Chapter 1 - Caltrans - State of California

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan, 1980 Please refer to the discussion in Section 2.1.1. Existing and Future Land Use City of Carpinteria General Plan, 2003 Please refer to the discussion in Section 2.1.1. Existing and Future Land Use Environmental Consequences NO BUILD Alternative Under the NO BUILD Alternative, existing conditions would remain which would be inconsistent with existing transportation plans which call for the improvement of U.S. 101. Existing congestion along U.S. 101 would not be alleviated, projected growth in the area would not be accommodated, and safety would not be improved along the roadway with implementation of the NO BUILD alternative. This alternatives would be inconsistent with existing transportation plans which call for the widening of U.S. 101. BUILD Alternatives Implementation of the proposed project would occur within existing right-of-way MINIMUM BUILD, with only minimal, additional right-of-way acquired for the FULL BUILD alternative. No changes to existing or proposed land uses would occur as a result of the proposed project. The transportation plans outlined above, including the 2007 Federal Transportation Improvement Program, South Coast Highway 101 Deficiency Plan, 101 In Motion Final Report, STIP, SBCAG MTP, RTIP for Santa Barbara County, and SCAG RTP specify the need for and support improvement to U.S. 101. Specifically, widening of U.S. 101 to six lanes is included within each plan. The proposed project would widen the portion of U.S. 101 within the project area to six lanes, consistent with the transportation plans. The Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan and City of Carpinteria General Plan do not include specific policies relating to U.S. 101 within their plans; however, the project would not conflict with any general policies relating to land use. No changes to existing or proposed land uses would occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the Santa Barbara County Comprehensive Plan or City of Carpinteria General Plan. In contrast, the Ventura County General Plan includes widening of U.S. 101 up to six lanes. The proposed project would widen the portion of U.S. 101 within the project area to six lanes, consistent with the Ventura County General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with the Ventura County General Plan. 30 IS/EA VEN-SB US101 HOV Project
Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation Measures A Coastal Development Permit would be required for the proposed project improvements. No additional regional impacts or community level impacts are anticipated. Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures Because none of the proposed BUILD alternatives would conflict with local land use plans, no avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required. 2.1.3 Coastal Zone Regulatory Setting The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) is the primary federal law enacted to preserve and protect coastal resources. The CZMA sets up a program under which coastal states are encouraged to develop coastal management programs. States with an approved coastal management plan are able to review federal permits and activities to determine if they are consistent with the state’s management plan. California has developed a coastal zone management plan and has enacted its own law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, to protect the coastline. The policies established by the California Coastal Act are similar to those for the CZMA; they include the protection and expansion of public access and recreation, the protection, enhancement and restoration of environmentally sensitive areas, protection of agricultural lands, the protection of scenic beauty, and the protection of property and life from coastal hazards. The California Coastal Commission is responsible for implementation and oversight under the California Coastal Act. Just as the federal CZMA delegates power to coastal states to develop their own coastal management plans, the California Coastal Act delegates power to local governments (15 coastal counties and 58 cities) to enact their own local coastal programs (LCPs). LCPs determine the short- and long-term use of coastal resources in their jurisdiction consistent with the California Coastal Act goals. A federal consistency determination may be needed as well. Santa Barbara County Coastal Plan, 1981 Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30500 of the California Coastal Act of 1976, Santa Barbara County is required to prepare a local coastal program for the portion of the unincorporated area of the County within the Coastal Zone. As part of the local coastal program, the Santa Barbara County Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) is a separate element of the County’s Comprehensive Plan. The purpose of the Land Use Plan is to protect IS/EA VEN-SB US101 HOV Project 31
Page 1 and 2: VENTURA / SANTA BARBARA 101 HOV PRO
Page 4 and 5: VEN-SB US101 HOV Project IS/EA ❖
Page 6 and 7: ❖ iv VEN-SB US101 HOV Project IS/
Page 9 and 10: List of Figures List of Figures Fig
Page 11 and 12: Chapter 1Proposed Project 1.1 Intro
Page 13 and 14: Chapter 1 Proposed Project Backgrou
Page 15 and 16: Chapter 1 Proposed Project between
Page 17 and 18: Chapter 1 Proposed Project on a bas
Page 19 and 20: Chapter 1 Proposed Project For Vent
Page 21 and 22: Chapter 1 Proposed Project South Co
Page 23 and 24: Chapter 1 Proposed Project • Inst
Page 25 and 26: Source: The Department 2008 Chapter
Page 27 and 28: Chapter 1 Proposed Project 1.2.7 Pe
Page 29 and 30: Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Env
Page 33 and 34: IS/EA VEN-SB US101 HOV Project 23 C
Page 35 and 36: IS/EA VEN-SB US101 HOV Project 25 C
Page 39: Chapter 2 Affected Environment, Env
Page 51 and 52: 2.1.6 Farmlands Chapter 2 Affected
Page 55 and 56: Total Population Race White Black o
Page 61 and 62: Housing Units Owner Occupied Renter
Page 73 and 74: Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination
Page 91 and 92:
Chapter 3 Comments and Coordination
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Bikeway Chapter 3 Comments and Coor
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
• Provide hardscape decorative de
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
To comply, the following must be an
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
• Soil stabilization Practices
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
2.2.6 Air Quality Chapter 3 Comment
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Receiver Site #A Site #A1 Site #A2
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Table 2.4-1 Cumulative Projects and
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Chapter 4 List of Preparers Chapter
Page 215 and 216:
Chapter 5 Distribution List Elected
Page 217 and 218:
California Native Plant Society 909
Page 219 and 220:
Community Based Organizations Ventu
Page 221 and 222:
Richard Zavala Rincon Island/ Greka
Page 223 and 224:
Evan E Skei Resident 6770 Ojai Ave.
Page 225 and 226:
Mary C & James Cox Resident 7062 Ox
Page 227 and 228:
Virginia Cotsis Resident 6820 Santa
Page 229 and 230:
Doug and Jaleh White 8128 Puesta De
Page 231 and 232:
Harry Van Wingerden 3902 Via Real C
Page 233 and 234:
Thomas J. McGillis, M.D. 5206 Beckf
Page 235 and 236:
Appendix A CEQA Checklist Appendix
Page 237 and 238:
) Violate any air quality standard
Page 239 and 240:
Potentially significant impact Less
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Please refer to section e) 12. POPU
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Appendix B Traffic Flow Charts Exis
Page 249 and 250:
2015 Build Appendix B Traffic Flow
Page 251 and 252:
2035 Build Appendix B Traffic Flow
Page 253 and 254:
Appendix C Title VI Policy Statemen
Page 255 and 256:
Appendix D Glossary and Abbreviated
Page 257 and 258:
Appendix E Minimization and/or Miti
Page 259 and 260:
Impact Avoidance or Minimization Me
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Appendix F Noise Aerial Maps and Ta
Page 271 and 272:
20-Minute Noise Measurement Locatio
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
IS/EA VEN-SB US101 HOV Project 265
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Table B Predicted Noise Reduction F
Page 283 and 284:
Appendix G Letter to the State Hist
Page 285:
IS/EA VEN-SB US101 HOV Project 275
show all

Chapter 1 - Caltrans - State of California

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?