Refer to Section 3.2.3 for the detailed requirements and permitted uses in the Planned Development designation. B-3 Residential Designations Maximum Dwelling Units Rural Residential 1 unit/40 acres to 1 unit/100 acres Residential Ranchette 1 unit/5 acres to 1 unit/20 acres Sin gle Family (minimum lot size) 3 or more acres 0.3/acre 1 acre or more 1.0/acre 20,000'sq. ft. or more 1.8/acre 101,000 sq. ft. or more 3.3/acre 7,000 sq. ft. or more 4.6/acre Multiple (minimum land area per unit) 3,500 sq,. ft. or more 12.3/acre 2,180 sq. ft. or more 20.0/acre 1,450 sq. ft. or more 30.0/acre COMMUNITY FACILITIES Educational Facilities (Public or Private) inc lude all proposed and existing public schools from elementary through college level. Institution/Government - is for al I major public and quasi--'public land .uses not included in the categories already defined, such as military .installations, State office buildings, County hospitals. Public Utility (UT) - an area designated for the facilities and service of a public utility or public service entity. Screening, land- scaping, and other design requirements may be. prescribed by the Zoning Ordinance to ensure compatibility with surrounding land uses. Civic Center an area designated for public and quasi-public build- ings and services, which may include libraries, public auditoria, post offices, fire and emergency services, and other public uses. INDUSTRIAL Coastal Dependent Industry - the intent of this designation is to recognize that certain industrial uses require a site on, or adjacent to, the sea to be able to function at all. Coastal dependent industrial uses include onshore processing facilities for offshore oil and gas production, liquefied natural gas facilities,,marine terminals, staging'areas, port and harbor areas, fishing facilities, Aquaculture including fish hatcheries, and areas for deploying oil spill cleanu .p equipment. Other uses, though B-4 not strictly coastal dependent, may need access to the ocean u nder special conditions, for example, thermal power plants sited to take advantage of ocean cooling water. Policies governing these uses are specified in Section 3.6. Within this designation,'other industri 'al uses may also be permitted, including production and processing of crude oil and gas from onshore wel 1 s. Industrial Park - this category is not limited to a specific list of uses. It is any industrial use which is housed in well-designed buildings set in attractively landscaped grounds. This is industry in a park-like atmosphere. Uses permitted may-also include commercial, as specified in the Santa Barbara County Zoning Ordinance. Light Industry - includes industrial plants and warehouses without nuisance features but not necessarily in an industrial park.' Service Industry - lumber yards, warehousing, laundries, contractors' service yards, bulk petrol 'eum storage, concrete batching plants, and other construction and development ,activities. General Industry all industrial uses. COMMERCIAL General Commercial (C) This designation has been used to denote areas suitable for many types of commercial activities. Central business district areas, district centers, service commercial, neighborhood centers, and design commercial are all contained under this designation. Permitted uses in the General Commercial designation range from convenience activities, which serve such day-to-day needs as food, drugs, gasoline, and other incidentals., to whole- sale facilities which support agricultural, construction, and transporta- tion activities. .Highway Commercial (H) When shown in small centers along highways and freeways, this designa- tion permits only those uses which serve the highway traveler such as hotels, motels, restaurants, garages, and service stations. , Additionally, overnight recreation-vehicle facilities may be permitted subject to a conditional use permit. Resort/Visitor Serving Commercial (V) The intent of this designation is to cater to the needs of visitors to coastal recreational areas. Visitor serving commercial uses will normally be found adjacent to important recreational resource areas, at special points of interest, or in special neighborhoods or communities. The inten- sity of the commercial development shall be subordinate to the character of the recreational setting. Uses shall include, but not be limited to, the B-5 following- resort hotels, motels, restaurants, country clubs, guest ranches, riding stables, and beach clubs. Uses, buildings, and structures customarily incidental and accessory to such recreational facilities, including commercial uses and services, are also permitted. Uses not permitted under this designation include other retail services, unrelated office and professional services, highway related services for transients normally found at major highway interchanges or highway' exits. Office and Profes sional (P) - This category was developed to specifi- cally relate to the PI, Professional Institutional Zone, of Ordinance No. 661. Permitted uses are offices, hospitals, schools, churches, etc., as specified in the Santa Barbara County Zoning Ordinance. OVERLAY DESIGNATIONS The purpose of the overlay designations is to indicate locations where the presence of hazards or special resources places constraints on develop- ment. These overlay designations carry special policies which are included in the land use plan text. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas - This designation applies to sensitive ecological communities or significant natural habitats. (Refer to Section 3.9.) View Corridor - The view corridor overlay delineates areas where there are views from a principal public road to the ocean and along the coast. (Refer to Section 3.4.) @ Flood,Hazard - The flood hazard overlay indicates the 100-year flood plain, which i he largest area inundated by the 100-year flood. (Refer to Section.3.3.) Site Design -,The purpose of the site design overlay designation is to insure well-planned development of large, undeveloped, residentially desig- nated lots that are subject*to environmental constraints (i.e., geologic or flood hazards, habitat areas, steep slopes). To avoid piecemeal subdivid- ing of these parcels, the overlay designation requires that the entire parcel be planned as a unit. (Refer to Section 3.2.) BOUNDARY LINES Urban /Rural - A boundary line shown on the land use plan map which separates those areas intended for urban land uses, i.e., residential (generally developed to a density of two or more units per acre), commer- cial, industrial, etc., from those areas designated for rural land uses, principally agriculture and low density residential. Agriculture, open space, recreational activities and related uses are also permitted and encouraged throughout the urban area. Limited commercial and coastal dependent industrial uses are permitted within a rural area as necessary. B-6 Rural Nei@hborhood A neighborhood area that has developed historically with lots smaller than those found in the surrounding rural lands. The purpose of the neighborhood boundary is to keep pockets of rural residential development from expanding onto adjacent agricultural lands. Within the rural neighborhood boundary, infilling of parcels at ,densities specified on the land use plan maps is.permitted. B-7 References Section 3.2:. Development American Society of Plannin g Officials, Planned Unit DeveloRment Ordinances, Chicago, 1973@ Urban Land institute, PUD A Better Way_for the Suburbs Washington, D.C., 1971. C-1 Section 3.3: Hazards American Society of'PlOnning Officials, Planning Advisory Service, Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands- A Practical Guide for Local Administrators, Report #307, 308, prepared by Charles Thurow, William Toner, anF15-uncan Erley, June 1975. City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities Areas, Environmental Protection: Model Ordinances for Use by Local -M ......h Governments, arc Conservation Foundation, Physical Management of Coastal Floodplains, December 1977. County of Santa Barbara, Engineering and Geologic Investigation - Cliff Stability and Related ProBT-em-s-5 Isla Vista, 1963, prepared by Dames Moore. County of Santa Barbara, Seismic Safety and Safety Element, January 1979. County of Santa Barbara, Conservation Element, April 1979. State of California,.Coastal Commission, Planning for an Eroding Shore- line, draft report, June 1978. State of California, South Central Regional Coastal Commission, Geology, April 1974. State of California, Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, Assessment and Atlas-of Shoreline Erosion'Along the California Coast, July 1977. United States, Department of Agriculture, Soil.Conservation Service, Carpinteria Vall,21 Watershed Project - Draft Environmental. Impact State- ment'Uctober 1975. United States, Department of the Amy, Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Study - Santa Barbara County, May 1973. United States, Department,of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Natural Hazard' Management in Coastal Areas, November 1976. United States., Department of Housing and Urban Development, Federal Insurance Administration, Flood Insurance Study Santa Barbara County, 5@6ptem_ber 1978. C-2 Secti on 3.4: Visual Resources State of California, South Central Coast Regional Commission, Appearance, and DesLqn, August 1974. United States, Department of.Commerce, Office of Coastal Zone Management, Aesthetic Resources of the Coastal Zone, July 1975. C-3' Section 3.5: Housing California Coastal Commission, "Housing Opportunities Guidelines," Adopted October 4, 1977. City of Carpinteria, Housing Assistance Plan, 1975. City of Santa Barbara, Local Coastal Program, Draft Report on Housin2., August 1978. General Research Corporation, An Evaluation of the Housing Market for UCSB Students, April 1977. Patterson, Langford and Stewart, Careinteria Area Community Development Program - Existing Conditions Data, September Patterson, Langford and Stewart, Housing Condition Inventory - Santa Barbara County Unincorporated Area, June 1977. Santa Barbara County-Cities Area Planning Council, Alternatives to Facilitate Development of Low-Moderate Income Housing: Den's-"F-M-nus TbRa-ft, February 1979. Areawide Housing Element for Santa Barbara County, April 1977. Fair Share Housing Allocation Plan (Draft), March T Tr9 _. Alternatives to Facilitate Deve oement of Low-Moderate Income To-u'si-n-g Site Development Subsidies tDraft), March 1979. State of California, Department of Finance, 1975 Santa Barbara County. Census Tables produced by General Research Corporation for the Santa Barbara County Planning Department, 1978. State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development, "Model Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance," October 25, 1978. C-4 Section 3.6: Industrial and Ener.U Development Arthur D. Little, Inc., Technical Reports for the Draft Environmental Impact Report Point Conception LNG Project, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1977-1978. California Energy Resources Conservation-and Development Commission, California Energy Trends and Choices, 1977 Biennial Report of the State Energy Commission. California Public Utilities,Commission, Final Environmental Impact Report for the Point Conception LNG Terminal Projec@,, 1978. County of Santa Barbara, Dep ariment of Environmental Resources, Onshore Oil- Pipeline Feasibility Study, prepared by Dev Vrat, draft, May 197T County of Santa Barbara, Office of Air Quality Planning, Draft Air Quality Attainment*Plan. February 26, 1979. Dames and Moore, Geologic Investigation Proposed LNG Terminal Point Conception,.L California,for Western LNG Terminal Company, July 8, 1977. George J. Taylor, "Air -Quality Impacts of Outer Continental Shelf Oil Development in the'Santa Barbara Channel," ERT Report P-5086, prepared for the Office of Planning and Research and the Office of Environmental Quality, March 15, 1977. State of California, Office of Planning and Research, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Southern California, Volume 1 and 2, October 1977. United States, Department of the Air Force, Final Environmental Imeact State- ment Space Shuttle Program Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, January 1978. United States, Department of the Inteior, Bureau of Land Management,-Draft Environmental-Statement for 1979 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas re-ase Sale Offshore Southern.California, 19M. United States'Coast Guard, Port Safety Detachment Santa Barbara OCS Area Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency'Plan, June 10, 1977. Western LNG Terminal Associates, "Application before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California," No. 57626, no date. C-5 Section 3.7: Coastal Accessand Recreation California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions, South.Central Coast Regional Commission. Recreation, August 15, 1-974. Prepared by Carl C. Hetrick. Hetrick, Carl, The Santa Barbara County Coastal Zone and Environmental Policy Survey: _MeFl@e_sponse Summary, January 19737 McCormick, R. B. and Hanshew, R.L., A Stuu of,Visitor Use in -Coastal Units of the California State Park SysTem, Summer 1969, Department oF Parks and Recreation,-YecTip No. 3, September 1970. McCormick, R. B. and Tolley, R., Visitor Origin.Patterns at Outdoor Recreation-Sites in California 1965-1.970, Nepartmentof Parks ana- Recreation, RecTip Ro. 6. December 1973. Obern,-.Vivian and Rook, Lehua, Santa Barbara Coun@y Coastal Trails System, Santa Barbara County Trails Counc-M, October 1973. Santa Barbara County, Proposed Comprehensive Plan - Recreation Element, December 1974. State of California, Department of Parks and Recreatio n, California Outdoor Recreation Resources Plan, February 1974. State of California, Department of Parks,and Recreation, California Coastline Preservation and Recreation Plan, August 1971. State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation, South Central Coastal Study, February 1966. State of California, Department of Navigation and,Ocean Development, Small Craft Facilities Chapter:__Existing and Future Site Locations% March 1977.- United States, Department of Commerce, Office of Coastal Zo ne Management, Coastal Recreation: A Handbook-for Planners and Managers, January 1976. United States, Department of Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Optimum Recreation Carrying Capacity, prepared by Urban Research Development Corporation, January 19//. C-6 Section 3.8: Agriculture Agricultural Extension Services University of California, letter to California Coastal Commission, January 19, 1979. California Regional Water Quality Control Board,,Nursery Greenhouse Waste- water Study, 1977. Lemon Administrative Committee, 1975-76 Annual Report, Los Angeles, October 1976. Pennsylvania Flower Growers, "Production Planning-Pot Spacing, Bulletin 218, May 1969. Santa Barbara County, Agricultural Commissioner-,* Annual Crop Report 1933-76. Santa Barbara County Environmental Resources Department, Draft Report on Greenhouses in the'Carpinteria Valley, Prepared by Alan Minee, 1977. Santa Barbara County Planning Department, Greenhouse Land Use Survey Carpinteria Valley, June 1977. United States Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service, California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, Avocado Acreage, October 15, 1975. United States Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service, Crop Reporting Board, "Flowers and Foliage Plants:. Production.and Sales, 1973 and 1974, Intentions for 1975," SpCr 6-1 (75), Washington, D.C. United States International Trade Commission, Fresh Cut Flowers, USITC Publication 827, Washington, D.C., August 1977. University of California, Cooperative Extension, Economic Trends in the California Avocado Indust' , May 1974. ry University of California, Cooperative Extension, Economic Trends in the California Avocado Industry, Statistical Suppleme-n-t-,-J-anuary 1976. University of California, Cooperative Extension, Santa Barbara County, ."Lemon Orchard Development Costs," 1971. University of California, Cooperative Extension, Expansion in the California Avocado Industry, Riverside, California, November 1974. University of California, Cooperative Extension, Santa Barbara County, "Avocado Orchard Production Costs," 1977. University of California, County of Santa Barbara, Agricultural Extension, Irrioation Water Use for Principal Crops Grown in Santa Barbara Coun@L. April 1913. C-7 University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Compaction of Soil by Agricultural Equipment, October 1977. University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences Economic Trends in the California Lemon Industry, Riverside, California, Ma@cF=T.- University of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences, Managing Compacted Soils, March 1977. "Ventura Lemons: 3,000 Acres Out, More Going," Citrograft, September 1977, pp. 323-325. Ca-8 Section 3.9: Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Atwood, J. C., P. D. Jorgenson, Ronald Jurek, and T. D. Manolis, "California Least Tern Census and Nesting Survey," California Department of Fish and Game, 1977. Bauer, Richard D. and John W. Speth,,Acquisition Priorities.for t.he,Coastal Wetlands of California, California Department of Fish and Game.a-nd-Bureau of Sport Fisherie Wildlife, April 1974. Bender, Kristen, Nongame Wildlife Investigati ons, "Least Tern Popul.ation and Nesting Survey," California Department of Fish and Game, 1973. Bowland, J. L., A Stu!u of Six Harbor Seal Hauling Grounds Along the Central California Coast7 Environmental Studies Thesis, UCSB, Fall 1978. Brown, Leslie and Dean Amadon, EaSles, Hawks and Falcons of the World, McGraw-Hill, 1968, Vol. 1, pg. 236-238. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions, The California Coastal .Plan, 1975. California Department of Fish and Game, At the Crossroads, 1976, A Report on California Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife, January 1976. The Natural Resources of the Nipomo Dunes and Wetlands, June 19-76. "Utilization of Kelp-Bed Resources in Southern California:'Fish Bulletin 139, 1968. Coastal County Fish and Wildlife Resources and Their Utilization, 1971. Fish and Wildlife Resource Planning Guide, 1969. Fish and Wildlife Resources Relationshies and Water Quality Require- Ments, Water Quality Planning Project, August 191Z. The Natural Resources of the Goleta Slough and Recommendations for Use and Development, August 1970. Summau Plans for Fish and Wildlife in the Marine and Coastal Zone, April 1971. Water Quality and Quantity Problems of Fish and Wildlife, Water .@uality Planning Project, September 19727 California Department of Navigation and Ocean Development, Comprehensive Ocean Area Plan: Education and Research, 1972. California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Outdoor Recreation Resources Plan, February 1974. C-9 "Gaviota Coast: An Underwater Park Recommendation," no date. California Native Plant Society, "Inventory of Rare, Endangered, and Possibly Extinct Vascular Plants of California,". January 19, 1973. Cheatham, Norden H. and J. Robert Haller, "An Annotated List of California Habitat Types," University of California Natural-Land and Water Reserves System, 1975. Connell, J. H. and R. E. Engel, J. R. Haller, R. Howmiller and W. W. Murdock, Environmental Biology Element of the General Plan foe Santa Barbara_County, UniversiTty oT M iforpia, Santa Barbara, May 22, 1974. Dames and Moore, National Shoreline StugZ California Regional Inventory, U. S. Amy Corps of Engineers, August 1971. Preliminau Environmental Impact Study More Mesa Development for Tyrolian Village, Inc., September 14, 1972. Environmental Quality Advisory Board, City of Santa Barbara, "Memo to City Council: Goleta Slough," January 6, 1970. Haaker, P. L. and K. C. Wilson, "Giant Kelp," Marine Resources Leaflet No. 9, California Department of Fish and Game, 1975. Hannan, Joseph A., Management,and Preservation Plan for the Go.leta Slough, Community Services Department, City of Santa Barbara, OctoEer 7, 1975. Harlan, Ron and Robert Mesick, "Prospe ctive Subtidal Marine Resources," A Report to the University of California Natural Land and Water Reserve System. Heritage Oaks Committee, Native Oaks_, Our Valley Heritage, Sacramento, California, 1976. Hetrick, Carl, Letter to Britt Johnson re: Anadromous Fish Resources, May 9, 1977. Hill, H. F.9 "Reproductive Behavior in an Overwintering Aggregation of Monarch Butterflies," The American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 95, January 1976. Hood, Leslie (editor), California Natural Areas Coordinating Council, "Inventory of California Natural Areas," Vol. VI, 1976. Kellogg, Martin, "Description of Vernal Pool Sites," IVCC Ecosystem Manage- ment Group, February 10, 1977. Lindstedt-Siva, June, "Oil Spill Response Planning for Biologically Sensitive Areas," 1977 Oil Spill Conference. Livingston and Blayney, Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan, Conservation Element, August 1974. C-10 MacDonald, Keith B., The Natural Resources of Carpinteria Marsh, Their Status and Future, California-Te-partment of Fish and ame, April Mahrdt, Clark R., Thomas A, Overbauer, John P. Rieger, Joseph'R.. Verfaillie, Bruce M. Browning and John W. Speth, Natural Resources,.of Coastal Wetlands in Northern Santa Barbara County, California Department of Fish-and Game,. May 1979-- Metcalf, Nelson T. Birds of the Santa Barbara Region, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History: Occasiona-T-P-apers No. 8, 1972. Osborne, Timothy and Jack G. Reynolds, "California Seabird Breeding Ground Survey 1969-70," California Department of Fish and Game, 1974. Outer Continental Shelf Project Task Force, Office of Planning and Research, .Offshore Oil. and Gas Development: Southern California, Preliminary Draft, December 1976-. Resources, Consultants in Resource Management, Santa Barbara Channel Martne, Sanctuary Management, Information and Nomination Reports, June 1978. Santa Barbara News-Press, "County Board Seeks to Bar Four Wheelers," May 17, 1977. Small, Arnold, The Birds of California, Winchester Press, New-York, 1974, pg. 144-169. Soil Conservation Service, Draft EIS, Carpinteria Valley Watershed-Project, October 1975. South Central Coast Reg,ional Commissioni Coastal Land Environment, June 28, 1974. South Central Coast,Regional Commission, Marine Element, 1974. State Lands Commission, A Program for Managing the Ocean and Tidal Areas, December 1, 1970. Stubchaer, James M., Memo Subject: Coastal Act and Flood Control District Activities, April 12, 1977. Tetra Tech, Inc., Environmental Assessment Report, Crude Oil Transportation System Valdez, Alaska, to Lo-ng Beach-, California., Appendix A, U. S. Army. Corps of Engineers, 1976. The Conservation Foundation Physical Management of Coastal Floodplains: Guidelines for Hazards and Losystem Management, D-e-c-e-mFe-71977. Thurow, Charles, William Toner, and Duncan Erley I Performance Controls for Sensitive Lands, Planning Advisory Service, Report Nos.,307; 308, 1977.1- C-11 United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Natural Hazard ManaSement in Coastal Areas, November 1976. Urquhart, F. A., "Found at Last: the Monarch.'s Winter Home,'.' National Geographic, August 1976. Waian, L. B. and Rey C. Stendall, "The White-Tailed Kite in California with Observations of the Santa Barbara Population," California Department of Fish and Game, 56 (3);*188-189, 1970. Wilson,.Kenneth C,., Kelp Restoratibn,in Southern California, Oregon State University Press, 197F.- Woodhouse, Charles D., Santa Barbara's Mermaidsi Museum Talk, Vol. 49, No. 4, 1975, pp. 82-92. Brown, Vinson, Sea Mammals and Reptile s,of the Pacific Coast, Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New-York, 1976. Dougherty, Anita E., Marine Mammals of California, Department of Fish and Game, 1972. G-l 2 Section 4.8: THE CHANNEL ISLANDS Anderson, D. W., Jurek, R. M., and Keith, T. 0., "The Status of Brown Pelicans at-Anacapa Islands in 1975," misc. pub. California Fish and Game, in press. Bills, A. J., "A Study of the Distribution and Morphology.of the Mice of Santa Cruz Island: an Example of Divergence," University of California at Santa Barbara, MastersThesis, 1969. California Coastal Commission', "Offshore LNG Terminal Study," September 15, 1978. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions, California Coastal Plan, 1975. California Department of Fish and Game, "At the Crossroads, A Report on California's Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife," 1974. Chaney, R. W., and Mason, H. L., 4A.Pleistocene Flora From Santa Cruz island California," Carnegie Institution of Washington D.C., PUb.'#4,25:. 1-24, 1930. Connell, J. H., Engel, R. E., Haller, J. R., Howmiller, R.., Mu rdoch, W.* W., Environmental Biology Element of the General Plan for Santa Barbara County," May 22, 1974. Dunkle, M. B., Contributions from the Los Angeles Museum - Channel Islands Biological Survey 27,.Flora@of the Channel Islands National Monument, Bull., S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 41: 125-157, 1942. Glassow,.M. A., "An Archeological Overview of the Northern Channel islands, California, Including Santa Barbara Island," Western Archeol,ogical. Center, National Park Service, Tucson, AZ, 1977. Gress, Franklin, "Reproductive Status of the California Brown Pelican in 1970, with Notes on Breeding Biology and Natural.History," Wildlife Management Branch Admin. Report No. 70-6, "Special Wildlife Investigations," CA. Dept. of Fish and Game, 1,970. Harlan, Ron and Robert Mesick, "Prospective Subtidal Marine Reserves", Unpubli-shed Report (U.C.S.B.) 1977. Holland, Francis R., Jr., "Santa Rosa Island: An Archeological and Historical Study," Journal of the West, Vol. 1 #1: 42-65,.1962. Hood, Leslie (ed.), "Inventory of California Natural Areas," vol. 11 Calif. Natural Areas Coordinating Council, 1975. C-13 Hussey, John A., "A-Brief Sketch of the Archeology of Santa Cruz Island, California," Western Explorer, vol. 1, #3, 1-8, 1961. Laughrin, Lyndal L...'"California Island Fox Survey," Dept. Fish and Game, Admin. Report.#73-5, 1973. Major J., and Barbour, M.G., Terrestial Vegetation of California,.Wiley and Company, New York, 1977. National Park Service, Pacific Coast Recreation Survey, A Report by the U.. S. Department of the Interior,, 1959. National Park Service, Natural Resources Management Plan and Environmental Assessment, U. S. Dept. of the Interior, National Park Service, Channel 'Islands National-Monument, 1975. National Park Service, Statement for Management Channel Islands National Monument, U. S. Dept. of Interior, Channel Islands National Monument, T976. Norris et al., Draft Final Report, 1975-1976, Marine Mammal and Seabird Survey of the Southern California Bight Area, vol.. III, Principal Tnvestigators Reports, The Regents of the Onivers'ity of California, Bureau of Land Management, 1976. Office of Planning and Research, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Southern California Preliminary Draft/December 1 Outer Continental Shelf Project Task Force, 1976. Osborne, Timothy, and Reynolds, Jack G., "California Seabird Breeding Ground Survey-1969-1970," Cal. Dept. Fish and Game, Admin. Report No. 71-73 ,5pecial Wildlife Investigations, 1971. Orr, Phil. C, "Radiocarbon Dates from Santa Rosa Island I." Santa Barbara Museum of'Natural History, Bull. No. 2. Dept. Anthropology, 1956. Orr, Phil. C.2 "Radiocarbon Dates from Santa Rosa Island II," Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Bull. No. 3, Dept. Anthropology, 1960'. Patterson, Charles, "Santa Cruz Island, Its Natural History and Ecology," for the Nature Conservancy, 1978. Philbrick, R. N., Correspondence with Ralph M. Harris, re. Introduced Exotics on Santa Barbara Island, June 7, 1974. Philbrick, R. N., "The Plants of Santa Barbara Island, California," Madrono, 21 (5), Pt. 2: 329-93, 1972. C-14 Philbrick, R. N., "Preliminary Survey of the Pl ants of Insular Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties," 1970. Philbrick, R. N., (ed.), Proceedings of the Symposium on the Biology of the California Islands, S5-nta Barbara Botanic Garden, 1967. Powell, W. Robert, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of - California, CaL Native Plant Society, Special Pub. November 1, 1974. Resources, Santa Barbara Channel Marine Sanctuary Nomination and Appendices, Prepared for County of Santa Barbara, June 24, T978. Santa Barbara County Planning Commission, Proposed Amendment to the Master Plan to Change Designation of Certain Portions of Santa Cruz Island, submitted by Mr. Pier Gherini, Case #65-GP-1, Exhibit #4, October 20, 1965. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, "A Multidisciplinary Symposium on the California Islands, Abstracts of Papers, "February 27 through March 1, 1978. Schreiber, Ralph W., Delong, Robert L., "Brown Pelican Status in California," Audubon Field Notes, Vol. 23, No. 1: 57-59, 1969. Schreiber, Ralph W., Risebrough, Robert.W.., "Studies of the Brown Pelican," Wilson Bulletin 1957,'29: 119-135, 1957. Smith, Clifton F., A Flora of the Santa Barbara Region,Ca.lifornia, Santa Barbara.Museum of Natural History,, B-1-6-. Smithsonian Institution, Report on Endangered and Threatened Species of the United States, presented to U. S. Congress by the Se-cretary, Smithsonian Institution, December 1.5, 1974. Russel, G. V. (F.A.L.A.) & Associates, A Master Plan for the Gherini Ranch Development, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara, California, June 1965. Thelander, Carl G.., "Distribution and Reproductive Success of Peregrine Falcons (Facio peregrinus anatum) in California during 1975 and 1976," Cal. Dept-.7-is-h-a-n-d-G-ame, Admin. Report No. 76-3, 1976. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Channel Islands, U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington D. C., 190. United States Geological Survey, Oil and Gas Development in the Santa Barbara Channel, Outer Continental Shelf office, California,Dept.,of Interior, @@eoogic Survey, 3 volumes, 1976. C-15 Usher, Howell D., "The'Channel Islands-; an Overview," Prepared for the Santa Barbara County Local Coastal, Program, June 12, 1977.1 PERSON& CONTACTED. Benedict, Michael, Research Associate, Santa Barbara.Botanic Garden, Re: Island Resources. Cambell, D. G., Lieutenant Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Re: Light House Locations.@, Collins, Paul W., Associate Vertebrate Curator, Santa Barbara Museum of. Natural History, Re: Birds, Mammals;@and General -Information. Cook, Bil-l,. County Assessors-Office, Re: Taxation and Assessment. Craig, Steve, U.C.S.B., Re: Archaeological Sites. Ebling, Alfred, Marine Science Institute, Re: Intertidal Reserves. Ehorn, William, Superintendant, Channel Islands National Monument, Re: Sensitive Coastal Areas and Norris Report. Freel, Mayten, Bureau of Land Management, Los Angeles OCS Office, Re.: Sensitive Coastal Areas and Norris Report. Hochberg, Eric, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Re: Invertebrates, and General Information. Hudson, Travis, Curator of Ant hropology, Santa Barbara Museum of Nat ural History, Re: Archaeological Sites. Laughrin, Lyndal L., Resident Manager, Santa Cruz Island Field Station, U.C.S.B., re: Island Fox. Mall, Rolf E., Environmental Services Coordinator, Cal. Dept. Fish and Game, Re: Terrestrial Mammals and Birds. Major, Mary, California Native-Plant Society., Re: Rare and Engangered Plants. Norris, Ken, BLM Project Leader, University of Cal ifornia, Santa Cruz, Re: Marine Mammals. Philbrick, R.N., Director, Santa Barbar a Botanic Garden, Re: Significant Plant Locations and General Information. Power, Dennis, Director, Museum of Natural History, Re: Birds and General Information. 'C-16 Schreiber, Ralph W., Curator Vertebrate Biology, Los Angeles Museum of Natural History, Re: California Brown Pelica'n Nesting Sites. Schwarzbach, Steve, Environmental Consultant, Re: Rare and.Endangered Plants. Smith, Clifton, Librarian and Botanist, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Re: Significant Plant Locations. Wenner, Adrian, U.C.S.B., Re: Intertidal Preserves. Whalen, Nick, Channel Islands National Monument, Re: Sensitive Marine Mammal Areas. Wiley, Ken, Preserve Manager for Nature Conservancy on Santa Cruz Island, Re: Management Plans. Woodhouse, Charles D., Research Associate, Santa Barbara Museum.-of Natural History, Re: Sensitive Marine Mammal. Areas. C-17 Service System Data Service Syttern-Datal This appendix contains water supply and demand and wastewater treatment capacity data for the Carpinteria Valley, Summerland, Montecito, and Goleta planning areas. Water supply and demand estimates are drawn from data.com- piled by the County Water Agency during 1977 and,1978. Therefore, these projections do not reflect the results of the March 6, 1979, election when County voters rejected the importation of State water as a means of aug- menting the County's limited water resources. This decision will undoubtedly affect the County',s population growth, %creases in the number,of new housing units, and attendant.demand for water, at least on an interim basis or until alternative local water resources can be developed. D-1 TABLE D-1 CARPINTERIA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 1975-2000 Water Supply and Demand 1975 1980 1990 2000 (2) (2) (2) 1. POPUIATION SERVED 14,200 15,200 15,200 (3) 2. DWELLING UNITS Sq. ft./DU High 1,425- 3, 00 1,950 2,809 3,170 3,243 Medium .7,000-10,000 1,865 2,078 2,192 2,213 Mediu6-Low 10,OOG-20,000 177 275 371 415 LOW 20,000-43,560 43 52 74 83 Tbtal Dwelling Units 4,035 5,214 5,807 .5,954 (4) 3. ACREAGE Industrial (5) 36 50 80 100 Cammercial 142 150 170 190 Public Authority 469 470 480 480 Agriculture 3,847 4,100 4,500 4,800 4. SUPPLY (AFY) Groundwater Safe Yield (6) 4,500 4,500 4,500 0 Surface Water(7) 4,686 3,041 3,041 3,041 Thtal supply 9,186 7,541 7,541 .7,541 5. DMM/WATER N= (AFY) Residential High 390 700 800 810 Medixzn .578 710 750 .750 Medium-Iow 64 100 130 150 i0w 37 70 100 110 Subtotal Residential 1,1059 1,580 1,780 1,820 Industrial 207 350 560 700 Cam-ercial, 584 600 680 760 Public Authority 188 190 190 190 Thtal M&I 2,038 2,720 3,210 3,470 Agriculture 5,607 6,200 6,800 7,200 Total Water Needs without Conservation 7,645 8,920 10,010 10,670 Tbtai water Needs (AFY) With Conservation(9) 8,243- 9,175- 9,716- 8,523 9,519 10,084 D-2 C:arpinteria County Water District 1975 1980 1990 2000 6. SURPUJS/ (DEFICIT) (AFY) Without Conservation (1,379) (2,469) (3,129@ With Conservation (702)- (1,634)- (2,175)- (982) (1,978) (2,543) Footnotes: Carpinteria County Water District 1. Source:. 1975 Special Census 2. The Santa Barbara County Planning Department prepared these population projections for the County Water Agency; they are based.on existing general plan policies effective 4/1/76 and on the assumption of unconstrained water use, i.e., overdraft followed by additional water supply- .3. Sources: 1,975 - City of Carpinteria 1975 Existing Tana Use Map (Prepared by Patterson, Iangford, and Stewart); 1975 Special Census data. .1980 through.2000 - Santa Barbara County Planning Department projections for the City of Carpinteria and County (unincorporated) areas within the Water District. Note: 1. only occupied dwelling units are included here. 2. Since census data concerning dwelling units a not broken down into the density categories used in this report, LCP staff worked with City and County Planning staffs to make these allocations. 4. Sources: 1975 - Carpinteria County Water District 1975 Annual Acreage Report. 1980 through 2000 -.City of Carpinteria General Plan.(Amended 1974); Santa Barbara County Oonservation Element to'Proposed General Plan. 5. Industrial acreage includes light and heavy industry such as M&F.Packing, Infrared, and Standard Oil. Industrial park and other types of industry that use less water per acre are treated as ccmTercial uses for the'purposes of this report. 6. Source: Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., Hydrologic IInvestigation of the Carpinteria Ground Water Basin, June 1976. Note: This is the safe yield estimate presently used by the District for planning purposes. 7. Source: 1975 - actual amount of water from Lake Cachuma purchased during the 1975-76 water year. 1980 through 2000 - the District's average future entitlement for water f ran Cachurra. 8. The following 1975 water unit uses factors are derived from the known number of dwelling unitsand known amount of delivered water in that year; 1980-2000 factors are average unit use factors developed by the Water District for projection purposes: D-3 Carpinteria County Water District Water 'Unit Residential Use (AFY) 1975 1980-2000 High .20 .25 Medium .31 .34 MediuM- Low .36. .36 LoW .85 1.34 Industrial 7.00 7.00 Comercial 4.00 4.00 Public Authority .40 .40 Agricultural 1.5 1.5 9. Source: County Water Agency draft report on water demand (1977); these are estimates and are not tied to an adopted District program. D-4 TABLE 0-2 Carpinteria County Sanitary District 1975 1980 1990 2000 1. Population Within District(l) 11,750 .13,000 13,000 Current Capacity (mgd)(2) 2.0 3. Estimated Wastewater Flow(3) 1.1 1.3 1.4 1.4 4. Proposed Capacity (mgd)(4) 2.0 2.0 2.0 5. GPCD(5) 110 6. Surplus/Deficit (mgd) .9 .7 .6 - .6 7. Additio'hal Population Capacity, .8,000 6,400 59500 53 500, FOOTNOTES MPopulation estimates for the district are based on actual (1975) and projected population f.igures (1980-2000) for the City of .Carpinteria and areas outside of the City that have been annexed to the district. These are estimates which will need to be reviewed by Santa Barbara County Planning Department. (2)Source: Carpinteria.Sanitary District. (3)This is the estimated average daily flow based on information received from Tony Hamilton at the district sanitation-plant and Bill Ghormley, engineer for the district. (4)Source: Carpinteria Sanitary Di s tri ct." (5)110 GPCD is an estimate de rived from LCP research on other sanitary districts on the South Coast. D-5 TABLE D-3 SUWCW-,AND COUNTY WATER DISMICT 1975-2000 Water Supply and Demand 1975 1980 1990 2000 1. POPULATION SERVED District (1) 1,050 1,150 1,450 1,500 2. DWMLING UNITS Sq. ft. /Du High 1,425- 3,500 .224 227 299 311 Medium 7,000-10,000 192 195 252 263 Miedium-jpw 10,000-20,000 11 11 18 18 LOW 20,000-43,560 13 13 19 19 Lowest 1-3 acres 4 4 6 6 3. ACREAGE. Industrial-CcFmv--rcial 14 15 20 20 Public'Authority 6 6 6 6 Agricultural 219 219 320 420 4. SUPPLY (AFY) (2) Groundwater -- -- Surface Water 380 430 350 350 Total Known Supply 380 430 3510 350 (3) 5. DEMAND Residential Highest 36 39 High 24 30 31 Medium 62 77 81 Medium-Low 5 9 9 Law - 9 11 11 Lowest 8 10 10 'Total Residential 119 137 173 181 Industrial Ccnynercial 30 36 47 47 Public Authority Subtotal M&I 149 173 220 228 Agricultural (4) 50 241 352 462 Total Demand Without Conservation 199 414 572 690 Total Demand With Conservation 36.9-395 508-545 625-666 D-6 Summeriana county Water District 1975 1980 1990 2000 6. SURPLUS/DEFICIT (AFY) Without Conservation 178 16 (222) (340) With Conservation 61-35 (158)-(195) (275)-(316) '@tnotes: Summerland County Water District 1. Estimates for 1975 and 1980 were made by the Water Agency as reflected in data received frcm. the SCWD and from other estimates made for the District. The popu7- lation figure derived frcin the 1975 Special Census is considered low by the SCWD because it does not reflect the larger household sizes found in Summerland. The Water Agency estimated the 1975 and 1980 figures from a population curve representing the growth since 1965. The SCWD reports a.figure of 1,127 for 1976. Figures for 1990 and 2000 are from projections estimated by Cliff Pauley of the Santa Barbara County Planning Department. 2. Summerland rests on consolidated rock and, as such, has M groundwater supply. Cachuma Project water is the District's sole supply source. 3. The Water Agency and SCWD use similar methodologies in determining water demands. The data presented for 1975 a directly from SCWD data, which represent actual 1975 deliveries. Projections for 1980-2000, by the Water Agency, use unit use factors for residences and duties in AF/acre for other land uses. An adjustment was made to the 1980 unit use factors. By raising each,unit use value by .01, the increase in population absorbed primarily in existing residences because of the moratorium re- flects the additional population's water needs with few additional dwelling unitg, The original unit use values pravided,by SCWD were increased by 10 percent to ac unt for system losses. The resultant values represent average annual unit demands for the years 1980, 1590, and 2000: Lowest Density Residential 1.71/unit- Low Density Residential 0.61/unit Medium-Low Density Residential 0.47/unit Medium Density Residential 0.32/unit High Density Residential 0.24/unit Highest Density Residential Ml/unit Camk-xci.al/Didustrial/Institutional 1.71/acre Irrigation 1.10/acre Data provided by SCWD via letter 7/1/76 requested by Water Agency regarding water demand. 1976 and 1980 figures a for I'dry year" conditions. 1990 and 2000 figures are for "average rainfall" conditions. 4. Water,Agency estimates of future irrigated lands are based upon the availability of suitable parcels and the plans of land owners who.were about to increase their plantings before the moratorium halted their activity. The figure for the year 2000 represents almst a doubling of the irrigated lands i n the hills behind Summerland. 5. Conservation figures are shown as a range between moderate and high conservation rates as developed by the Santa Barbara County Water Agency. D-7 TABLE D-4 SwoumD couNTY smrrARY DISTRICr 1. Population Served(') 1975 1980 1990 2000 820 812 1438 1500 2. Current Capacity (mgd)(2) .150 3. Estimated Wastewater Flow (mgd) .115 .115 .158 .165 4. propc)sed Capacity (Mgd)(3).150 .150 .150 .150 5. Gallons Per Capita Per Day (GPCD) (4) 1106 .110 110 110 6. Surplus/Deficit (mgd) .035 .035 -.008 -.@015 7. Additional Pomilation Capacity (5) 318 318 0 0 Source: Local Coastal Program.based,on information supplied by the Sum-erland Sanitary District. (1) Santa Barbara County Planning Department estimate. The decline in pcpulatacn projected for 1980. assumes continuation. of the current Mrat0riuM Scme sur- plus water may become available in Summerland according to the SuMMerland County Water District because of a lmer water demand for agriculture than expected. If this proves true, the projected 1980 population will have to reflect new building potential. (2) Telephone discussion with Mr Bill W-eatly, Manager of the Summerland Sanitary District,, October 4; 1977. (3) Capacity rating obtained fram telephone conversation with Mr. Bill M-leatly (October 4, 1977) and the California Regional Water Quality control Board. Mr. Weatly has indicated that plant capacity can be increased to 2.25 Md, but this figure does not represent a Summerland Sanitary District Ward Policyr nor is it mentioned in any communications between the Sanitary District and the Regional Water Quality Board. The District apparently has no facility treat- ment expansion plans at this time, although the Regional Water Quality Control Board is seeking Federal funds to enable the Stmmerland Sanitary District to prepare a technical report on future operations. (4) Gallons per capita/day based on SLzmme,r1and Sanitary District estimates. The serviced populatim/wastewater flaw ratio suggests that a 110 gpod figure may be high for projection purposes. (5) Additional Popula cap (demand) f tion -acity is determitned by subtracting the w.-Wtew;ater f JoK rcm Plant Capacity and dividing this nu-mber by a factor of JJG, D-8 TABLE D-5 MONTECITIO COUNTY MMR DISTRICT 1975-2000 Water Supply and Demand 1975 1980 1990 2000 1. POP=ION SERVMD District 9,711 10,250 11,625 13,0W 2. DWELLING UNITS Sq. ft./DU Multiple family unit 1,425- 3,500 305 315 411 1,108 Duplex & fourplex' 7,000-10,000 694 736 952 494 10,000-20,000 Single family 20,000-43,560 3,018 3,172 3,1821 4,331 1-3 acres Thtal 40,017 4,223 5,,184 5,933 3. ACRFAGE Ccmmercial & Resort 112 113 132 147 Institutional 220 220 220 220 Recreation 230 230 230 230 Agricultural 1,282 7145 745 7145 4. SUPPLY (AFY) (2) Groundwater (3) 1,200 1,200 1,200 Surface Water 3,610 3,786 3,659 3,609 Thtal Supply 4,821 4,,9816 4,859 4,809 (including delivery to City of Santa Barbara) 5. DEMM (AFY) (4) Residential Single Family Duplex-Fourplex 2,904 3#1776 4,609 5,256 multiple Family Ccarrercial & Resort Institutional 901 1,250 1,280 1,300 Recreational Thtal M&I 3,805 5,026 5,885. 6,@56 Agricultural 592 800 800 800 Total Demand Without Conservation 4,397 5,826 6,685 70,356 Thtal Demand With Conservation (5) 4,640- .5,143- 5,514- 5,364 6,085 6,484 D-9 Montecito County Water District 1975 1980 1990 2000 6. SURPLUS/DEFICIT (AFY) Without Conservation 413 (840) (1,826) (2,547) With Conservation 346-(378) (284)- (705)-, (1,226). (1,675) Footnotes: biontecito County Water District 1. Population estimates were prepared by the Santa Barbara County Planning Department based on the 1975 Special Census. 2. Groundwaterestimates for the Montecito County Water District are based On the NOERgeologic Investi2@@on of montecito Groundwater Basins, Geotechnical Consultants, Inc., 1974. This invesE17a=on established a 1,2 acre feet per year safe yield figure for the Montecito Groundwater Basin and 200 to 300 AFY for the Tbro,Canyon Subunit of the Carpinteria Groundwater Basin which is also located within the District's boundaries. 3. The decline in surface water is due to projected decl ines in the capacity of Jameson and Gibralter Reservoirs resulting from siltation. 4. Demand is based on the following,water use unit factors developed by the Santa Barbara County Water Agency: YUltiple family .50 AFY Duplex-fourplex .75 AFY, Single family 1. 00 AFY counercial & Resort 2. 8 AFY Institutional 1.2 AFY Recreational 2.1 AFY 5. Conservation figures a shown as a range between moderate and high conservation, rates,as developed by the Santa Barbara County Water Agency. D-10 TABLE D-6 MOINTECITO SANITARY DISTRICT 1975 1980 1990 2000 1. Population Within District 1 8,442 8 969 10,408 11,470 Population Served 7,000 7,527 8,9.66 10,028 2. Current Capacity (mgd.)2 .75 3. Estimated Wastewater (mgd.) Flow@ @.70 .90 1.07 1.23 4. Proposed Capacity (ingd.)3 .85 1.7 1.7 5. GPCD4 120 120 1.20 120 6. Surplus/Deficit (mgd.) 05 .05. .47 7. Additional Population.Capacity 5 454 0 5,250 3,916 Source: Local Coastal Program figures compiled from district information The difference between the District Population and the Service Population is due to the fact that many Montecito residences utilize septic systems. For projection purposes it is assumed that all future residential growth will be sewered. District estimates are those of the Santa Barbara County Planning Department based on the 1975 Special Census. Serviced population projections are those of the Montecito Sanitary District. 2 Demand is based on wastewater flow estimates provided by the Montecito Sanitary District and on Gallon Per Capita Per Day (GPCD) figures supplied by Brown & Caldwell, 1972. According to the District (Jerry Smith, October 4, 1977), wastewater flows have stabilized since implementation of the Montecito water moratorium. This has remained the case despite the fact that about 50 new connections have been made each year since the moratorium as a,result of private well drillings. This apparent conservation factor could result in lower projected wastewater demand. A two-stage expansion is proposed for the Montecito wastewater trea tment facility. The first stage, now 90% complete involves a .1 mgd. increase. The second and ultimate expansion is proposed to serve a saturation pqpula- tion beyond the year 2000 of 15,690, based on the Wastewater Management Study by Brown & Caldwell, July 1972. 4A wastewater projection figure of 120 gpqd is developed in the Wastewa 'ter Management Study by Brown & Caldwell, July 1972. 5Additional population capacity is based on the difference between current demand and capacity divided by the 120 GPCD developed in the.Wastewater Management Study by Brown & Caldwell, July 1972. D-1 I TABLE D-7 GOI= ODUNTY WATER DISTRICr 1975-2000 Water.Supply and Demand 1975 1980 1990 2000 1. POPLUATION SERVED GCWD District (1) 70, 500 70,500 78,490 871800 31600 .3i830 4,100 4,350 2. Ujaff (2) Sq. ft./DU High 1,425- 3,500 10,482 10,482 12,100 14,370 Medium 7,000-10,000 8,032 8,032 8,800 9,650 Medium-Low 10,0010-20,000 3,273 3,273 3,460 3,750 LOW @'-,2 0, 000-43,560 584 584 650 740 Lower 1- 3 acres 1,795 1,795 2,000 2,200 Ia,vest acres 56 50 55 60 3.. ACR@MGE (3) Industrial 410 415 490 570 Cmrercial 400 420 520 620 Public Authority 720 720 720 720 Recreation, 400. 400 440 440 Agricultural 5,049 51200 6,200 7,300 4. SUPPLY Groundwater (4) 4,200 4,100 4,100 4,000 Surface Water (5) 9,310 9,520 10,080 10,080 Total Knom Supply (6.) 13,510 .13,620 14,180 14,080 5. DEMAND (AFy) (7) Residential High .2,730 3,150 3,740 Medium 31290 3,600 3,960 Medium-Low 1,770 1,870 2,030 LOW 390 440 500 IDwer 1,650 1,700 @1,750 lamest 50 60 60 Total Residential 8,515. 5f880 10,820 12,040 Industrial (8) Ccmrkercial 2,685 2,720 3,030 3,340 Public Authority .Total M&I 11,200- 12,600 13,900 15,400 D-1 2 Goleta County Water District 1975 1980 1990 2000 5. DEMAND (AFY).(Continued) Agricultural(q) 4,570 5,120 9,770, 12,380 (incl. private pumpage) Sales to La Cumbre Mutual Water Co. 300 350 350 350 La Cumbre Matual Water Co. Demand 1,470 1,530 11670 1,830 Sunset-Las Positas.MC's* 60 Total Demand w/o Conservation 17,600 19,600 25,690 29,960, Total Demand w/Conservation(10) 16,220- 21,500- 214,990- 18,350 23,660 27,470 6. SUIRPLUS/DEFICIT (AFY) (4,090) (5,980) J11,510) (15,880) W11TIUM ODNSERVATICN SURPLUS/DEFICIT WITH CONSER@WION (4,090) (2,600)- (7,320)- (10,910)- (4F780) (9,480) (13,390) Footnotes: Goleta County Water District 1. Data for 1975 is from the Special County Census as adjusted by the SBCPD, the GCWD, and the SBCWA to reflect the service population within the GCM. Included in the total is the service population of the La Cumbre Matual Water Ccnpany and two smaller private mutual water ccnpanies, Sunset and Las Positas. Excluded from the total is the population of the areas served by the City of Santa Barbara. The projected population schedule was prepared by the SBCPD and adjusted by the Water Agency to reflect.the GCWD service population. 2. Santa Barbara County Water Agency. 3. Santa Barbara County Water Agency. 4. Groundwater estimates have been revised downward since 1975 to reflect the findings of a safe yield study by John Mann, consultant for the Goleta County Water District. 5. The actual surface deliveries to the GCWD in 1975 were greater than the volume shown, due to the availability of surplus water. Addit-lonal Now Release Schedule (NRS). water friom Cachuma was taken in advance to fulfill the demand. otherwise, the figures are based on Cadbuma Entitlement obligations. 6. Data for 1975 represents sales by the GCWD and an estimate of 485 AF supplied privately for agriculture during the water year 1975-76. Sales by the District to commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts were determined through District records to be 2,685 AF. Residential sales were determined as 8,515 AF, or the remainder of 11,200 Ar of domestic sales within the GCWD and including residents in the City. Four areas within the District are served by the District yet bi-Iled and maintained by the City. Likewise, one area within the City is served by City yet billed and maintained by the GCWD. Each of the entities receive. compensation for their respective deliveries through a bi-montbly exchange. For planning purposes, these,small exchanges are excluded in the projections. D-1 3 Gole ta County Water District 7. Projected residential needs are based upon future dwelling units and-average unit use values determined frcrn a GCWD survey. The survey revealed unit water uses fOr different lot sizes as defined on the.General,Plan Maps. This survEO? was taken in 1975 and may reflect a certain amount of conservation. The Water Agency assumes these values are average water needs for the projected dwelling units and a presented as follows: Lot Size AFY/D.U. 3+ acres 1.07 1-3 acres .92 20,000 sq. ft. .67 10,000 sq. ft. .54 7,000 sq. ft. .41 1,450-3,500 sq. ft. .26 8. ProjectEil,,water needs of ocmmercial, industrial, and institutional uses are deter- mined by applying a'water use duty of 1.75 AFY/acre.. This is considered an average value and is-determined as such: 2,685 AF (sales) 1.75 1,530 (acreage) 9. Agricultural water demands are presented for the area east of El Capitan. Agri- cultural demands west of that point are discussed under Misc. Areas. Value for 1975 represents 4,080 AF sold by the District to irrigated agriculture, and recreation, plus an estimate of private pumpage at 485 AF from the Goleta basin, 900 AF within the western section of the District, and 600 in the Goleta area, east of El Capitan. Values for 1980 represent 4,480 AF sold by the District to irrigated agriculture and recreation, representing an increase of 400 AF in District deliveries to existing acreage.to allow for the maturing of groves. The 1980 figure also represents an increase in private pumpage to 2,220 AF inside and outside the District east of El Capitan. -Demands for the year 1990 and 2000 are based upon acreage projections. A water duty of 1.5 AFY/acre was applied to the acreages, assuming the maturity of groves during the planning period. Recreational water demands are 800 AF for 1990 and 2000, bringing the totals to 10,100 and 11,750 for those respectivej@ears. Private purpage could possibly meet 2,000 AF of this demand with theremainder supplied by the District, assuming the availability of water. 10. Water conservation estimates are those of the Santa Barbara County Water Agency. D-14 TABLE 0-8 GOIEM AND ISTA VIS TA SANITARY DISTRICTS PROPOSED SBCMMAM TREAMMM 1975 1980 1990 2000 1. Population Served (1) 65,970 64,719 74,938 83,438 (Both Districts) 2. Current Capacity (mgd) 8.0 3. Estimated Wastewater (2) Flows (mgd) 6.23 .7.33 8.49 9.45 4. Proposed Capacity (mgd) 8.0 8.0 8.0 5. GpCD (3) 110 110 110 110 6. Surplus/Deficit 1.77 .67 (.49) (1.85) 7. Additional Populaticn capacity 16,G9O 6,090 (4,454) (13,181) Source: Iocal Coastal Program, 1978 FOOTNOTES 1. Population figures are for the ccmbined Goleta County and the Isla Vista Sanitary Districts as both these Districts feed into the Goleta Wastewater Treatment Facility. Figures are based on the 1975 Special Census. The projections assume the continuation of moratorium conditions through 1980. 2. Current wastewater flow is based on a compilation of flow estimates from Tables 4-2, 4-3, 4-4, and 4-5 (P. 82-86) of 22Z@-@ Wastewater Treatment and Ocean Disposal Facilities, Brown and Caldwell, March 1976. These figures are subject to change when accurate metering is implemented. 3. 110 gallons per capita per day is derived from R. E. Blanton, Goleta Sanitary District Manager. A straight division of current wastewater flow by the existing population will yield a figure of about 94 gpcd. Brown and Caldwell indicate that current metering of wastewater flows is unreliable and this may explain the discrepancy. D-1 5 Transportation Based on current resource constraints and prevailing public attitudes, the Santa Barbara County-Cities Area Planning Council and the Santa Barbara County Transportation Department have projected minimal expansion of the transportation infrastructure. The Regional Transportation Plan calls for modest highway and airport improvements, and an ambitious improvement pro- gram for public transportation services and bicycle facilities. Even at a modest level, the highway program contained in the Plan cannot be funded with existing levels of tax revenue. Without additional revenues in the form of increased State gas taxes, levels of maintenance will be reduced, and highway construction will be eliminated entfrely in the near future. Under 06,Plan, projects to increase the capacity of the region's free- way and arterial system through the provision of additional traffic lanes would be considered only when the existing facility can no longer provide an acceptable level of service. An acceptable level of service is defined by the Plan as one that "can accommodate peak hours traffic at somewhat less than free flow, and which is equivalent to level of Service "D"." Level "Y operation is defined by the Highway Capacity Manual as follows: 11approaching unstable flow, with operating speeds tolerable but fluctuating; there is little freedom to maneuver, comfort and convenience are low. In urban areas, delays tovehicles approaching intersections may be substantial during short periods, but the intersections clear periodically, preventing excessive backups." Within the coastal zone, proposed transportation improvements are mini- mal with one exception,.the widening of the Route 101 freeway to six.lanes from Fairview Avenue to the Ventura County line. At present, this.route consists of a four-lane freeway from the Ventura County line to downtown Santa Barbara, a conventional fout-lane arterial (non-freeway) through downtown Santa Barbara, and a four-lane freeway through the west side of the City and on through the 6oleta. Valley. The projected need for six lanes east of the City of Santa Barbara through Carpinteria and Montecito (all within the coastal zone) is largely determined by CALTRANS traffic projections of greatly increased traffic at the Ventura County line (more than double today's traffic). If this traffic growth does occur, the addition of free- way lanes would not be needed until about 1995. There is considerable doubt that traffic growth will occur to the extent anticipated due to possible future fuel availability constraints and projected growth trends. Detailed information regarding road capacity constraints fo r each of the planning areas is not a.vailable. Transportation constraints will haye to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis as projects are submitted for review. D-16 Buildout Project APPENDIX E BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS. This appendix contains buildout projections under existing zoning and the land use plan for each of the planning areas. These buildout calcula- tions are based on the estimated total number of residential units that would be permitted; total projected bui'ldout includes existing units as well as potential additional units. There are a number of reasons to believe that the buildout calculations with respect to,the number of possible units and population overstate the case. Some areas within the coastal zone are cur- rentlydeveloped at lower densities than those permitted under existing zoning; this could also occur under the land use plan. Major demolition of recently constructed single family homes and duplexes to permit conversion to higher density development is unlikely even if the areas in question are zoned for multiple units. Furthermore, there are areas within the coastal zone where complete buildout under the land use plan is improbable because of site con- straints, such as hazards and inadequate lot sizes. Therefore, the buildout projections used for analyses.in,each-of the planning.areas are hypothetical and are used only to provide a general frame of.reference for discussing service system and resource constraints. In Table E-1, the percentage increases in estimated population as a re- sult of buildout under existing zoning and the land use plan are summarized. This table also shows the estimated number of years that would be required to reach buildout under the land use plan, assuming that growth were to occur at an annual rate of one percent. It should be noted,that the one percent growth rate was selected for illustrative purposes only. Actual growth rates will vary among the planning areas depending on such factors as availability of land and resources (primarily water), air quality standards, wastewater treatment, road capacities, etc. E-1 @TABLE E-1 Comparative Potential Populations. Under Existing @oning andthe Land Use Plan, Estimated Estimated Population'. Population Under Buildout Under Buildout Population of Exis Percent of Percent Subarea 1975 Zonintq Growth Land Use Plan(l) Growth Summerland, urban 1,000 2,003 100.3 2,151 115.1 Summerland, rural 208 1 694 714.14 533 156.3 Montecito 2,613 5,152 97.2 67.6 Carpinteria Valley 3,248 7,185 121.2 5,992 @84. 5 Isla Vista 12,855 16,371 27.4 15,031 16.9 rn Goleta 5,620 15,374 173.6 12,6660) 125.4 (4) Gaviota Coast 148 1,707 1,053.4 263 71.7 North Coast (4 35 918 2,522.9 297 748.6 Footnotes: 1 Estimates for population buildout under existing zoning and the land'use plan do not make allo setback, lot size, and other restrictions that would normally inhibit the prospects for,maximum sequently, the zoning and land use plan population estimates are probably in excess of what.woul 2Th e number of years es tablished for buildout is based on. the following formula: n log Pt-@ log where: P = Population n Integer for Time Period Pt+n Population at t = Time Period Pt Population at Time t Time t + n R Rate of Growth Expressed as 3 Includes More Mesa, Santa Barbara.Shores, and West Devereux properties. 4 Household size factors are not available for these areas for both,1990 and the base year; there in population associated with buildout could not be estimated for the Gaviota Coast and North C tions shown for these planning areas are based on housing units rather than population. TABLE E-2 CARPINTERIA VALLEY BUILDOUT UNDER EXISTING ZONING Household Potential Hous Existing Size Additional Potential Potential Si Zoning Units 1975 Population units Conversions Buildout 19 DR-25 144 2.1 .302.4 200 344 1. 6-R-1 67 2.5 167.5 36 @103 2* 7-R-1 56 3* 2 179.2 33 89 3: 6-R-4 0 3.2 .0 6 @6 3. 8-R-1 .110 3.2- 352.0 117 227 3. 10-R-1 25 2.9 72.5 89 114 2. 12-R-1 @35 2.9 101.5 6 41 2. DR 3.5 0 2.9. 0 14 2. 20-R-1 58 2.7 156.6 31 89 2. DR-2 7 2.7 18.9 98@ 6 .111 2. l-E-1 112 2.5 280 0 224 336 2. 2-E-1 7 2.5 17:5 4 11 2. 3-E-1 40 2.5 100.0 61 101 2. A-1-X 363 2.5 907.5 760 1,123 2. T overlay 281 2.0 562.0 0 281 2. 20AL 0 2.5, 0 22 22 2. 40AL 0 2.5 .0 8 8 2. 100AG 3 2.5 7.5 0 3 2. Other 9 2.5 0 9 2. 1,317 3,247.6 6 3,032 TABLE E-3 CARPINTERIA VALLEY BUILDOUT UNDER THE LAND USE PLAN Existing Household Potential Potential Househol Units Size Additional Build- Size Land Use 1975 1975, Population. Units Out 1990 1 u,nit/7,000 sq. ft. 620 3.2 1,984. 170 790 3.0 1 unit/10,000 sq. ft. 169 2.9 490.1 60 229 2.6 1 unit/20,000 sq. - f t. 65 2.7 175.5 2.7 92 2.4 I unit/3,500 sq. ft. 3 95 98 2.0 1 unit/2,180 sq. ft. 1 259 260 1.6 l.unit/l acre 90 2.5 225 76 166 2.4 1 un,it/3 acres 100 2.5 250 73 173 2.4 Ranchettes 5-20 ac. 9 2.5 22.5 6 15 2.4 Ag 1 (5) 21 2.5 60 43 64 2. 4 Ag 1 (10) 2.19 2 ' 5 550 219 438 2.4 AgI (40) 7 2.5 17.5 36 43 2.4 Other 10 2.5. 25. 0 10 2.4 MA 100 0 2.5 0. 5 5 2.4 1,314 3,799.6 1,069 2,383 TABLE E-4 crry OF CAMINTEIUA - BUnD-OUr UNUM EXISTING ZONM 1975 Potential 1990 Existing Household Additional Potential Potential Household Zoning Units Size Population units Conversions Build-Out Size 6-R-1 375 2.5 937.5 116 0 491 2.4 6-R-2 83 2.1 174.3 134 19 236 2.0 6-R-3 518 2.1 1,087.8 47 30 595 1.8 6-R-4 268 2.1 562.8 138 .137 543 1.8 7-R-1 737 3.2 2,358.4 129 0 866 3.0 7-R-2 5, 2.5 12.5 2 3 10 2.4 8-R-1 246 3.2 787.2 74 0 320 3.0 m DR-8 11 2.5 27.5 2 0 13 2.4 (.n DR-10 89 2.5 222.5 20 0 109 2.4 DR-13 92 2.1 193.2 126 1 219 2.0 DR-14 0 2.1 0.0 56 0 56 2.0 DR-15 64 2.1 134.4 56 4 .124 2.0 'DR-18 0 2.1 0.0 61 0 @61 2.0 DR-20 789 2.1 1,656.-9 45 305 1,139 2.0 141PPD 582 2.5 1,455.0 20 0 602 2.4 A-I-X 1 2.5 2.5 0 0 1 2.4 Other 386 2.5 965.0 0 0 386 2.38 PM 0 0 1 660 0 "0 2.4 T,-246 10,577.5 499 TABLE E-5 CITY OF CARPINTERIA BUILDOUT UNDER THE IAND USE PLAN Household Potential Land Use. Existing Size Additional Potential Potential Designation Units 1975 Population Units Conversions Buildout* 2,180 sq. ft. or more 1,920 2.1 4,032.0 280 603 2,803 3, 5 00 s4. ft. or more 765 2.5 1,912.5 301 49 1,115 7,000 sq. ft. or rmre 1,444 3.2 4,620.8 269 0 1,713 20,000 sq. ft. or more 11 2.7 29.7 .1 0 AG 2 2.5 5.0' 3 0 5 m Other 110 2.6 286.0 0 0 110 Planned Development 0 0. 433 0 433 41,252 10,886.0 1,287 652 6,191 *Potential build-out existing units + potential additionalunits; potential cmversions., TABLE E-6 SUMMERLAND BUILDOUT UNDER EXISTING ZONING Household Potential Potential H Existing Size Additional Potential Build- Zoning Units 1975 Population Units Conversions Out Within urban limit line: DR-3 69 69 DR-8 - - - 108 108 DR-25 10 2.1 21.0 20 30 7-R-3 38 2.1 79.8 33 43 .114 7-R-1 93 3* 2 297.6 105 - 198 6-R-2 161 2 5 402.5 51 28 240 10-R-1 7 2:9 20' 3 22 - 29 20-R-1 2 2.7 5.4 12 M l-E-1 0 4 4 14 5-E-1 0 1 1 Trailer Park 39 1.7 66.3 0 39 Other 43 2.5 107.5 0 43 Total TIOW-T TIff 7T M7 Rural: DR-8 40 40 'DR-3 69 - .69 20-R-1 2 2.7 5.4 64 - 66 l-E-1 72 2.5 180 423 - 495 5-E-1 9 2.5 22.5 43 - 52 40-AL - - - 1 - 1 Total 83 207.9 4-0 TABLE E-7 SUMMERLAND.-- BUILDOUT UNDER THE LAND USE PLAN Potential Potential Household Existing Additional Potential Build- Size Urban Area: Units Units conversions Out 1990 10,000 sq. ft. 9 93 0 102 2.6 @7,000 sq. ft. 93 75.8 0 168.8 3.0 3,500 sq. ft. 182 301 24 507 2.0 1,450 sq. ft. 48 27 58 133 1.6 Other (Comercial) 61 01 0 61 2.5 m 80 TOTAL Urban 393 496.8 82 971.8 Rural Area: Ag 1 12 .33 45 2'14 Residential Ranchette 19 20 @39 &A 1 unit/I acre 48 70 118 Z.@-4 I unit/3 acres 2 9 11 2,4 20,000 sq. ft. 2 7 9 2,.4 TOTAL Rural 83 139 222 TABLE E-8 MONTECITO BUILDOUT UNDER EXISTING ZONING Existing Household Potential Potential Household Units Size Additional Build- Size Zoning 1975 1975 Population. Units Out 1990 DR-1 2 212 2il 445.2 262 474 2.0 6-R-12 316 1.9 600.4 651.7 967.7 1.8 20-R-1 438 2.7 1,182.6 176 614 2.4 1 -;-E-1 100 2.5 250 204 304 21.4 @PRV 50 2.7 135 58 108 2.4 1,116 2,613.2 1,351.7 29467.7 TABLE E-9; MONTECITO BUILDOUT UNDER THE LAND.USE PLAN Land,Use 3,500:sq. ft. 55Z 431 983 2.0. 7-,000.sq. ft. 15 07 1112 ZA 20,000 sq. ft. 455 116 57jr 2,* 4 1 unit/l acre 92 1781, 270 2A 1 u,ni,t/3 acres 0 5-r 5 2A AM (5) 1 6. 7, 12.4 REC O@ O@ 0 SCHOOL 11 0- 1 2-.4 PO 0. 40. 40 2.4 I non 1,116 873 TABLE E-10 @GOLETA -- BUILDOUT UNDER EXISTING ZONING (EXCLUDIE ISLA-VISTA AND UCSB) Household Potential Househo Existing Size Additional Potential Potential Size Zoraxig Units' 1975 Population Units Conversions Build6ut, .1990 6-R-1 0 2.9 0 308 308 2.6 7-R-1 439 3.8 1,668.2 394 833 3.4 10-R-1 205 3.6 738 47 252 3.2 20-R-1 .86 3.4 292.4 224 310 3.2 1.5-EX-1 114 3.2 364.8 89 203 3.0 2.5-EX-1 31 3.2 99.2 14 45 3.0 3.5-EX-1 36 3.2 115.2 29 65 3.0 DR-2 7 3.4 23.8 592 5 604 3.2 DR-10 129 2.9. 374.1 1,680 1,809 2.6 7-R-3 418 2.9 1,212.2 160 578 2.6 40-AL 1 3.2 3.2 1 2 3* 0 A-1-X 1 3.2 -3.2 89 90 2.0 Other 234 3.1 725.4 0 234 2.9 1,701 5,619.7 3,627 5 5,333 TABLE E-1 1 GOLETA BUILDOUT UNDER THE LAND USE PLAN (EXCLUDING ISLA VISTA AND UCSB) Existing Household Potential Potential Household Units Size Additional Build- S,ize Land -Use 1975 1975 Population. Un'its Out 1990 1,450 sq. ft. 577 2.1 1,211.7 226 - 803 1.8 3,500 sq. ft. 258 2.9 748.2 769 1,027 2.6 sq. ft. 439 3.8 1,.668.2 342 781 3.4 20,000 sq. ft. 86 3.4 292.4 70 156 3.2 rn ac. or more 149, 3.2 476.8 2313 382 3.0. 3 ac. or more 36, 3.2 115.2 26 62 3..'0 PD 0 0 Oi 1 00* 1,100 3.2 AG@ 5@ 20 3.2 64 12 32 3 0 AG 1.0 4, 3.2 12,8 12 16 3:.0 Other 138 3.1 427..8 0 1-3& [email protected] 1,707 5,017-. 1 2,790 4,497, *Includes 300 potential units on More Mesa, 300 units on Santa@Barbara Shores, a,nd 500.units f West D.ev'ereux property. TAME E-12 ISLA VISTA BUILD-OUT UNDER EXISTING ZONING Household Potential Existing Size Additional Potential Potential Zoning Units 1975_ Population Units Conversions' Buildout 10-R-1 92 3.6 331.2 123 0 215 SR-2-D 1,,458 2.9 4,228.2 633 236 2,327 SR-4-D 3.,720 2.1 7,812.0 769 611 5,100 Other 156 3.1 483.6 0 156 Totals 5,426 12,855.0 1,525 847 7,198 -13 TABLE.E ISLA VISTA'-- BUILDOUT UNDER THE LAND USE'PLAN Land Use 1,450 sq.ft. 1,587 493 270 2,180 sq.ft. 3,375 327 101 3,803 3,500 sq.ft. 165 100 17 282 7,000 sq.ft. 0 4 0 4 10,000 sq.ft. 99 135 0 234 Other 200 0 0 200 Totals 5,426 1,059 388 6,873 TABLE E-14 GAVIOTA COAST BUILDOUT UNDER EXISTING ZONING Existing Household 'Potential Units size Additional Zoning 1975 1975 Population Units 8-R-1 3.2 0 101 10-R-1 4 3.2 12.8 954" 30.-R-1 0 3.21 0 45 l-E-1 .34 3.2 .108.8 4Z U (Ag) 96 3.2 @307.2 398; rn 100 AL (Ag) 1.4 3.2 44.8 i9 1.48 473.6 1,559 TABLE E-15 .GAVIOTA COAST BUILDOUT UNDER THE LAND USE PLAN I Land Use 1 unit/acre 34 3.2 108.8 24' Rural Residential 46 3.2 147.2 36 A-II-100 15- 3.2 48.0 45 A-II-320 10 3.2 32.0 10 Other 43 3.2 137.6 0 148 473.6 11.5 TABLE E-16 NORTH COAST BUILDOUT VNDER EXISTING ZONING Potential Poten Existing Additional Bui Zoning -Unit's. Units Ou 100 AL (Ag) 374 40 40 AG 0 18 U (Ag) 1 491 49 35 883 91 rn TABLE E-17 NORTH COAST BUILDOUT UNDER THE LAND USE PLAN Land Use Ag-II-100 4 18 2 Ag-II-320 35 .239 27 Other 0 40 257 29 3 6668 14109 1555