City Council approves steep slope Project

BY

The Carpinteria City Council ruled 3-1 to pursue alternative three – an altered version of the proposed Rincon MultiUse Trail project that sparked controversy for impacts to paragliding and safety concerns – during a special meeting on Monday.

The Rincon Multi-Use Trail Project was originally conceived as a solution to the current gap between the Pacific Coast Bikeway and the Carpinteria bluffs in the California Coastal Trail. The project gained controversy, however, following the County Planning Commission’s Jan. 18, 2022 approval of the project’s environmental impact report and Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit.

The completion of this project is mandatory for the city of Carpinteria to be in accordance with its Coastal Land Use Plan and the conditions of approval for the Caltrans Casitas Pass and Linden Avenue project.

The original environmental impact report outlined four alternatives for the project to take, and said that the third option, the “steeper slopes / reduced earthwork alternative,” – has the least significant environmental impact.

Three appellants – Karl Cameron, Helen O’Neill and the Santa Barbara Soaring Association represented by Stan Barankiewicz of Orbach Huff & Henderson LLP – disagreed with the certification of the report, and more specifically, disagreed that the third alternative was the environmentally superior alternative.

The appellants presented their qualms during the March 28, 2022 meeting of the Carpinteria City Council, and suggested that the project instead adopt the fourth alternative from the environmental impact report: the “freeway adjacent trail avoiding bluff face” alternative which runs parallel to the U.S. Highway 101 freeway. Last March, after hearing the appellants’ objections and those present for public comment, the council voted 4-1 to conditionally grant the appeal and asked staff to assess the feasibility of alternatives two and four — alternative two being the “maximize existing benchwork / topography” option.

The May 15 meeting began with a staff report updating the council on the project’s community engagement efforts with stakeholders and the staff’s research on potential alternative options for the project.

The project team met with project stakeholders, including the project appellants, six times since the March 2022 meeting, according to Principal Planner of Community Development Nick Bobroff.

“(The meetings) ultimately allowed all parties to better understand some of the constraints and challenges of the different alternatives as well as hear out each other’s concerns and interests in this project,” Bobroff said.

Though these meetings lead to an additional six alternatives with a total of 10 for the project to pursue, the meetings ultimately failed to facilitate the selection of an alternative that satisfied the requirements of all parties involved in the stakeholder meetings.

The staff report found that alternative two was not an advisable option for the project, citing safety hazards, projected lack of ADA compliance, geological in-