From: kitnjon <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2022 3:28 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Subject: April 5, 2022, Agenda Item C1: Historic Preservation and Archeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Ordinance - corrected version
April 4, 2022
Mayor Perotte and Councilmembers,
After considerable research on topics related to the proposed ordinance, I ask you to consider entirely eliminating non-project activities and ministerial developments from the ordinance because of the issues raised in the following discussion unless there is federal or state legislation that compels you to include them.
Alternatively, if you prefer not to take that step, then please(1) ensure that the provisions of the Zoning Code match those of the proposed Historic Preservation and Archeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Ordinance before adoption of the latter, (2) provide a pure exemption for emergency situations on individual properties as is available to the city, other public agencies, and utilities; and (3) ask staff to develop a list of documentary evidence that can substitute for the grading plans and as-built plans referenced in Section 17.43.929(A)3.
(1) The additional exemptions listed in Section 17.43.020(A) are informative; but, once again, they are conditional exemptions. The activities or developments described are exempt “unless [the] development is determined to be subject to 17.43.020(B).” Once again, a property owner cannot proceed with an exempt activity or development without first checking with the city to see if the proposed ac tivity is “located within a documented archaeological site and/or Tribal Cultural Resource.” There may or may not be a charge from the city for this step in the process, but it is an additional step and one that a layperson would not expect. The same is true for the exemptions described in 17.43.020(A)(2) and 17.43.020(A)(3).
A person has to read the statute very carefully to realize that there is an overarching condition that must be satisfied before an exemption applies.
If the proposed activity or development is located within a documented archaeological site and/or Tribal Cultural Resource, the property owner will have to pay for at least a Preliminary Archaeological Assessment with a records search. Depending on the size of a person’s project as wel l as income, even the low estimate of $550 for this report could be significant. Additional reports that might be required would impose a heavy financial burden on a property owner on a limited budget, and it is not clear that the benefit to the city from imposing such requirements is proportionate to that burden.
The information in Table 2 (Ministerial Permits Involving Earth Disturbance Between Jan. 2020 - Dec. 2021) covers only earth disturbance in conjunction with a project requiring a ministerial per mit. Under the current Zoning Code, fences up to 8 feet are exempt from the permit process, depending on their location on a property. Thus, earth disturbance for digging fence posts is not reflected in those numbers. Nor is earth disturbance in conjunction with any other activity that might be exempt under the Zoning Code reflected in those numbers. But a strict reading of the proposed Historic Preservation and Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Ordinance covers such disturbances, so that propert y owners who have engaged in those activities without cost are suddenly faced with the possibility of significant expense.
(2) It is ironic that the new ordinance will not allow an exemption for tree planting, because Goleta historically has celebrated Arbor Day, Arbor Week, and its designation as a Tree City USA. During these celebrations, the city has encouraged its residents to celebrate Arbor Day by planting and maintaining trees to promote the well-being of this and future generations. Adding a minimum potential cost of $550 to the cost of planting a tree is counterintuitive to achieving this goal. (In fact, depending on the tree, the cost of the study is more than the cost of a tree.) The necessity of conducting a Preliminary Archeological Assessment for the planting of one or two trees is unlikely to occur to a layperson. Further, it is doubtful that a layperson would ever equate planting a tree or two, building a fence, or uprooting and replacing the landscaping with the word development. As used in the proposed ordinance, development is a term of art, not an ordinary English word.
(3) Language should be added to the ordinance, exempting emergency excavations on private properties from the ordinance. A household ought to be able to proceed with dig ging to repair a ruptured water, sewer or gas line without consulting an archeologist. It’s doubtful that archeologists, unlike plumbers, are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
(4) I do not understand the insertion of language in the new staff report about an exemption “under Section 17.43.020(A)(1)” preceding the text of Section 17.43.929(A)3, but the core text of Section
17.43.929(A)3 seems to exempt completely any property—even one within a documented site or tribal resource—as long as a property owner can submit as-built plans, previous grading plans, or other documentary evidence of previous earth disturbance affecting depths equal to or greater than the development being considered.
Unfortunately, as-built plans and grading plans are not normally in the hands of the property owner who buys a finished house. They are in the keeping of the developer, the project engineer, or the original owner of the tract being developed. Copies may have originally been filed with the County of Santa Barbara prior to the incorporation of the City of Goleta, but according to city staff the county routinely destroyed residential building plans once the property was developed until the local architects started the Architectural Archives. So, although county staff indicates that all planning documents were turned over to the city upon incorporation, the city may not possess these documents
This leaves the property owner in an older development with the task of tracking down the original owners, the original developer, the project engineer, or their successors in interest: a sure challenge after 60 or 70 years. Since your December 7, 2021, meeting, I have contacted both the American Institute of Architects – Santa Barbara Archives and Stantec, which acquired Penfield and Smith, the engineering firm that prepared grading plans for many, if not most, of the subdivisions in Goleta. The Archives had no grading plan available for my tract, and Stantec informed me that Penfield and Smith routinely purged files after 10 or 15 years. Thus, even if that firm had prepared grading plans for the Kellogg Park development, they can no longer furnish them.
Section 17.43.929(A)3 of the ordinance does allow for the submission of other documentary evidence, but leaves open what that evidence might be. I did find an article in the Santa Barbara News-Press, November 4, 1956, quoting the developer that the first work on the Kellogg Park Tract would be “completion of grading and soil compaction.” So there is documentary evidence that ear th disturbance did occur before our homes were built, although the article says nothing about the depth of such grading . The city should both search its records thoroughly for any grading plans or as-built plans that may have been passed on by the county and compile a list of examples of acceptable documentary evidence other than grading plans or as-built plans prior to passage of the ordinance. Property owners should be able to obtain this information at the time the ordinance becomes effective.
(5) When addressing the issue of earth disturbance or the disturbance of native soils, the proposed ordinance ignores the agricultural past of our Goleta subdivisions: They were developed as farmland long before they were developed for housing. The soil was disturbed long before the bulldozers arrived to grade and compact the soil, and by the twentieth century mechanized plows and ditchers were in use. In the case of row crops, the last season’s crops would have been uprooted and removed or plowed under before each season's planting. The walnut, lemon, and orange trees would have remained rooted from season to season; but before housing sprung up, the trees would have been extirpated and cleared. Such practices would have involved much displacement of native soils, although the depth would vary depending on the crop. Why is the stress solely on grading and compaction during housing construction?
(6) Section 17.43.030(A)(2) states that a “Phase 1 Report shall be required when the proposed earth disturbing area is located within an area that is not paved, developed, or is not located in an ornamental landscaped area. This applies "even if the earth surface has sustained previous disturbances from grading, vegetation clearance, or other modifications." The reference to grading should be deleted or the language should be clarified. Proof of grading is reason for an exemption under 17.43.929(A)3. Letting earth lie unpaved, undeveloped, or unlandscaped once it has been graded does not render it undisturbed, native soil again.
Thank you for taking the time to consider my comments.
Kitty Bednar
5701 Gato Avenue
Todd A. Amspoker
Kristen M. R. Blabey
Shannon D. Boyd
Timothy M. Cary
Melissa J. Fassett
Ian M. Fisher
Arthur R. Gaudi
Cameron Goodman
Christopher E. Haskell
James H. Hurley, Jr.
Eric P. Hvolbøll
Mark S. Manion
Steven K. McGuire
Our File Number:
8998-00059
Counsellors at Law
200 East Carrillo Street, Suite 400
Santa Barbara, CA 93101-2190
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 99
Santa Barbara, CA 93102-0099
www.ppplaw.com
Ph (805) 962-0011 Fax (805) 965-3978
E-mail: [email protected]
Timothy E. Metzinger
Shereef Moharram
Craig A. Parton
Kenneth J. Pontifex
Hana Princip
Paul A. Roberts
Douglas D. Rossi
Peter D. Slaughter
Jeremy D. Stone
David W. Van Horne
C.E. Chip Wullbrandt
Ryan D. Zick
CAMERON PARK OFFICE
3330 Cameron Park Drive, Suite 100
Cameron Park, CA 95682-7652
Ph (805) 962-0011
Fax (805) 965-3978
April 5, 2022
VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Mayor Paula Perotte
City of Goleta
[email protected]
Councilmember James Kyriaco
[email protected]
Councilmember Roger S. Aceves
[email protected]
Councilmember Stuart Kasdin
[email protected]
Councilmember Kyle Richards
[email protected]
Re:
Historic Preservation and Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance
Dear Madam Mayor and Councilmembers:
As you know, this firm represents the University Exchange Corporation (“UEC”), the owner of the Corona Del Mar/Bishop Ranch (APN 077-020-045) (“Bishop Ranch”). Despite the passage of over three (3) months since the City of Goleta (“City”) considered the Historic Preservation and Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), nothing has changed as it relates to the Bishop Ranch. The City has no factual basis to designate the Bishop Ranch, objects on the Bishop Ranch or any portion of the Bishop ranch as a Historic Landmark.
During the December 7, 2021 City Council meeting regarding the Ordinance, City staff made it abundantly clear that the Bishop Ranch is not viewable from the public right of way and that staff has not conducted a site visit. Presumably in light of these facts, City staff
April 5, 2022
recommended removing the Bishop Ranch from the designation list and placing the property on the inventory/study list. It appears that the City has ignored this recommendation.
After the December 7, 2021 meeting, Ms. Lisa Prasse contacted Ag. Land Services, the entity that manages agricultural operations at the Bishop Ranch, regarding a site visit. Knowing that UEC was represented by this office, we do not understand why the request for a site visit was made to UEC’s property manager rather than to us. Nonetheless, at the beginning of March, our office contacted Ms. Prasse regarding a meeting to discuss the Ordinance. On March 8, 2022, we met with Mr. Peter Imhoff and Ms. Prasse. During the meeting neither Ms. Prasse nor Mr.
Imhoff requested a site visit. During the meeting, Ms. Prasse did volunteer that the City’s consultants determined what properties to designate as Historic Landmarks under the Ordinance by reviewing historical documents and driving every street in the City in part to determine the accuracy of the information contained in the historical documents. Despite this March 8, 2022 meeting, the April 5, 2022 staff report states that, since Ms. Prasse’s initial attempt to contact UEC’s property manager, the City has not received any further communications fr om UEC’s representatives.
The fact remains that the City seeks to designate the entire Bishop Ranch as a Historic Landmark solely based on its review of unverified historical records and because the County of Santa Barbara (“County”) designated the one-story bungalow, adjacent sandstone ar bor, the Red Gum tree northeast of the dwelling, and surrounding specimen trees (the “Previously Designated Objects”) as Places of Historic Merit in or about 1993. Without conducting its own investigation, in part to confirm the accuracy of the historical documents, the City’s justification for elevating the status of the Previously Designated Objects and designating the entire Bishop Ranch as a Historic Landmark is essentially the following: “The County of Santa Barbara designated the Previously Designated Objects as Places of Historic Merit so the City can designate the entire Bishop Ranch as Historic Landmark.” This justification is flawed.
First, as Councilmember James Kyriaco correctly pointed out on December 7, 2021, the County did not designate the entire Bishop Ranch as a Place of Historic Merit or Historic Landmark. Instead, the County’s determination in 1993 was limited to designating the Previously Designated Objects as Places of Historic Merit.
Moreover, it is entirely unclear what historical records the City and its agents reviewed in deciding that the entire Bishop Ranch, rather than only the Previously Designated Objects, should be designated as a Historic Landmark. At a minimum, the City should specifically identify each historical document on which it has relied and make such documents available for the public to examine. The public or UEC may be able to help verify the accuracy of said historical documents. The consultants could not have confirmed the accuracy of such historical documents by driving the City’s streets because the Bishop Ranch cannot be seen from public
April 5, 2022
streets and, to date, no City representative has physically inspected or surveyed the Bishop Ranch.
The lack of evidentiary support for the City’s proposed action further demonstrates that the City has not followed the proper process to designate the entire Bishop Ranch as a Historic Landmark. City staff is attempting to justify burdening the Bishop Ranch with additional layers of regulations by reasoning that the property is already highly regulated. Such a j ustification, however, does not support the City action or override the City’s failure to carry out an investigation before designating a parcel as a Historic Landmark We anticipate City staff will minimize the burdens imposed by the Ordinance by pointing to exemptions to the Ordinance, such as the exemption for earth moving activities that disturb four (4) cubic feet of native soil or less. Simply, this exemption is not suitable for a large-scale agricultural property. UEC may displace more than four (4) cubic feet of soil simply by carrying out required fire protection practices.
We urge the City to remove the Bishop Ranch from its initial designation list at this time.
As discussed above, further investigation is necessary before the City can burden the entire Bishop Ranch with additional maintenance and development restrictions. Should the City opt to designate the entire Bishop Ranch or the Previously Designated Objects as Historic Landmarks, we intend to take all actions necessary to block such action.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
C.E. Chip Wullbrandt
for PRICE, POSTEL & PARMA LLP
CC: UEC; Dawn Christensen, City Executive Assistant ([email protected]) April 5, 2022
From: Fermina B. Murray
442 Danbury Court
Goleta, CA 93117
To: Goleta City Mayor and Council Members
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117
Subject: Historic Preservation and Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Ordinance
Dear Mayor Paula Perotte and Council Members:
I want to thank you, the Planning Commission, Staff, and the HRG Consultants for almost six years of shaping the City’s first preservation Ordinance. I am pleased to see that the Staff took time to address all your questions from last December’s meeting. As a local historian volunteer in the project in its early stages, and remaining an active citizen-participant of the Ordinance, I believe there are three historic items of particular worth to the City that have by now received sufficient consideration so that they are ready for immediate approval within the Ordinance. I urge you to please approve the following historic resources promptly, without further delay:
1. Bishop Ranch as a Goleta City Landmark
The important history of this ranch is well covered in goletahistory.com by Tom Modugno, dated, October 19, 2014. As is well known, the 1869 Hollister House along with about twenty farm buildings were discreetly bulldozed to demolition in 1992, shortly after the University Exchange Corporation bought the property. The County Landmarks Advisory Committee, preservationists, and citizens were horrified by the sudden demolition, especially since most of the buildings were on a Santa Barbara County List for landmark status. In fact, the County Landmarks Committee (HLAC) had requested that the new owner do a study of the historical buildings to assess their historical significance. The owners did not respond to the County’s request; they instead carried out the demolition.
In 1993 the remaining house and its surrounding yard were documented as a “Place of Merit” by the County Historic Advisory Committee. The remaining house and historic resources, identified by Staff on pages 60-62 of the Ordinance resolution before you, must be designated as a City of Goleta Landmark and be included in the list with other landmarks.
2. 290/295 Ellwood Canyon Road: include the following historic buildings in the Historic Resources Inventory.
Barn (constructed prior to 1928).
Single-family residence (constructed ca. 1920).
2 Metal outbuilding (constructed prior to 1928).
Metal outbuilding (constructed c. 1995).
Metal outbuilding (constructed prior to 1938).
Metal outbuilding (constructed c. 1955); and
Metal outbuilding (constructed c. 1955); and
As the Staff Report shows, like the Bishop Ranch, the Ellwood Ranch has an important and lengthy history. The buildings remaining today are surviving historic resources from the time the Doty family owned and operated the ranch. The late John and Arlene Doty were founding members and long time supporters of the Goleta Valley Historical Society and Goleta community at large. Most of the buildings under discussion were built by the Doty family. Page 178 of the Context Statement has a picture of 290 Ellwood Canyon Road showing some of these buildings as examples of “Agricultural Vernacular” structures. Except for the one built in 1995, the buildings are over 50 years of age and eligible to be included in the Historic Resources Inventory.
Also contained on the Ellwood property is a 134-year-old lemon-scented gum tree, known as the “Ellwood Queen.” This tree was planted by Ellwood Cooper in 1887, and deserves protection.
3. St. Raphael Church and Classroom buildings at 5444 Hollister Avenue
Approve the Staff’s recommendation to include St. Raphael Church and Classroom buildings in the Historic Resources Inventory. They are indeed good examples of Mid-century modern Ecclesiastical architecture. Although the Church has asked that these buildings not be included in the Historic Resources Inventory, the City has the power to protect the historic interests of the entire City of Goleta, and to include these resources in its Historic Resources Inventory without the owners’ consent.
Thank you,
Fermina B. Murray
Historian
cc: Lisa Prasse, Current Planning Manager
Peter Imhof, Planning and Environmental Review Director The Goodland Coalition
Ronald L. Nye
From: Wendy Teeter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2022 12:13 PM
To: Lisa Prasse <[email protected]>
Cc: Kim Dominguez <[email protected]>; Sam Cohen <[email protected]>; Nakia Zavalla <[email protected]>; Kelsie Shroll <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Historic Preservation and Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources Ordinance
Hi Lisa,
I will make the meeting online. I wanted to make sure that the latest version ensures that only tribal representatives determine Tribal Cultural Resources.
I know we discussed and made the change in 17.43.040, but in 17.43.030 part A and B there is no explicit consideration that a Chumash tribal representative must be consulted to determine if there are tribal cultural resources.
Perhaps it is an easy fix of :
1. A PAA shall be required when the proposed earth disturbing area is located within a paved, developed, or ornamental landscaped area.
a. If the PAA reveals that the proposed disturbance area does not contain a documented Archaeological resource and the proposed area where earth disturbing activities are proposed has little or no potential to contain subsurface Archaeological Resources as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and no Tribal Cultural Resources have been identified by Chumash Tribal representatives, no further review is necessary, and the development is subject to the permit outlined in subsection 17.43.030(B)(1).
b. If the PAA reveals that the proposed area where earth disturbing activities are proposed contains or potenti ally contains Archaeological Resources as determined by the Qualified Archaeologist and/or Tribal Cultural Resources as identified by Chumash Tribal representatives, then the development shall be subject to the requirements outlined in subsections 17.43.030(A)(3) and (B)(2).
3. An Extended Phase 1 Report shall be required, if it is determined in the judgment of Qualified Archaeologist when preparing a PAA or Phase 1 report and after consulting with Chumash Tribal Representatives, that Archaeological and/or T ribal Cultural Resources could be present. A local Chumash monitor shall be invited to observe the Extended Phase 1 field work at the applicant’s expense. a. If the Extended Phase 1 report reveals that the proposed earth disturbance area does not contain a d ocumented Archaeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resource and the proposed earth disturbance area has little or no potential to contain subsurface Archaeological and/or Tribal Cultural Resources, no further review is necessary, and the development is subjec t to the permit outlined in subsection
17.43.030(B)(1).
B. For development that is subject to the Minor CUP requirement of subsection
17.43.030(B)(2), on-site monitoring by a qualified Archaeological Monitor and Chumash Tribal Monitor shall be r equired for all grading, excavation, and site preparation that involves earth disturbing activity.
Native American Consultant/Monitor. A person who has been designated or authorized by a Chumash Tribe (as provided by the Native American Heritage Commissio n SB18 list) to monitor construction activities and to serve as an on-site representative of the Tribe; has been trained to work around construction equipment; and has been trained to recognize potential Tribal Cultural Resources.
Phase 1 Report. A study prepared by Qualified Archaeologist, that consists of an analysis of the property’s potential for surface and buried Archaeological and Tribal Cultural resources and identification of the location, boundaries, and extent of any cultural resources located on the property, and a review of all of the following for the subject parcel and surrounding area:
(1) city -wide archaeological sensitivity map; (2) environmental factors including geology; geomorphology; ecotones; water sources; availability and types of potentially exploited or used resources; and potential for caves, rock shelters, and mountain peaks; and (3) aerial photographs and historic maps to determine presence of other potential factors affecting the presence or absence of either a prehistoric or historical site (e.g., parcel is in a river bottom).
Phase 1 Report requires a search for registered Sacred Lands with the California Native American Heritage Commission and contacting related California Native American Tribes as provided by the California Native American Heritage staff to identify Tribal Cultural Resources and consult on the proposed project for inclusion in the report. A Phase 1 Report requires a records search with the appropriate IC for Santa Barbara County to identify documented Archaeological Resources and previous studies in and near the project site and requires on- site examination of the property by the Archaeologist, including a surface survey on foot.
Phase 1 Report, Extended. A report that includes all of the components of a Phase 1 Report, along with excavation of limited shovel test pits or other subsurface survey, as determined necessary by the Qualified Archaeologist for a complete analysis of the property to contain buried archaeological resources.
Preliminary Archaeological Assessment. A site -specific report prepared by a qualified Archaeologist to assess the potential for the project area to contain Archaeological and Tribal Cultural resources and will determine the necessity for a Phase 1 Report. It requires a search for registered Sacred Lands with the California Native American Heritage Commission and contacting related California Native American Tribes as provided by the California Native American Heritage staff to identify Tribal Cultural Resources and consult on the pr oposed project for inclusion in the PAA. The assessment includes a review of all of the following for subject parcel and surrounding area: (1) prior archaeological survey(s) and reports; (2) resources listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and/or the CRHR; (3) known archaeological site(s) including distance to subject parcel, nature, and type; (4) city -wide archaeological sensitivity map; (5) environmental factors including geology; geomorphology; ecotones; water sourc es; availability and types of potentially exploited or used resources; and potential for caves, rock shelters, and mountain peaks; (6) known and potential historical resources including distance to subject parcel; nature; location relative to historical to wn core and historical transportation routes, including rail, road, and trails; potential for privies based on date of sewer line installation; and locations of structures and infrastructure assessed by inspection of historical map; and (7) aerial photographs and historic maps to determine presence of other potential factors affecting the presence or absence of either a prehistoric or historical site (e.g., parcel is in a river bottom).
I’m still thinking about number 34.
Sorry for the delay and happy to speak as well. I’ve been slammed as I know you have been.
Best wishes,
Wendy
Wendy Giddens Teeter, PhD, RPA
Cultural Resources Archaeologist | Elders’ Council and Culture Department Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians
[email protected]
cell: 805-325-8630 work: 805-303-7509
April 5, 2022
Subject: Public Comment on the Continued Public Hearing on the proposed Historic Preservation and Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance Case Number 16-092-OA
City of Goleta City Council
Hearing Date: April 5, 2022
Agenda Item: C.1
Dear Mayor Perotte, Mayor Pro Tempore Kyriaco, Councilmember Aceves, Councilmember Kasdin, and Councilmember Richards:
I am writing to provide comments on the subject Ordinance for your consideration. In general, the proposed ordinance (as revised), and the accompanying information in the Staff Report, are an improvement over what was presented in December 2021. With that said, additional refinements and analysis are still needed. Additionally, improved public outreach is necessary to ensure an important ordinance such as this is based on a robust public comment process that encourages meaningful input.
Accordingly, and as detailed further below, I request that you direct staff as follows:
A. Provide additional analysis of the anticipated cost to both the City and Residents.
B. Provide analysis (or characterization of) the grading plans available to the public.
C. Grading Plans held at AIA Santa Barbara’s Architectural Archives must be reviewed.
D. Work with local tribes to characterize the benefit of the proposed regulations and identify areas that are particularly sensitive.
E. A Public Outreach Plan to notify residents, prope rty owners, and businesses (including contractors) of the Ordinance’s requirements must be prepared.
F. The Public Outreach Plan must be adopted concurrently with the proposed ordinance.
Simultaneously, the General Plan must also be amended to require that the Public Outreach Plan be implemented.
G. A metaphorical carrot (e.g., the City will cover the cost of archaeological assessments, studies, and monitoring) must be included in the ordinance to encourage good behavior.
H. A metaphorical stick (e.g., additional enforcement and/or fines) must be included in the ordinance to discourage bad behavior.
I. Provide additional time to allow for robust public input.
J. Additional public notice, including of the potential costs of the proposed Ordinance, must be provided to allow for robust public comment.
K. Planting trees with a depth of disturbance not to exceed 18 inches should be exempted.
L. Revise 17.43.020(A)(3) and (A)(4) For Clarity
M. Analyze the potential cost (i.e., impact to archaeological resources) and benefit (e.g., reduced cost to residents, businesses, property owners, and City Staff) of exempting all activities and development listed in Section 17.53.020, Exempt Development.
N. Correct a Typo in the Historic Context Statement
I continue to be highly supportive of protecting archaeological and tribal cultural resources and appreciate that the revised ordinance language that restricts the City’s exemption to the depth of the existing facility or plant/tree. I also believe the above must be addressed before the ordinance is ultimately adopted, lest we create unnecessary and undue burdens on property owners and residents.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Chris Noddings
City of Goleta Resident
Attachment 1: Detailed Questions, Comments, and Recommendations
A) Provide additional analysis of the anticipated cost to both the City and Residents.
This additional information in the staff report (e.g., Tables 1 and 2) are helpful, but additional information and analysis is necessary. Here are my comments, questions, and concerns:
1. Table 2 is based on the Building Permits that were issued during a nearly two-year period.1 Accordingly, proposed projects that stalled prior to the issuance of a Building Permit or (especially) a Planning Permit are not included.
a. I cannot speak to how many projects stall during the Building Permit approval process. b. In my experience, many projects stall or are cancelled during the Planning Permit approval process because applicants are not aware that their project is infeasible as designed – or will be significantly more expensive – given Title 17 permitting requirements.
Accordingly, the analysis should be based on the number of Planning permit applications received as well as any Building permits that are exempt from Planning permits.
2. No context is given in the Staff Report for how likely it is that a records search will be required.
3. The assumptions seem reasonable, but it may be valuable to also inquire about a depth of disturbance greater than 4 feet (e.g., for a pool).
4. It is not clear how many of the 252 projects identified in Table 2 would require a PAA, Phase 1, or Extended Phase 1 study. It is possible (but unlikely) that all would be exempt from the proposed ordinance; it is also possible that none would be. Additional analysis to provide context and characterize what is likely to be required should be provided.
5. It should be noted that these costs (especially for a relatively simple PAA) exceed the values previously anticipated by Staff.
6. Given the above, the minimum two-year cost to City residents just for PAA studies would be between $0 and $882,000, based on the average cost of $3,500 for a PAA with a Records Search.
Some projects will require a full Phase 1 (average cost of $4,900) and others will require an Extended Phase 1 (average cost of $8,500).
7. Moreover, the above does not include the cost of the permit itself, property owner or staff time to research permit history (e.g., Grading Plans) for a given property, or potential cost of monitoring ground disturbance.
1 Grading permits reported spanned a 23-month period, and swimming pool permits spanned an 18-month period.
Given the above comments, it seems likely that the proposed ordinance would cost City residents millions of dollars within the first several years of adoption. It does not seem to me that the benefits warrant this cost on small, previously-developed residential properties.
B) Provide analysis (or characterization of) the grading plans available to the public.
During the December 2021 hearing, City Staff stated that they had been searching for grading plans and other data that could be used to determine whether a specific proposed project would be exempt from the proposed Ordinance’s requirements. Staff stated that “some” plans had been found and did not elaborate on how many properties this represented, how many properties had been searched for, etc.
Staff indicated that this search effort would continue.
The Staff Report does not comment on the result of the above search effort. This is particularly concerning as it may indicate that these data are not readily available, in which case most property owners would be required to perform a PAA (at a minimum). Staff should characterize the level of search effort to date and the results, as well as prepare a color-coded map of the City showing properties for which Grading Plans have been found in green, properties for which grading plans have been search without success in red, and properties that have not yet been searched in yellow. The map should be made available electronically and at a scale such that individual property owners can review the status of their property.
C) Grading Plans held at AIA Santa Barbara’s Architectural Archives must be reviewed.
Staff informed me that as of February 4, 2022, they had not yet contacted the Architectural Archives regarding whether grading plans are part of the “residential permit set” that the Archives have on file for many single-family developments within the City of Goleta. I was told that this is because such plans “would not be available to the City organization” and that homeowners must contact the Archives directly.
In response, I reminded Staff that, when I was a City of Goleta Planner, I was sent to the Archives when I went to the Archives to try to resolve a long-standing question about the architectural permit status of a specific single-family residence on Scripps Crescent. Furthermore, during the meeting with Mr. Dennis Whelan, Archive Manager, I was informed that the Plans at the archive belong to the City and the Archives is merely holding onto them on the City’s behalf. There was absolutely no issue with me, as staff, reviewing all of the plans for the development in question with Mr. Whelan, similar to how staff can review plans on file electronically, on microfiche, etc. at City Hall. In fact, Mr. Whelan allowed me to take photographs of the plans (which a homeowner normally would never be allowed to do) because it was for use by the City and they are the City's plans.
I concluded my message stating that I did not see why staff could not continue to do the same review now, and that I was under the impression that this is indeed what had been happening since the hearing in December. I did not receive a response from Staff.
Given that the Staff Report is silent on this topic, it seems nothing has changed – an unnecessary delay.
D) Work with local tribes to characterize the benefit of the proposed regulations and identify areas that are particularly sensitive.
It is not clear to me what the likelihood is of finding resources in previously-developed properties.
Given all of the comments above, it is critical that w e have additional, written analysis to better understand the potential benefits of the proposed regulations, as well as having an opp ortunity to increase or decrease regulatory requirements depending on the area in question and past earth - disturbing activities on developed properties.
Recommendations:
Direct staff to c ommence working with tribes to roughly (and confidentially) identify the areas that are deemed sensitive, if tribes are so willing.
Provide written analysis to carefully characterize (without giving out confidential information) what data is available and what is known and or not known about both existing resources and past grading activities. To characterize past disturbance, an analysis of grading plans for a variety of existing development, spanning all zoning designations and decades should be performed (see my comments for the November 8, 2021 Planning Commission hearing for additional details). The analysis should include information on:
o How deep grading was performed under structures, near structures, and at the existing property line.
o Whether any particular developments are more or less likely to have intact resources near the soil surface. If this is the case, recommendations to increase or decrease the regulation’s requirements should be adjusted accordingly. Subsequently, analyze varying options (or levels of protection) that could be adopted.
Characterize the likely outcome, in terms of individual and collective costs (both time and money) and resource protection benefits. Additional, specific recommendations on the cost analysis are provided in my comments for the November 8, 2021 Planning Commission Hearing. Widely advertise the analysis and invite public input on the proposed ordinance. Revise the ordinance to reflect public input and hold a public hearing following broad notification of the hearing.
E) A Public Outreach Plan to notify residents, property owne rs, and businesses (including contractors) of the Ordinance’s requirements must be prepared.
Title 17 of the GMC was adopted approximately two years ago. To date, many residents and property owners are still unaware of its requirements, particularly pertaining to ESHA. Adding the new requirements proposed in this ordinance, without consistently informing the public, will not protect resources and instead will only create headaches and added cost for everyone involved.
For example, Section 17.24.100, Grading and Grubbing, Paragraph (A)(4) requires a Major Conditional Use Permit for “Grading or grubbing within 100 feet of ESHA or any other protected resource.” Many single-family dwellings that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s are located within 100 feet of ESHA and are subject to this requirement. Recently, one property in my neighborhood (constructed in the late 1960s) graded and grubbed their entire front yard, and this property is within 300 feet of my residence.
If the property owner had applied for a permit to perform this work, I would have received a Notice for both a Design Review Board and a Planning Commission hearing prior to its commencement; I received none. For this reason, I believe the property owner performed the landscaping work without a Major Conditional Use Permit.
In my experience, most property owners (1) want to follow regulations, (2) do not want to take on the financial risk associated with a Notice of Violation2 by performing work without a permit, and (3) do not want to pay staff in excess of $230 per hour to process a Major Conditional Use Permit for such a relatively simple landscaping project. Given this, I suspect that if the property owner were aware of the requirements, this landscaping work would not have been performed.
Since the above requirement was adopted in Title 17 two years ago, the above example not only demonstrates the need to inform the public about the proposed Historic and Archaeological Resource protections (hence recommendation to adopt a Public Outreach Plan and ensure it is implemented by also adopting a General Plan Amendment) but also highlights the need to revisit how Title 17 regulations are applied to small, previously-developed residential properties.
Unlike ESHA, however, once the tribal and archaeological resources to be protected by this proposed ordinance are lost, they cannot be recovered; hence the need to adopt a Public Outreach Plan. At a minimum, such a plan must include the following:
Requirements for staff to widely advertise its restrictions and permit processes on an annual (if not more frequent) basis. This must include:
o Posting within social media, the Monarch Press, and newspapers; o Highlighting on the City’s website; and
o Directly contacting businesses such as general contractors, realtors, pool installation companies, handymen and handywomen, and etc.
Preparing and regularly updating a list of people and businesses to contact. Information sources to utilize must include readily-available data in the City’s Business License program as well as online searches for people performing this work that may not yet have a business license with the City.
Maintaining a record of the outreach efforts in the event that a notified entity performs work that requires a permit without obtaining the necessary permit first. Such records may be useful in subsequent enforcement actions discussed further below.
F) The Public Outreach Plan must be a dopted concurrently with the proposed ordinance.
Simultaneously, the General Plan must also be amended to require that the Public Outreach Plan be implemented.
Other past examples highlight the critical need to adopt a Public Outreach Plan concurrent with the proposed ordinance. For example, General Plan Policy CE-IA-4 states that the City shall prepare and
2 To be clear, this is not a complaint – hence why an address and photographs are not provided. In fact, a Qualified Biologist has confirmed that the project will not have an impact on the adjacent ESHA, under scoring the need to revise the existing Title 17 language.
adopt a Tree Protection Ordinance within four years (by 2010). As of 2022, 16 years have passed. To my knowledge, there is no active effort to develop the required Tree Protection Ordinance.
The recommended General Plan Amendment could be simple, to summarize the requirements of the Public Outreach Plan. General Plan Policy OS 6.9 provides an example of the form that this could take:
Park Master Plan. [GP] The City will prepare a Park Master Plan for the system of municipal park facilities. This master plan may be used to determine resource development, expansion, maintenance, operation, or capital improvements appropriate for these city facilities and as a basis for pursuing funding opportunities. To match resource needs to individual park sites, the City may prepare a development and/or management plan for individual parks, particularly for the largest park sites.
G) A metaphorical carrot (e.g., the City will cover the cost of archaeological assessments, studies, and monitoring) must be included in the ordinance to encourage good behavior.
During the December 2021 hearing, Councilmember Kasdin suggested that the City consider the archaeological and tribal cultural resources to be protected by the proposed ordinance as a “public good” and further suggested that the City consider covering the associated costs for small, residential developments. I support this approach and believe it will greatly increase compliance with the ordinance’s requirements.
Given comments above, however, I suspect more analysis will be required to better understand the cost of such a proposal.
H) A metaphorical stick (e.g., additional enforcement and/or fines) must be included in the ordinance to discourage bad behavior.
While I fully agree with statements made by Mayor Perotte during the December 2021 hearing regarding people who disregard the ordinance, it also appears that a majority of the City Council will not support an effort to commence active enforcement of the proposed zoning ordinance. Active enforcement, however, should not be the only “stick” considered. For example:
Additional fines (specific to archaeological and tribal cultural resources) should be levied on property owners that disregard the zoning ordinance’s requirements that go above and beyond the existing fee schedule. (Note: at present, the fee for performing work without a permit is solely to double building permit fees. As such, if landscaping work does not require a building permit, there would be no fee for violating the proposed ordinance.) Contractors should also be fined. Furthermore, the fine should be doubled if the contractor has been previously notified of the requirements, especially if such notification occurred within the past year.
Not increasing fines or enforcement for breaching the proposed ordinance will send the wrong message and encourage property owners to disregard its requirements.
I) Provide additional time to allow for robust public input.
The Staff Report and attachments for today’s hearing were not available until late on the morning of Thursday, March 31, 2022. This is surprising, given that the hearing was delayed from February and the City Council had previously requested that big packets be made available for review earlier than the minimum 72-hour requirement. Considering the potential costs identified above, and the size of the packet (889 pages), it seems that this packet could and should have been released weeks ago. My review has suffered due to the lack of time available.
J) Additional public notice, including of the potential costs of the proposed Ordinance, must be provided to allow for robust public comment.
Prior to the December 2021 hearing, City Staff made a concerted effort to notify the public of the hearing by publishing press releases, posting on social media, etc. As previously discussed, some of this information was factually incorrect (e.g., consistently stating that the 4 cubic-foot exemption “could be for planting a tree”, which I attempted to correct at the time) and none of the potential costs to residents, businesses, and property owners were described.
While the Staff Report for this hearing notes that the disturbance volume associated with planting a typical tree is 16 times greater than the exempted volume (64 cubic feet vs 4 cubic feet, respectively), this fact has not been widely advertised. In fact, it is only found in the Staff Report, buried on page 10.
Retracting incorrect information is widely understood as being necessary to retain credibility. The previous, incorrect information has not been widely corrected.
Furthermore, the noticing for this hearing has not described any of the issues identified during the December 2021 hearing or even requested public input. Instead, all notices read as if there is nothing left to discuss regarding archaeological and tribal cultural resource preservation. This is surprising given the issues identified previously and is not a means to obtain robust public input on the potential costs and benefits of the proposed ordinance.
The public comment on, and interest in, this hearing will be telling, especially given the level of discussion that preceded the last hearing and the fact that estimated costs of the archaeological studies (let alone the permits and potential monitoring) have increased.
K) Planting trees with a depth of disturbance not to exceed 18 inches should be exempted.
To encourage City residents, businesses, and property owners to help the City reach its goal of expanding tree canopy by 1%, planting trees with a depth of disturbance not to exceed 18 inches should be exempted.
The Staff Report notes that the total ground disturbance associated with a 15-gallon tree is 64 cubic feet. Most websites online indicate that the actual disturbance is 16 cubic feet (15 inches deep, 48 inches in diameter). Accordingly, the impact should be relatively shallow, can be limited to the top 18 inches (or 15 inches, if desired), and only 25% of the impact noted by Staff. I’ve provided both sources and mathematical calculations below.
It is possible that a limit to the exemption should be included (e.g., trees must be spaced at least 8 or 12 feet apart on-center), at least for properties that have not been previously developed or landscaped.
Note: These comments are provided without the benefit of input from tribal or cultural leaders. If one or more tribes objected to this exemption, it could change my comment. -----
Example sources:
This website provides a 48 inch diameter, dug to the depth of the pot:
o https://www.wegmansnursery.com/care-guides/trees/planting-trees- shrubs.html#:~:text=For%2015%2Dgallon%20or%20larger,roots%20are%20exposed%20 to%20air
This website states the height of a 15-gallon pot is 15 inches:
o https://www.bghydro.com/premium-nursery-pot-15-gallon.html Math:
48 inches diameter = 2-foot radius
Depth: 15 inches = 1.25 feet
V = pi * radius^2 * depth = 3.14159 * 2^2 * 1.25 = 15.71 cubic feet.
L) Revise 17.43.020(A)(3) and (A)(4) For Clarity
Section (A)(3) and (A)(4) conflict with one another and must be revised for clarity. The City Council provided direction to staff to clarify the exemptions, but this language was left unchanged.
Sub-paragraph (A)(3) exempts “Earth-disturbing activities that will not disturb native soils, unless located within a documented archaeological site and/or Tribal Cultural Resource.” Paragraph (A)(2) then lists four examples of such work. If one stopped reading the exemptions here, that would appear to be the end of it.
Sub-paragraph (A)(4), however, requires a project proponent to provide “evidence, as documented in as-builts plans, previous grading plans, or other documentary evidence… that the previous earth disturbance affected depths equal to or greater than the development being considered.” Issue: Sub-paragraph (A)(3) exempts development within previously-disturbed soil without further need to provide evidence of existing depth, and sub-paragraph (A)(4) requires evidence of existing depth of disturbance. This leaves it unclear which requirement will “rule,” especially if a proposed project in previously-disturbed soil would have impacts similar to the examples provided in (A)(3) but is not one of the projects listed?
Recommendation:
Combine the language in (A)(2) and (A)(3) to read as follows (or similar):
The proposed earth -disturbing activity is located within a previously disturbed area where evidence, as documented in as -builts plans, previous grading plans, or other documentary evidence, is provided that the previous earth disturbance affected depths equal to or greater than the development being considered. Photographs and/or review of aerial imagery shall suffice for earth-disturbing activities that would have impacts commensurate with those associated the following activities:
a. Ongoing, active agricultural operations in areas continuously used for crop cultivation. b. Landscaping and footings for fences, patio covers, and similar minor accessory improvements particularly those that.
c. Additions adjacent to existing development.*
*Note: I cannot develop an opinion on whether item “c” above should be included or rejected until after the necessary analysis described above has been provided. It is possible this suggestion should not be included, or perhaps it should be limited in scope (area or depth).
M) Analyze the potential cost (i.e., impact to archaeological resources) and benefit (e.g., reduced cost to residents, businesses, property owners, and City Staff) of exempting all activities and development listed in Section 17.53.020, Exempt Development.
Exempting this development from the proposed ordinance would alleviate a lot, but not all, concern regarding the potential cost of the proposed ordinance. How ever, it is not clear what impact this might have on archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Additional information is needed to help inform an opinion.
N) Correct a Typo in the Historic Context Statement
Text in the Historic Context Statement (Page 141; or page 218 of the PDF packet) reads (emphasis added) “In general, if existing archaeological survey reports are older than ten years, the results may not reflect current standards for the accurate identification of subsurface archaeological deposits in areas where prehistoric living surfaces could be buried be alluvial erosion processes (i.e., adjacent slope wash, flooding, etc.).”