April 18, 2022
Subject: Public Comment on the Second Reading of the Ordinance Adopting Historic Preservation and Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance Case Number 16-092-OA
City of Goleta City Council
Hearing Date: April 19, 2022
Agenda Item: B.6
Dear Mayor Perotte, Mayor Pro Tempore Kasdin, Councilmember Aceves, Councilmember Kyriaco, and Councilmember Richards:
Given the first reading was approved during the April 5, 2022 hearing, and the ground-disturbing activities that have already occurred within the City in the past two weeks ahead of the ordinance becoming effective, I support the approval of the second reading to allow the ordinance to become effective as soon as possible.
With that said, I also recommend that the City Council pull this item from the Consent Calendar for discussion and direct staff to begin working on the next phase of the Ordinance immediately. None of the items provided in my comment letter dated April 5, 2022 (attached for your convenience) were resolved ahead of the first reading, I continue to believe that each item should be resolved. Of particular importance is setting a date by which the Staff should returned to the City Council for continued review so that this task does not languish. This work should also be included in the Annual Work Plan to be discussed on Thursday.
Last, it should be noted that the response from City Staff during the April 5, 2022 hearing to a question regarding what is known about existing disturbances, grading plans, permits, etc. was essentially the same from the December 2021 hearing four months earlier. Essentially, staff continue to wor k with GIS and perform permit history research; no details about the level of effort to date - or what has been found - were shared. This response creates an ominous feeling about the ultimate results (or lack thereof) of this effort, the timing of things moving forward, and the (potentially unnecessary and large) additional burden to City residents, businesses, and property owners.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Chris Noddings
City of Goleta Resident
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 Kasdin, Councilmember Aceves, Councilmember Kyriaco, 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, property 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 c ost 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 we have additional, writ ten analysis to better understand the potential benefits of the proposed regulations, as well as having an opportunity 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 t o 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 owners, 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 adopted 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, underscoring 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. However, it is not clear what impact thi s 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.).”
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
December 6, 2021
VIA E-MAIL ONLY
Mayor Paula Perotte
City of Goleta
[email protected]
Councilmember Pro Tempore James Kyriaco
[email protected]
Councilmember Roger S. Aceves
[email protected]
Councilmember Stuart Kasdin
[email protected]
Councilmember Kyle Richards
[email protected]
Re:
Bishop Ranch (APN: 077-020-045) Landmark Issues; Historic Preservation and Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance
Dear Madam Mayor and Councilmembers:
This firm represents the University Exchange Corporation (“UEC”), owner of the Corona Del Mar/Bishop Ranch (APN 077-020-045) (“Bishop Ranch”). We have represented UEC for over 50 years and are thus well acquainted with the landmark issues presented by the Bishop Ranch.
The Historic Preservation and Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) and the City of Goleta’s (“City”) attempt to designate the Bishop Ranch a Historic Landmark by adopting the Resolution Adopting the Historic Context Statement and Designating the Historic Landmarks List and Historic Resources Inventory (the “Resolution”) is
impermissible, and represents a brazen attempt to impose development restrictions and maintenance obligations on UEC without adequate justification.
This is not the first attempt to declare the Bishop Ranch a Historic Landmark. On July 16, 1992 the County of Santa Barbara’s (“County”) Historical Landmark Advisory Committee recommended that the Bishop Ranch be declared a Historical Landmark. After a September 14, 1992 site visit, the committee withdrew its recommendation and adopted a resolution recommending that a 33-acre portion of the Bishop Ranch be landmarked. Neither Bishop Ranch or the 33-acre portion of the property were declared a Historic Landmark. Instead, some portion of the ranch house or the Bishop Ranch was designated a Place of Historic Merit by the County’s Landmarks Advisory Commission in or about 1993.
As was the case in 1992, the City’s proposed action raises serious concerns, many of which are discussed below.
1. The City’s Last-Minute Notice
Despite the lengthy “project background” set out in Mr. Imhof’s staff report regarding the upcoming December 7, 2021 hearing, the first notice UEC received regarding the proposed Ordinance and its impact on the Bishop Ranch was dated November 22, 2021. This is especially surprising in light of the significance of the City’s proposed action and the fact that it would have been very simple to notify UEC of the proposed at an earlier time.
The City’s actions, or lack thereof, tends to undermine the well-established constitutional requirement of notice.
2. The City Lacks a Factual Basis to Declare the Bishop Ranch a Historic Landmark The City’s attempt to collectively reclassify several properties, including the Bishop Ranch, by way of the Ordinance and the Resolution, without an adequate review, is fundamentally arbitrary. Determinations of historical significance are fact-specific, guided by the characteristics of the given building, object, or site. To our knowledge, no recent factual analysis has been prepared by the City to elevate the Bishop Ranch’s historic status. Rather, the basis for the City’s automatic redesignation is the County of Santa Barbara’s designation of the Bishop Ranch, or some portion or structures thereon, as a “Place of Historic Merit” in or about 1993.
The 1993 designation, however, poses its own problems. It is unclear what portion of the Bishop Ranch, or structures thereon, were designated a Place of Historic Merit; whether such designated structures, buildings, or objects still exist; and what process the County of Santa Barbara carried out to make the designation. To the extent the “Ranch house, stone pergola, and adjacent grounds” (General Plan, VH 5.2, Table 6-1) were designated as Places of Historic
Merit, one wonders why the City believes it has the authority to declare the entire Bishop Ranch a Historic Landmark. We would welcome an explanation.
Despite this glaring lack of information and the fact that over 25 years have passed since the Place of Historic Merit designation, the City assumes, without an evidentiary basis, that a heightened historical designation is warranted. Needless to say, much has changed since 1993.
For example, the “historic” Hollister House was demolished pursuant to County permits. Time has taken a toll on the Bishop Ranch. Until the City inventories the current condition of the property, its landscape, and its structures, the City has no basis for its proposed action. The City’s designation of the Bishop Ranch as a Historic Landmark would not be supported by relevant, substantial evidence.
Designating the Bishop Ranch as a Historic Landmark with the passage of the Ordinance and the Resolution also impetuously ignores the designation process and required findings the City intends to establish in Section 17.33. It would be more appropriate for the City to specifically identify a proposed Historic Landmark, then determine whether the Bishop Ranch satisfies the criteria set out in Section 17.33.040, subdivision (A). For example, it is unclear what the “proposed Historic Landmark” is, let alone whether “[t]he Proposed Historic Landmark retains those aspects of historic integrity that convey the reason for its significance” considering its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. If the City were not solely relying on a 1993 Place of Historic Merit designation, it would recognize that the Bishop Ranch, in its current state and considering the structures on it today, does not warrant a Historic Landmark designation. Designation as a “Point of Historical Interest,” if anything, would be more appropriate.
3. Landmarking Vacant Land is Inappropriate
Landmarking an entire 252-acre parcel contradicts the conventional understanding of landmarking, which typically applies to buildings, structures, objects or relatively discrete physical forms. We are of the opinion that it is inappropriate to designate landmark status to an entire legal or assessor parcel. It is irrelevant that certain structures, such as a house, barn or outbuilding, once existed and had historical significance. The historical significance ceased to exist when the structure ceased to exist. Further, the presence of a few derelict structures does not merit landmarking. Nor is there a factual basis to support the imposition of landmark status on the Bishop Ranch due to the presence of archeological materials. To the extent the City disagrees, this disagreement further underscores the importance of identifying a proposed Historic Structure and carrying out the proposed procedure contained in Section 17.33.040, subdivision (B). The fact that the City wants to ignore its own proposed process is alarming.
Please understand that this letter is not intended to contain an exhaustive list of challenges UEC intends to make if the Ordinance is adopted or the City declares the Bishop
Ranch a Historic Landmark. UEC reserves the right to raise additional arguments at a later date, including, but not limited to, arguments that the Ordinance is overbroad and vague, the City’s action is arbitrary and capricious, or the City’s action constitutes a deprivation or property without due process of law or a taking of private property without just compensation.
Ultimately, the City has not identified specific, existing features of the Bishop Ranch which legally justify the imposition of landmark status. We intend to take all actions necessary to block this unjustified attempt to declare the Bishop Ranch a Historic Landmark. In an effort to avoid protracted litigation and an adverse result for the City, we would welcome a meeting to discuss this matter.
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])
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])
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 18, 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”).
As previously stated in our December 6, 2021 and April 5, 2022 letters, the City of Goleta (“City”) lacks a factual basis to designate the Bishop Ranch or any portion thereof as a Historic Landmark by way of the Historic Preservation and Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Ordinance (the “Ordinance”). Enclosed with this letter are copies of our December 6, 2021 and April 5, 2022 letters. Despite City Council and City staff’s discussion regarding the Bishop Ranch during public meets and despite our meeting with City representatives to discuss our concerns, our position remains unchanged.
April 18, 2022
Moreover, based on comments made during the April 5, 2022 City Council meeting, it remains unclear whether the City seeks to designate the entire Bishop Ranch as a Historic Landmark or whether the City is only “elevating” the status of those specific objects designated as Places of Historic Merit by the County of Santa Barbara in or about 1993—the one-story bungalow, the adjacent sandstone arbor, the Red Gum tree northeast of the dwelling, and the surrounding specimen trees (the “Previously Designated Objects”). This uncertainty should be clarified in the Ordinance before the second reading of the Ordinance.
Once again, we urge the City to remove the Bishop Ranch from its initial designation list.
Should the City designate the Bishop Ranch or the Previously Designated Objects as Historic Landmarks, we intend to take all actions necessary to block such action. Please understand that our letters are not intended to contain an exhaustive list of challenges UEC intends to make if the Ordinance is adopted or the City designates the Bishop Ranch of the Previously Designated objects as Historic Landmarks. UEC reserves the right to raise additional arguments at a later date, including, but not limited to, arguments that the Ordinance is overbroad and vague, the City’s action is arbitrary and capricious, or the City’s action constitutes a deprivation or property without due process of law or a taking of private property without just compensation.
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])
Enclosures