Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

July 9th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. I'll call the hearing to order at 1 p.m. Ms. Carman, can we please have roll call?

Thank you, Chair Boss. I'll begin with Chair Boss. Present. Vice Chair DiLuccio.

Here.

Commissioner Barnwell.

Here.

Commissioner Bauke.

Here.

And Commissioner Wardlow. Here. We have a quorum. Thank you.

Thank you. And we'd like to open today's meeting, um, and close it also in honor of, um, mayor, but also more importantly, planning commissioner, Sheila lodge. Um, and, um, went to open it up for, um, comments or reflections from my fellow commissioners, commissioner Barnwell.

Thank you, madam chair. I contrary to all of her great gifts to the city, which are not brief. I will try to be brief. I've known her since she was mayor. I was on her campaign when she first ran for mayor. She introduced me to being on city commissions. I had applied twice and not been accepted, and I thought maybe it was all a razzmatazz. So I went in to see her, and she said, oh, no, no, no. She says, what would you like to do? She said, you can't get on the planning commission right away, but you could do something else. So I told her my expertise, and she said, how about if you try out on the Rental Housing Mediation Task Force Board? which I did, and I got on, and that was the first commission I was ever on. I worked with her through the visioning waterfront process, several other mayors, and I found her remarkable, and then I had the good honor of sitting next to her for two years on this planning commission, and just to show you how sharp she was, my last comment on her was, a presentation was being given to us by one of the city's most renowned architects, And he began by saying that the distance between the city blocks, as everyone knows, is 700 feet between the center line of one street and the center line of the other street. And he keeps right on talking. Sheila tugs on my pant leg and she says, excuse me, Brian, I don't think it's 750 feet. She said, I think it's 450 feet. And then we go to the center line of the road. I said, Gila, are you and I the only two people in this building that know that? Because nobody else did, and nobody called it. She knew the distance in feet from curb to curb of every block in the city of Santa Barbara. She was a remarkable woman. She wrote a remarkable book. And this town, along with the names of Pearl Chase and many others, we owe her a debt of gratitude. And it was a pleasure to know her. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. I'll open it up for others.

I have a similar story many years later, actually. I came on this commission three years ago. And as soon as I got appointed, the first person who I met with was Ms. Lodge. And she gave me a book. She autographed the book and actually brought her a box of candy. And we had a wonderful time. And she wrote me a note later saying, you know, that's not exactly the candy I like. And so then more recently, I actually had gone to visit her and I brought her a box of candy, the exact candy she does like. And so I learned so much from her in such a short time. And yeah, I put up there with Pearl Chase. I think she's a little under, she'll get up there. I think she's a little understated, a little overshadowed by Pearl Chase, but she's gonna rise to that occasion. She was just a wonderful individual and she just, She knew everything. She loved Santa Barbara. So we're going to miss her.

Thank you. Others?

Commissioner Wardlow. I want to echo the comments of my fellow commissioners. We all had the immense pleasure of serving with Sheila, and she really was a force and a visionary in our community. When I first joined the Planning Commission, I was really grateful to be working alongside of her and really learning about her real commitment to preserving open space. preserving all the natural beauty and really she's instrumental in really creating a lot of the things that we all love and cherish about Santa Barbara today. So when I go hiking and look out on the city I always think about Sheila and her thoughts and comments and all the work that she did to preserve all of our beautiful open spaces and her love for the tree policy and ensuring that you know all the natural beauty that this community has is really at the forefront of our policy and planning decisions. So I'm immensely grateful to Sheila and the huge impact that she's had on creating this beautiful community. She will definitely be missed and her legacy will definitely live on in the beauty that we all enjoy every day in our community. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Bauke.

Not like the elder on the commission over there in the... On my right, I've known Sheila longer than I've been in the City of Santa Barbara. I actually ran into her in 1983 when she was a new mayor of the City of Santa Barbara at a League of Cities conference in San Francisco. She just happened to be sitting in the chair next to me, having this little conversation You'll love the topic at the time. It was balanced growth, which then led to a few years later when I came down, the city was well into a conversation about Measure E. And I was involved with Measure E as part of the board of directors of the Citizens Planning Association. And Sheila and a number of organizations really pushed that initiative, and it is now part of our charter. Later on in the 90s, in 1996, I was involved with the Trust for Public Lands, trying to get them involved in the Wilcox property, and they were very, very hesitant at the time. But there was a lot of local grassroots folks that were really interested in the preservation of the Douglas Preserve property, as it's now called. But they needed validation that the community really could step up. And so I brokered a phone call with the chairman of Trust for Bubba Clans and the President of the Trust for Public Lands with Sheila Lodge to discuss whether the city of Santa Barbara could come up with, and Sheila had just, you know, no longer mayor, but she was very, very a player in town. And her conversation was very frank, and I think that's one thing we all know, that she calls balls and strikes very clearly. And she said, I believe this community can do it. And I think we have the money, we have the, and you know, I think we can do it. And she said the city would also step up and the county would step up. And that's exactly what the community did. So I've had these long pauses and In relationships with her, but not it was never really close with her But we had worked together on a lot of stuff and I do have to say just like some of my commissioners said is you know She's very much pearl chase esque she's definitely understood Santa Barbara and We will definitely miss her Thanks Thank You Commissioner Peterson

Thank you. I was deeply sad to see the news yesterday that she had passed. It was surprising. I owe my seat on Planning Commission because of her resignation. And I'm deeply grateful to her for endorsing me for this. And when I was applying, she interviewed me, she called me, and she had very specific questions for me. Where did I grow up? What did I do? Where did I go to school? what did I think? And she endorsed me. And so I'm very grateful for that. Um, and then when I got on, when I started here, she reviewed my comments and she would send me commentary. Uh, I mentioned one time that the, we have 31,000 commuters according to SB CAG into city of Santa Barbara each day. And she sent me a note right away. That's not true. And here's why. And broke the data down for me. And so, uh, Perhaps we didn't agree on everything, but that's not what's important. She was incredibly intelligent. We stand on her shoulders for planning in this city. I appreciated her real warmth and kindness towards me, and I will miss her dearly. Thank you.

Thank you. And to close out this portion of today's meeting, I'll share a snippet of poetry from Bessie Anderson Stanley that I feel like really could have been written about Sheila. to laugh often and much, to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children, to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends, to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others, to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition, to know that one life has breathed easier because you lived here. This is to have succeeded. So, thank you. Mayor and Planning Commissioner, Sheila Lodge. We will now move on to preliminary matters. The first topic on our agenda today is requests for continuances, withdrawals, postponements, or ex-agenda items. Ms. Arciniega, do we have any?

Thank you, Chair Vos. We do not. Thank you. And any announcements or appeals? We do have one administrative item or announcement. We are looking for a Planning Commission representative to attend the Edgewater Way appeal at City Council. on July 28th. Your commission was emailed. We're looking for a commissioner who was present at the item and voted to approve. So commissioners Boss, Wardlow, and Bauke would not be appropriate. So we're looking for either Peterson, Barnwell, DiLuccio, or Wiscombe. We can either, I just wanted to point that out today, if we don't have to decide it, but either respond in email or if someone wants to volunteer now. Either way, that appeal item will be heard. It's the residence and landslide repair, the coastal development permit that the commission voted to approve and was subsequently appealed. Mr. Arpanama?

I would be happy to attend. Well, I don't want to be happy to attend, but I will carry the flag if that's okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other announcements or appeals?

No.

Okay. That takes us to item C, comments from members of the public pertaining to items that are not on today's agenda. Ms. Carmen, do we have anyone in person or remote who would like to give public comment?

Thank you, Chair Boss. At this time, I don't have any speaker slips for in-person public comment, but if anyone in the room would like to speak under general, you can approach the podium at this time. And I would also like to remind the audience that if you would like to speak under a specific item on today's agenda, you can fill out a speaker slip on the pink clipboard at the back of the room. You can bring it up to me, and I'll call your name under that item. But since nobody is approaching the podium, I'll move to virtual participation. If anyone online would like to speak, you can raise your hand at this time. But I'm not seeing any raised hands, and we didn't receive any written correspondence under general, so I'll give it back to you.

Thank you. We'll close general public comment. and move on to environmental hearing 740 Dolores Drive, the VicTrace Reservoir Draft Environmental Impact Report. The purpose of this hearing is to receive comments from the Planning Commission on the adequacy and completeness of the draft EIR for VicTrace Reservoir Replacement Project. All comments on the draft EIR will be responded to in the final EIR and no action or project approval will be taken at this hearing. We have staff and consultants here to provide a presentation. who will introduce themselves during the presentation. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Baas, members of the commission. I'm Patsy Price. I'm the case planner for the Victrace Reservoir Replacement Project. I'm here today with Kelly Bork, acting supervising engineer with the Public Works Department, and Amanda Antonelli with Rincon Consultants, the city's CEQA consultant for this project. Ms. Bork will introduce the rest of the team in just a moment. but I will just go over the purpose of the hearing, which is an environmental hearing for the draft environmental impact report, or EIR, for the project. This is a required step in the city's environmental review process. The purpose is to provide the public with information about the environmental review process, discuss project impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives identified in the draft EIR, and to receive comments from the Planning Commission and public, which we will use in preparing the final EIR. To gather feedback on the project and inform the environmental analysis, we went to several city boards and commissions to get their feedback early in the process. To date, the project has been reviewed by the Street Tree Advisory Committee and the Parks and Recreation Commission, and it's had two conceptual reviews with the Architectural Board of Review. Minutes from each of those meetings were provided to you in a staff memo. In addition to this hearing, the city held two other public meetings to review the draft environmental impact report, one on June 24th, which was an in-person meeting, and another on June 25th, which was a virtual meeting. Now I'll turn it over to Ms. Bork.

Hi, Planning Commission. Thank you for having us today. Like Patsy said, my name is Kelly Bork. I'm an acting supervising engineer in the Public Works Engineering Division. and I work on water and wastewater projects for the city. This slide shows the project team. Not every member is here, but I'll just briefly run through them. Joshua Hagmark, Water Resources Director. Matt Ward, Water System Manager, who's available today for questions. Philip Maldonado, Principal Engineer. Patsy Price, as well as Beth Anna Cornett, Senior Planner with Public Works, also here today. And then I've been working with Amanda since 2023 on this project. So she'll be presenting the slides regarding the CEQA analysis. So today, I'll briefly review the project background, the project's proposed design, the anticipated construction schedule, and then skim over some of the community engagement we've done to date, and then I'll hand it off to Amanda. So before we dive in, we find it helpful at these meetings set a baseline for where this reservoir we're talking about today is in the city's drinking water system. So this slide is always helpful here. The city receives their drinking water from the San Ynez River via Gibraltar Reservoir and Lake Kachuma. From there, it goes through two tunnels to our cater water treatment plant, which is up in San Roque. There, water is treated to drinking water standards where it is then distributed throughout the system and directly to VicTrace Reservoir that we'll be talking about today. So some people do not know, but now through this project they have learned that the VicTrace Reservoir does indeed hold drinking water for this city. So here's a map showing where VicTrace is. It's in the Alta Mesa between Cliff Drive and Meigs Road. It was built in the 1950s, so it's about 70 years old, which for Drinking watered assets is definitely towards the end, if not at the end, of its useful life. It stores 10 million gallons of treated drinking water, and that water serves about 70% of the city, city hall, downtown, the west side, and some areas of the Mesa. This is a zoomed in aerial footage or aerial photo of the site looking about southwest towards the ocean. The valve building and entrance is towards the bottom of the slide on La Cornea. It is the only entrance to the site. And then as you proceed to the top of the slide, you'll see the reservoir there. That's the metal roof of the reservoir itself. And then co-located on site is Cities Information Technology, the IT departments. public safety communications facilities. So there's a number of towers and antennas and very critical co-located equipment there for fire, police, streets and traffic and what have you. When we set off to do this project, we had a number of objectives in mind and this list is really just a short summary of those and what we included in the draft EIR we're reviewing today. replacing aging infrastructure, maintaining critical water demands, which is water pressure throughout the city, storing water locally, strengthening site security of this site. It was built in the 50s, not to the same security standards we have today. And then in summary, not only enhancing the reliability of this site in particular, but really bolstering up our drinking water system for the future. This map on this slide is what's included in our draft EIR, and I think it very, very well shows all the different components of this project. To dive into what the proposed VicTrace reservoir replacement project is, it has a lot of components. So we divided them in the EIR into two categories, what we're calling the on-site improvements and the off-site improvements. So the on-site improvements are shown here in yellow. So that's everything on property, which will be replacement of the reservoir, replacement of the driveway, the valve building, improvements to the access road, site security, and then stormwater capture enhancements and everything that kind of goes along with improving the site. And then offsite, when we were starting this project, it didn't make a lot of sense to replace a 70-year-old reservoir but not replace the 70-year-old pipes that are in and around the community. So the pipelines we will be either replacing, relining, rehabilitating are shown on the dotted lines, which are in blue on La Cornea, green and purple on Dolores, red on Ricardo. And then lastly, just the end of this system is a pressure regulating valve vault, a small buried facility that we are relocating to a safer and better spot for the drinking water system. And then lastly, We are proposing the use of the house next door as a construction office during this project. Water purchased this house about a year ago with the intention knowing that it would be one of the most impacted properties by this project. And we hope to have the construction management team housed there for the project.

So next slide.

Here's the design rendering at 30%. So we still have a long ways to go, but we've done a lot of work to date. So you can see sort of overall we're really trying to match the layout and alignment on site of all the facilities and really trying to replace them where they are today. So we have a replacement valve and pump station building and an enlarged and improved driveway for better access. The public safety IT area will remain protected in place. But most notably, we're going to be burying these reservoirs. So if you click to the next slide, this is just a really simple illustration of what it's going to look like underground on site. There'll be various pipelines sort of intersecting and around the site feeding water to these two new buried pre-stressed concrete tanks that'll be built side by side, five million gallons each. And there are several benefits to that that I'm happy to answer. the best of which is seismic and longevity. So moving on from the proposed design to the construction schedule, we're hoping to break ground in 2028. The work will start with road line, pipeline construction in the streets, and then it will move to onsite work for 29 and 2030. And I want to make just a quick comment here that the construction impacts highlighted in the draft EIR are not all occurring all the time over three years. It really is going to be a complex sequence of all different types of work throughout the whole three years of the project. I have been really lucky to be afforded by the Water Department a lot of latitude with the community engagement we've done on this project. We know it'll impact the community greatly. So we've gone early and often to hear their feedback since the beginning of 2025. This is a list of all the different public engagement we've done outside of boards commissions, which I'll touch on next. But I've probably had the pleasure of speaking to over 100 people in this community about this project. Previous city hearings, Patsy already alluded to this, but if needed, we do have some highlights from the comments of those meetings. In addition to these, we've also been to our water commission several times to provide them project updates as we have progressed. And just to touch on, you know, I think one in particular, we heard very early on a big concern from the community about the habitat that is there on site for Raptors among many other, uh, you know, wildlife animals that are there, foxes and the like. So I just wanted to touch on, you know, the process we went through with the street tree advisory committee and parks and recreation commission. This map here shows in green the trees that are being protected, about 53 of the total 108, and the red show the ones that we received approval for on the condition that the project is approved. So nine of those were natives and 46 were ornamentals. We also went through a very thorough and thoughtful process with STAC on exactly how many trees, what species, Um, how we were going to comply with, you know, the complexities of this being a high fire hazard area with a lot of facilities on site that need to be protected. And we worked with a lot of different partners, but this is the landscape plan we are currently working off. I'm happy to dive into this further if needed. So with that, I'll pass it along to Amanda to explain our EIR process.

Good afternoon, chair boss and members of the commission. As I've been introduced, I'm Amanda Antonelli. I'm a planner with Rincon Consultants, and I've been supporting this project with the city for the last four years or so. So I'm here today to present the environmental analysis, the impacts, and the mitigation measures from the EIR. So I know that the members of the commission are familiar with CEQA, quite familiar. But in case there's anyone attending virtually, the California Environmental Quality Act, the purpose of an environmental impact report or an EIR is to provide information to decision makers and the public about the potential environmental effects of a proposed project. And in the EIR, we analyze those potential effects, identify ways to avoid or reduce those effects through mitigation measures, and we also analyze alternatives to the project. We are currently in the public comment period for the draft EIR, which began June 8th and extends through July 30th. Back in November of 2025, we started the CEQA process by circulating the notice of preparation of an EIR and an initial study that helped us hone the focus of the EIR. So this slide shows on the left the CEQA issue areas determined to have no impact or less than significant impacts related to those resources in the initial study. And on the right is the list of resources that warranted further analysis in the EIR. So in the next suite of slides, I will talk through for these the impacts. And for those that we identified mitigation measures, I'll give an overview at a high level of those mitigation measures. We start here with a summary of the impact determinations by issue area in the EIR. So you can see most issue areas were determined to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The exception is noise for which construction noise impacts were determined significant and unavoidable. And I'll walk through, I'll spend a little additional time on noise in today's presentation. To start air quality, a potentially significant impact was identified related to toxic air contaminant emissions, diesel particulate matter during project construction. And for that we identified a mitigation measure that requires when applicable and when feasible use of Tier 4 construction equipment or, if not available, Tier 3 construction equipment during the construction period. And that reduces that impact to a less than significant level. For biological resources, the draft EIR identifies potentially significant construction-related impacts to special status wildlife species, nesting birds, lemonade berry scrub, which is a sensitive CDFW community on site, and protected trees. So there's a suite of mitigation measures identified, which includes a worker environmental awareness training, a nesting bird management plan, which outlines the procedures for surveys, buffer areas, and so on. pre-construction surveys for special status wildlife, and biological monitoring during initial ground disturbing activities and vegetation removal. The Bio 5 would require a lemonade berry scrub restoration plan to offset impacts to that sensitive natural community on the site. And lastly, a tree protection plan for protected trees, which Kelly spoke to. For cultural and tribal cultural resources, the draft EIR found that the ground disturbing activities associated with construction have the potential to affect both previously recorded and potential unknown archaeological resources as well as unknown tribal cultural resources. So the mitigation measures require another worker environmental awareness training, a targeted archaeological and Native American monitoring for ground disturbing work at a specific portion of the project area, and then a measure for unanticipated discovery procedures. For geology and soils, the initial study actually scoped out impacts related to erosion and the typical geology and soils impacts that folks think about. So we looked specifically in the EIR at the checklist question related to paleontological resources. And the project area includes geologic units with high paleontological sensitivity. meaning there is a high potential to encounter fossils during excavation. And we identified mitigation measures, including a paleontological resources monitoring and mitigation plan and a worker training. So within the plan, there is required targeted monitoring during ground disturbance activities in native soils and procedures in place for what to do if a fossil is discovered during construction. So I'm going to spend a little additional time on noise in the next few slides because that was the significant and unavoidable impact identified in the draft EIR. To start, I want to set the environmental baseline here and talk about ambient noise as it exists now. Looking at the project map on the right, you can see that the site is surrounded by single family residences, which are considered the nearest noise sensitive receptors. We went out and collected noise measurements to identify and document existing ambient noise levels. We took short term measurements and we took two 24 hour long term measurements to collect daytime and nighttime noise levels. And you can see those locations in stars on the map. So existing ambient noise levels ranged from mid 50s DBA during daytime hours and low 30s DBA during nighttime hours. And I'll give some layperson friendly examples of what that looks like on the next few slides. So before I dig into the thresholds on the right, I want to orient viewers to the ramp here, I'm sorry, the threshold's on the left, the ramp here on the right, I want to mention that we added this ramp as a request from a community member that came up at the public meeting two weeks ago, who requested more layperson-friendly, understandable examples of what these decibel levels correspond to. In the draft EIR, we used two different significance thresholds for the noise analysis. The first is the Federal Transit Administration construction noise limits identified for residential land uses. And that's shown in the table here. So daytime limit of 80 decibels and nighttime limit of 70 decibels. And those are indicated on the right with example noise sources 80 being a vacuum cleaner, 70 being busy street traffic. The second significance threshold we used was an ambient noise threshold, and that looks at how much would the project increase noise as compared to existing conditions. So the threshold then is established at a 10 dBA increase above existing ambient levels, which is commonly used in CEQA it corresponds roughly to the doubling of loudness perceived by the average person. And you can see the ambient thresholds in this case are lower than the FTA thresholds because it's a quiet community. All right, on the left here, we still have the same ramp graphic on the right for context. On the left, we have one example of the construction noise modeling from the draft EIR. We conducted a lot of noise modeling. You'll see if you read the noise section, there are many tables that look at different locations around the project site and modeled noise levels. So this is just one example. And I want to orient to and say our modeling assumed no noise reduction controls are in place and it assumes that the three loudest pieces of equipment are operating simultaneously during each major construction phase. Under those assumptions you can see that the noise levels modeled are generally in the 70s to low 80s DBA range for this table. And this doesn't mean that it would be at those levels all day every day. Construction noise would vary throughout the day and throughout the construction period, depending on the activity occurring, the equipment in use, and where work is taking place on the site. But you can see, based on the graphic on the right, that these modeled noise levels exceed both the FTA and the ambient thresholds. The draft EIR identifies construction noise impacts as significant and unavoidable even after mitigation. Mitigation measure NOI-1 requires preparation of a construction noise control plan. And that plan would be developed with input from the surrounding neighborhood and would identify feasible measures to reduce construction noise. But potential measures therein may include equipment mufflers and engine shrouds, temporary sound barriers, strategic delivery and staging locations, smart backup alarms where appropriate, and other project specific noise reduction measures. And many of these measures can be effective in reducing noise levels. For example, temporary sound barriers can often reduce noise levels by about 10 to 15 decibels. So if you do that mental math based on the last slide, you can tell that implementation of those reduction measures can reduce construction noise levels below the FTA construction threshold. However, Because it's a quiet community and the ambient noise levels are low, those reduction measures could not feasibly reduce noise below the ambient noise threshold. And it's also due to the fact that the nearby residences are immediately adjacent to portions of the construction area. So in addition, construction truck traffic, particularly during grading and excavation, could increase roadway noise on the adjacent residential streets by more than 10 dBA. And because there are no alternative construction routes to access the site, besides going through the residential neighborhood, no feasible mitigation was identified to reduce those roadway noise impacts. Operational noise impacts would be less than significant, no mitigation required. So construction noise at the end of the day, significant unavoidable. This now summarizes here what I just spoke to. The significant and unavoidable impacts are identified associated with increased local daytime and nighttime noise levels during project construction and increased roadway noise levels during construction. We also did identify a potentially significant impact related to vibration during construction. And there we included a mitigation measure requiring that in proximity, close proximity to residential receptors, vibratory equipment must be replaced with non-vibratory alternatives. Lastly, transportation. Mitigation measure, so we looked at temporary impacts to existing circulation system due to lane closures during project construction in the residential community around the site. And mitigation measure TRA1 requires implementation of an enhanced traffic control plan which essentially adds to the requirement of a traffic control plan It addresses items such as driveway access, emergency access, advanced public notification, detour routing, and coordination with local agencies and service providers. And with implementation of this plan, transportation impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Now that we've walked through all of those, I want to return to this summary table. And you can see again here, Noise is the one resource area where impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. All other areas are either less than significant or less than significant with mitigation incorporated. And with that, I'll turn it back to Kelly.

So just to wrap up here, our timeline for sending this back to Planning Commission, hopefully in January, we'll be closing public comment July 30th. and then spending the rest of this calendar year incorporating feedback until then. Two quick plugs for anyone new to the project. This is where you can submit public comments by July 30th to the VicTrace email or to myself by mail at the address noted here. And lastly, we have a great project website for anyone who's tuning in. The best way to keep informed is to enter your email and subscribe for project updates. So with that, thank you, and we're happy to answer questions when ready.

Great. Thank you so much. I don't think we have any comments from other, like, Street Trees Advisory Committee or anybody here today. Okay. Thank you. So we will move to comments from members of the public pertaining to this specific item miss Carmen Do we have anyone in person or remote?

Thank You chair boss at this time I don't have any speaker slips for in-person public comment for this item But if anyone in the room would like to speak you can approach the podium at this time Otherwise, I will move to virtual participation But I'm not seeing any movement. So if anyone online would like to speak under this item You can raise your hand at this time But I'm not seeing any raised hands, and we didn't receive any written correspondence for this item, so I'll give it back to you.

Great. Thank you. So I'll first open it up to my fellow commissioners for questions, and then after we'll move to comments and summarize them. So it looks like Commissioner Barnwell, you have a question.

I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. The paleontological monitoring, tell me how that works, because you've got big, D9 cats moving dirt, right? And they're just cutting into the raw earth. So how do we delicately look for brontosaurus bones?

Thank you for the question, Commissioner Barnwell. I have to admit I'm not a paleontologist and haven't conducted that monitoring personally, but we do provide a worker training to construction personnel first to... help them identify what they're looking at as they conduct their work. And then the on-site paleontological monitor is there to also review the soil as it's being disturbed and help the construction personnel identify if what they're looking at is a fossil.

OK, good. So the workers are going to get trained in this stuff. So they'll chew mash stuff. They will notice it when they see it, because that's good. I'm glad to hear that. When you measured the DBA, is there a distance away from the object that's making the noise that you set your monitor to measure the sound? How do they measure these noises? How is that done?

So the ambient noise measurements, and maybe we can go to the slide showing the figure. The ambient noise measurements were collected around the perimeter of the VIC trace parcel, trying to capture existing ambient noise conditions near those private residences. The modeled noise On the modeled noise slide, I'm gonna ask Patsy to progress. These modeled construction noise levels are actually representing what noise would be at the nearest receptor. So it's measuring what noise levels would be at that house structure, accounting for the distance from the construction activity.

So the monitors that are further away would measure a lower noise. I mean, if we have a Caterpillar tractor grubbing around up there, you've set out sound receptors. Is that what those little dots meant on the map? They're permanently there to measure the continued reproduction of sound? No.

I understand, thank you for the question. They're not permanent collectors. They were one time collectors put out for one day to collect noise measurements. And so construction period noise monitoring is not currently required in the language of the mitigation measure. But the noise reduction control plan Right now it's open-ended what measures may be identified and noise monitoring could be on the table for that.

Okay, so I'm heading toward what if the neighbor thinks it's too noisy? What happens then?

The noise reduction control plan will identify procedures for noise complaints, but it has not been finalized yet.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Vice Chair DiLuccio.

Thank you. Just have a couple of questions. Tell me if I'm out of line. I wanted to ask a question about trees. I know that the replacement is they're going to remove 55 trees and replace them with 75. So is the city's policy, is the requirement one for one typically when we replace trees?

through the Chair to Commissioner DiLuccio. Generally, it is one-to-one, but there is discretion, particularly for this project, which requires discretionary approvals for the Parks and Recreation Commission as well as your commission to require a different ratio.

Okay, but this is a good thing. We're putting in more trees than we're removing. The other question is, I did thank you very much for sending the commission and board reports. That was really helpful, and I noticed that... There were a couple of trees that, one was protected, tree number 11, which I'm, okay. And then there was tree number 84, which was not protected. I guess that was called out. And yesterday we went on a site visit and we looked at that lovely tree. I don't know, what was the name of that?

An Italian stone pine is tree number 84 in the top right.

Okay, so that was taken under consideration, but it was decided it would not be saved. Is there a reason for that?

Yes, thank you, Commissioner Delucio. When we went to Street Tree Advisory Committee the first time, that was something that was looked at. So when we returned back in February in that time in between, we worked, I consulted with some contractors and some different people to sort of better understand the extent of demolition and excavation that was gonna happen on site. And it is, it will be, the footprint will be big and essentially it captures that stone pine there. So we asked Street Tree Advisory Committee for its removal because that's going to be likely due to the extent that we need to excavate down about 40 feet and then bench that footprint back safely. However, I continue to have conversations with the contractor that we're hoping to work with to see if there's anything we can do without extraordinary cost.

Okay, that'd be good. If there's further consideration about potentially saving that tree, then you'd go back to the street tree board? Is that what the step would be?

Commissioner DiLuccio, the Street Tree Advisory Committee's advisory to the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Parks and Recreation Commission has approved a tree permit to authorize removal of all of these trees that are identified in red here. However, if the project is able to save some of those trees identified in red, it wouldn't require a modification to the approval. It's sort of a, the maximum that could be removed has been identified, and as long as that.

And there's been interest in potentially saving 84 of that tree, so that's good. The next question has to do with the actual EIR that we're looking at today. It looks like we would be required to do a statement of overriding consideration for the noise, because that's significant and unavoidable. But it's temporary, correct? The noise is just temporary, correct?

Correct. Limited to the construction period.

Because that's important to know. And when this thing currently is running, up and running, does it make noise?

We could both answer that. But that's what's considered operational noise in the CEQA document. So no, actually, Reservoirs make really great neighbors. That's what water always says.

So it'll be happily hopefully very quiet once we're hopefully out of there by 2031 Then there were some just a few other areas where there's less than significant with mitigation Incorporated so though that would become a part of a monitoring our Matrix that would need to be followed which I think was in it's in the EIR and who would would there be an on-site person who would be monitoring that

Yes, Commissioner DiLuccio the final EIR will be accompanied by a mitigation monitoring and reporting program so this will be part of the package that comes to you for certification and approval and that MMRP identifies the timeline for each mitigation measure, the responsible party for implementing the measure, and identifies a system of checks and sort of accountability that the city will oversee for each measure.

Thank you. Those are my questions.

Thank you, Commissioner Wardlow.

Thank you. And thank you for the immense amount of work on this and for the site visit. That was super helpful. I have some questions just in relation to fire. So has the fire department signed off on the operational plan?

If I may, I may ask Matt Ward. Is he still here? He's the one who's been collaborating with the fire department, not only in this project, but for quite a long time. Great.

Thank you.

Chair Boston commissioners. Yeah. So we always collaborate with the fire department, um, year round on pretty much everything we do. We've done a number of studies regarding this specific project leading up to this work, going back to 2019. Um, and yeah, so we're collaborating very closely with the fire department and they'll be talking in a part of our public meetings as we're addressing community concerns throughout the project.

Okay, great. And if there was a fire during the time of this construction, what is the kind of plan to address that? Obviously, there's been a lot of press around that in other communities, and I just want to understand what our kind of plan is.

Commissioner Wardlow, to address your question, I think we have to differentiate a fire and a wildfire.

Wildfire.

Yeah, so a wildfire, that's a situation where the water system is, a drinking water system is, incapable of filing a wildfire. And so we've addressed that through community meetings multiple times, town halls, things like that. However, we've modeled a lot of the conditions that fire operates under for various structure fires and we'll be prepared to address normal fires.

Great. So you feel comfortable that our construction plan and as we go through this that it will not have any impact on if there was a fire in some level in our community during that time?

Yes.

Great. Thank you so much. Thanks. Some other questions. In terms of construction, do we have a sense, and I'm not sure if we have this yet, but of just the proposed hours of construction?

Proposed hours of construction would be normal construction hours, which I believe are 7 to 5. But the EIR, including the noise analysis, does note some times where we may and likely will have to do some night work. For example, pouring of concrete for these massive concrete slabs. They're 200 feet wide. we can't just sort of stop midway. So we'll try our best working with the contractor to really minimize those times. So that would be one example. And then a second example is the work that we're going to be doing on La Coronia. It's a 24-inch steel pipeline. To weld that many facilities on a 24-inch pipeline may take us into night work. But for example, that would be welding. That wouldn't be backhoes and you know, saw cutters, you know, we're going to try our best to minimize that, but we included it in the AIR study.

Okay, great. And then will the majority of kind of the construction vehicles and all of the kind of vehicles that have to come up there to make this project work, will that all be on site so it won't impact traffic and parking on the neighboring community streets?

Yeah, Commissioner Wardlow, that's our plan. So our plan is to stage as much of the trades and on-site vehicles on-site to the extent possible. It'll be an interesting trade-off when we're also talking about storing as much soil as we can on-site and not having that also be truck traffic. But we're actively having those conversations with our contractor.

Okay. And do we have a plan for dust and any stormwater runoff during this construction?

Yes. So for stormwater, we have to meet the city's hefty requirements for stormwater BMPs both during construction and then post-construction. And then similar for dust, we're lucky to be working with a contractor who Earthwork is their bread and butter and they know how to mitigate and minimize dust control impacts as much as possible. So there's already in the city's construction contracts a number of requirements that they have to employ to protect against dust and stormwater BMPs.

Okay, wonderful. And then just lastly on the financing piece, I know that there were some details around, you know, the plans to apply for state and federal grants. Has any of that started or are we doing that a little bit further into this project?

We are actively working on our application right now for what is the California State Water Resources Control Board State Revolving Fund. It's a low-interest loan fund. It's a very involved application process that you actually, you can't really apply for it until we're most of the way through this EIR process. So we plan to submit for that funding by the end of the calendar year. Okay.

And then will we or council get an update on kind of how the financing of this is going and our comfortability level that we will be able to receive these types of grants to help fund this project?

I believe so, and if not, we can probably provide updates as needed. I know there are several resolutions for those programs that have to go to City Council, so we can discuss that at that time.

Wonderful. Well, thank you so much. This is a very necessary and exciting update, so thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Bauke.

First off. I read a lot of EIRs, unfortunately, for a living. Very well done. And he definitely wrote a very detailed project description, which led to very, very clear analysis. The only area I just jumped off of being it's just purely like I would have expected to see something different. And that's in the area of archaeo. There was one recorded site and then you did your surveys and you found a few shells scattered around. A site like that, from my experience, would have had some village or something. And was there some history of why that didn't happen or its proximity to other, you know, the water's too far away or disturbance during the sheep and cattle grazing historically? I just was surprised not to see more than just what you found.

Um, yes, but the Anaconda is reminding me to mention it's outside of the historic water course area. This, um, this recorded site that's previously recorded site. Um, what I will say commissioner about key, if you'd like to review the full cultural resources assessment, which is not appended to the EIR because it contains confidential information related to the location of archeological materials. that can be provided which has the full, the many pages of background on the Oh, okay. I'm being told we can't do that.

I was surprised you actually volunteered that. All right.

So our archaeologists evaluated the nature of the shell scatter, the history of the area, the previously recorded resources within the vicinity of the area, and the topography of the hill adjacent to that shell scatter. and the previously disturbed nature of the road area that that shell scatters adjacent to. So there were a lot of factors that went into their determination.

OK, thank you. That was the only question I had.

Any other questions? I just had one, but I'll first say thank you for the community engagement. The website was one of the most user-friendly sites that I've ever perused. So I appreciate all the detail on there and the mitigation measures detail and the layperson-friendly noise threshold details. My question is about engaging our state legislators. I feel like resiliency is really critical to them. So have they already been engaged in this process, or is that something that would come up with the financing?

It's a great question, Chair Baas. I can certainly speak with Waters' business manager who handles a lot of those relations. I will say it's tough out there in the water infrastructure world to get funding for the replacement of assets. They're looking for green infrastructure projects. So it's tough, but there are some avenues that we explored extensively sort of at the get-go of this project. But I'm happy to pass along that question to our water business manager.

I imagine they would jump at the chance to write a letter of support for this effort in financing. So thank you. All right. Then we will move on to comments. And just keep in mind that I'm going to try to take notes and summarize them at the end. So Commissioner Barnwell.

Thank you. Great work, tricky project, et cetera. I agree with my esteemed colleague, Mr. Balke, on the archaeological stuff. However, when I read your report, I read those tricky little words that always mean we've looked at it, and it's none of your beeswax. So give it to the Chumash, and they'll handle it. And I've run into that before, and I have great regard for how they do handle that outside of our, you know, meddling fingers, so I'm sure they're going to do everything right. I'm very glad to hear that the drivers of these big earth-moving equipment will be trained on what they see and what they don't see because that's super important. I've been involved in that in many cases, and it was the driver themselves who found the stuff. I am going to beat a drum that I do frequently. picture that you have up there and in the upper left-hand corner of the yellow circled area, it says La Coronia Park. When I pulled up the deed of this property, and I did not do a full title search, but when I pulled up the deed, all of it, all of this property in the yellow was the same deed. And when I look at the zoning, I see that it is zoned parks, public recreation, park area. The city of Santa Barbara constantly talks about not having enough money. The Planning Commission has requested numerous times to have a beginning conversation about possibility of excess land. When we did the site visit, I made the comment of, how I thought there was an awful lot of land there. And what are we going to do with it? I did my own survey of the neighbors. And none of them really like that park very much. It doesn't have a sign and doesn't have any improvements whatsoever. And they consider it a potential, like, bothersome spot. So I am wondering if there could be consideration given in a large blue sky, are we going to do this? to carving out that section as separate from this VIC trace and consider it two house sites.

Commissioner Barnwell, if we can just limit to the environmental document and not stray, it would create a Brown Act violation.

Well, wait.

We're just here to comment on the EIR.

Okay, then I'm here to comment on, I think there is a flaw in the EIR's understanding of what the parcel is. Let me cut it that way. I don't think that the parcel that the EIR is covering deserves to include the La Coronia Park. I don't think that is, my personal view is that an EIR to discuss this reservoir does not include the Coronia Park. And I think that is something else that should be looked at as a separate discussion. I'll put it that way, okay? And then I have another question. There's an awful lot of trees on that side in your tree planting. Is there a terracing of that slope? Can you go back to the tree planting where they're all numbered and they're lined up like little soldiers? No, there was a black... Ah, there we go, that one. So what are we looking at there on that northern, I guess that's north, northwest side? What are all those trees doing there? How are they being planted? Are they being planted on a terrace like little soldiers? Or what kind of earth moving activity is happening along that side?

Thank you, Commissioner Barnwell. This is a tree and shrub and ground cover landscape plan which I apologize I neglected to say when I was on this slide. So the larger canopy symbols which are mostly to the left of the slide, to the bottom left of the slide and then there's a pocket to the right Thank you, Patsy, if you're showing these. Those are the 75 trees. So the much smaller symbols are shrubs, ground cover, the lemonade berry that we spoke to, and I'm happy to provide the legend for this, which I neglected to have.

And then my last comment, I'm completely supportive of everything you're doing. I'm really happy. As I told you on the site visit, I was involved in the Sheffield Reservoir where everyone was blindsided by why are we putting this underground, and then once it was explained to us, And the protection, the long-term control of water quality, et cetera, it made a lot of sense. So I'm really glad we're doing this. My last question, we brought it up at the site visit, was the security. I didn't hear you talk about it. I don't know if it's part of the EIR. But it seems an important component of this project, not just only the fencing, but camera work, et cetera. Could you talk about that just for a second?

Yes, I'll touch on it, but you're correct, Commissioner Barnwell, it's not technically covered in the EIR, but it's something that's covered, for example, at Architectural Board of Review. But to touch on it briefly, yes, we are, part of the project description is to strengthen site security on site. One of those features largely being replacing the fence line surrounding the perimeter of the site, which is an aging chain link fence at the moment. So to comply with updated federal standards around securing water facilities as well as trespassing that has occurred on site. We are strengthening the site both with fencing and we're actually in conversations with other departments with the surveillance they have at their facilities to do a combination likely of badge access, pad access, camera surveillance. We're having those conversations in the design. of the project, so thank you.

And my last question, could you put up on the screen one more time, it's an aerial view of the various pipelines. It was just up there a second ago. Back one. That one right there. Can you very briefly tell me which of these represents lines that are going to be terminated, no longer used, and which represent lines that will indeed be digging up of the street?

Commissioner Barnwell, so expected roadway trenching is expected along Dolores Drive. So that would be the green and purple. Okay.

The one going from upper right to lower left. Okay.

Yep. And then there'll also be a new pipeline, which does involve trenching along Ricardo Avenue.

Okay.

In red. And then the blue line along La Coronia, we're looking into that in more detail. It may be trenched, but we may also have the possibility of doing some other more surgical procedures. REPAIRS AND REPLACEMENTS OF THAT PIPELINE WHICH WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TRENCHING WE HAVE ALONG THAT STREET.

SO WHERE IS THE WATER GOING TO GO? IS IT GOING TO GO ALONG THE BLUE LINE?

SO THANK YOU. I DIDN'T DESCRIBE THAT IN MY PRESENTATION BUT WATER COMES FROM CATER WHICH WOULD BE THE TOP OF THIS MAP. to the north. It enters along the blue line, which is a 24-inch transmission pipeline. We'll go into the reservoir via the driveway. Then once water is stored and sits there, it'll exit the reservoir back through the driveway. And then from there, it'll go down Dolores to Cliff Drive.

OK, so the exit line is going down Dolores, and the entrance line is the blue one. What is the red line?

The red line, so that's really interesting. So in drinking water systems, there are pressure zones. So different islands of pressure, just depending on the elevation of those homes. There's an interesting pressure zone which concerns sort of a mishmash of the neighborhood around La Vista del Oceano, Harbor Hills, and a number of those residences. That red pipeline, basically ensures that they get water via the new route on Dolores. That is a new connection that they'll have to receive water directly from the reservoir itself. So they almost get their own dedicated pipeline, if that helps.

I also heard you say that there might be welding. These are not plastic pipes. Some of them are metal pipes. All of them are metal pipes, no?

All of them are metal because they were installed in the 1950s. But they will likely be replaced with different materials, one of which could be HDPE or PVC. Okay.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm good. I'm glad. I'm glad the project's going. I look forward to seeing it.

Thank you. Vice Chair DeLugio.

Yeah, I want to thank Kelly Patsy. EIR team for doing all this. This is like amazing. You guys are like walking encyclopedias on this. So it's much appreciated. So a couple of things, just some comments for the record. Thank you for reconsidering protection of tree number 84. I know it's important to me. I know it's important to some of the neighbors around the project. And I noticed that 85% of the will be native in drought-tolerant plants. If we can perhaps get even more up to 100%, I know you're looking at that, that'd be great. And also, I like the balance between the function of this and the form, the design, how you're balancing. And I know that function is very important, but design is important too, so it's really hard to define that balance. And the sensitivity to the residents, their views with the... the way you're placing the trees and the buildings in order to accommodate the residents. And then also, I always get concerned about when we have to do statement of overriding consideration. However, I understand it's noise and it's temporary. So that gives me some reassurance that once the project is finished and it's up and running, it'll be very tolerable to the neighborhood. and to all the residents of Santa Barbara. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you. I just wanted to appreciate you all for being here and for the work that you've done on this. It's impressive and the time you've dedicated and specifically for the considerations you're giving to the neighbors, making sure that their opinions and feelings continue to be heard throughout the duration of this project. I appreciate the work that you did on the noise and the categorization of noise. That's I didn't know all that. So thank you for your work on this and I'm looking forward to seeing it completed years from now.

Commissioner Wardlow.

Thank you. And I echo the comments of my fellow commissioners. This is a huge project that is absolutely necessary. And so I really appreciate the diligent work that staff has done and the plan that's been created. I appreciate the work in coordinating with the fire department. and all the efforts to address the concerns in terms of making sure this is most compatible and as easy on neighbors as possible. But given that this is a necessary infrastructure investment project, I am very excited to see this move forward and just really appreciate the diligent work that you all have done. Thank you.

Well, for the sake of time, I'll just ditto my fellow commissioners. I do want to thank you for the good work and the good description and your knowledge based on this, and I would definitely second Commissioner DiLuccio's opinion as to looking at some kind of shoring method to save the We'll call it the Mesa tree, I think it has some kind of name, to the extent that's feasible. Because looking at that situation, construction could be done in very, very tight formats. It's just a cost-benefit analysis. So to look at some kind of shoring method to save that tree would be very helpful in your analysis. So I'm definitely supportive of the project.

Great. I'll just add a comment. also an appreciation of the biological resources mitigation measures. I felt like it went beyond the standard nesting protections that I usually see, so I appreciated that extra detail for the neighborhood birds. So I'm going to summarize the comments that I heard, and then I'll ask my fellow commissioners if I missed anything. So when it comes back as a final EIR in early 2027, an update on financing I think would be appreciated. A note appreciating engagement with the Chumash for archaeological resources. Good worker training outlined. Clarifying the EIR definition of the parcel to exclude La Quirinia Park. Is that what I heard? Okay. Good to strengthen site security. Consider protection of tree number 84, the Italian stone pine. Good balance between function and design. Consideration of neighbors. I think those were my notes or comments. Did I miss any? Okay. Do you have what you need from us for today?

Okay.

Well, then there's no action needed on this item, but we thank you for your time and your work over many years now and look forward to seeing you in January. Thank you. We'll give folks a minute to play musical chairs. And we'll now move on to new item 500, James Fowler Road. The purpose of this hearing is to consider discretionary applications under the jurisdiction of the Planning Commission including a coastal development permit to allow the proposed development in the appealable jurisdiction of the city's coastal zone and a CEQA determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to public resource code for emergency repairs to public service facilities necessary to maintain service and public resource code for actions that are taken that are necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. We have staff and maybe consultants here to provide a presentation. who will introduce themselves during the presentation. Ms. Metzger, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Chair Blass, and good afternoon, planning commissioners. My name is Jessica Metzger. I am the airport planner, and joining me today is Brad Klinzing. He is our supervising engineer at the airport. And today we're here to present this Coastal Development Permit for Goleta West Sanitary District to you. So the purpose of the hearing is to review this Coastal Development Permit and just to start out by giving you some background. As you've heard from our previous discussions on other airport projects, our parcel for the airport is a little unique in that it's rather large and shown in the colors both red. and yellow here on the map. And so the actions that you are viewing today are represented throughout this PowerPoint presentation by the blue triangle shown here on the map. They include a spill that happened in October of 2024 and that is the triangle near the middle of the parcel to the east of the map and then to the west the replacement of an air release valve. And so this is our vicinity map, and I'm going to spend just a little bit of time on this. To start out, I'd like to go back in history a bit for you. So the airport itself started out in the 1930s. as an airstrip and was more formalized in 1940. Goleta West Sanitary District started their operation in the 1950s. So just to give you an example of this region and the public infrastructure that was going in. Goleta West Sanitary District serves western Goleta Valley along with some properties north of the airport parcel also. And then looking at this map here, the blue line that connects these triangles that show our coastal development permit actions is the actual force main lines. There are two in that easement across airport and city property. And then they have various manholes throughout the line to access the line for maintenance and repair if necessary. So looking at this map, the X here at the bottom of the map was what I would like to call the original spill site in February of 2024. You heard about this emergency and then had a follow-up formal CDP which was approved by the Planning Commission for that spill. And then because of this spill, More work was done on reviewing the pipe's conditions from the plant, which hosts their main facility and admin office in this area here, and the connection all the way to Goleta Sanitary District, which treats the sewage that flows through those two lines. And so because of that 2024 February spill, a conditions assessment was sped up to review the lines and it was found that these air release valves that are found at the manholes shown on this map in blue dots, as well as the one that's under the CDP action here today, were corroded and needed to be replaced. And so there are more blue dots on this map than the actual action because the red zone is our coastal commission jurisdiction, whereas the yellow is the city jurisdiction. So the coastal commission reviewed the replacement of ARV four and five here on the map and one here. And then we have the purview for ARV two, which is here. And so just to show you also the consistency with the general plan land use, this is part of the local coastal program for the airport and Goleta Slough, which you're becoming more familiar with as we keep coming to you with projects out here. We have two different land uses. We have the major public and institution, which normally holds the airport operations themselves. Airlines, taxiways, runways, facilities to service those things, and facilities for the terminal and parking. And then recreational open space, which is mostly the Goleta Slough wetland open space area. And because the line runs from the Goleta West sanitary facilities to the Goleta sanitary facilities, it actually goes through both of these land uses and points along that line. And so you'll see again the triangles where our actions for the coastal development permits are occurring. So the Goleta West Sanitary District line is actually, actually let me go back one, sorry. The Goleta West Sanitary District line also in this map, it's important to point out, that it not only follows this blue line, but this blue line also mimics the vehicle service road that we use as airport access around the runways and taxiways. And that was done adjacent to the vehicle service road when it was put in on purpose because it was easy to access the line for any repairs that you may have. So then going to the policy consistency, looking at how approving this coastal development permit is consistent with coastal commission policies and those policies in our local airport in Goleta Slough coastal program. By putting those forest main lines adjacent to the access road, it allowed for us and Goleta West Sanitary District to have rapid response to those lines in case of emergencies. So although these emergency spills have occurred in the last couple years, we were able to respond quickly with Goleta West to those. It also minimized disturbance to sensitive habitats because one side of those lines is the access road and not the Goleta Slough sensitive habitat. and then also it made it easier to pick up any pollutants that were discharged by any emergencies that occurred. So that is one way that it's consistent with the Coastal Commission policies, and also the Galeta Slough and Airport Local Coastal Program. Additionally, from the February 2024 spill, creating that conditions assessment and finalizing it with the full report that was attached to your staff report allowed Goleta West Sanitary District to realize in February 2024 that they really needed to have better eyes on the health of both of these lines. And since then, they have really looked at any faults that may be occurring in these lines and fixed them right away. And so by doing this proactively, they have protected the environmentally sensitive habitat resources in the Goleta Slough from any future emergencies. And then here is our zoning map. It is also a major public utility in the region. There is no redundancy. So this lines, the redundancy is having two adjacent to each other. So they are both uses that are allowed in all zones, being a public utility and are consistent with the zoning that we have. So again, it falls in two different zones, like the land use of aircraft area approach and also the Goleta Slough Reserve. In doing the environmental review for the project, there are a couple different sections of CEQA. that it applies an exemption to. One would be emergency repairs for a public service. And then anything else that is taken to prevent or mitigate emergencies are also exempt. So we're asking you to make those findings as well today. And then on top of that CEQA finding, we're asking that the Planning Commission review the project and the staff report and find that it's consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act. and that it's also applicable with all policies of our LCP guidelines and applicable provisions of code. And with that, we're here to answer any questions. We also have the applicants and representatives from Goleta West Sanitary District here to answer questions as well. Thank you very much. Great.

Thank you so much. And do we have comments from Goleta West Sanitary District or just available for questions? I don't know if we have a statement or anything.

Yeah. There we go. Thank you, Chair Boss. My name is Joey Hilliard. I'm the general manager for Goleta West. I did want to take the opportunity to address the commission and provide an update on where we are at with our force mains and the action plan that was submitted to us. In January of this year, the force main assessment report was accepted by our board of directors. This report summarized that while both force mains are well within their expected service life, corrosive soil environment and a lack of cathodic protection has caused them to experience corrosion and another failure is expected within the next five years. The board immediately engaged with M&S engineers to evaluate all options for rehabilitation, replacement, or realignment of both of the force mains. A draft force mains recommendation report was submitted to the district in early April of this year and all options are currently being evaluated. An ad hoc committee was formed to expedite evaluation of replacement alternatives. The committee has met multiple times to narrow options and identify constraints and opportunities associated with each alternative. An aerial survey of the airport property is currently underway to better understand current access easements as well as jurisdictional boundaries. Most recently, I have been meeting with jurisdictional stakeholders to have preliminary conversations about rehabilitation and replacement options and their potential impacts on our neighbors. These conversations have been very productive and they have assisted the district in narrowing the options down. In the near future, the district plans to present the public options that are identified through this evaluation process as well as the most feasible and appropriate methods and seek public input on these narrowed options. We appreciate your consideration today and respectfully request your support.

Great. Thank you. Thank you for being here. That takes us to comments from members of the public pertaining to this specific item. Ms. Carmen, do we have anyone in person or remote who would like to comment on this item?

Thank you, Chair Voss. At this time, we don't have any speaker slips for in-person public comment. We don't have any participants online with us, and we didn't receive any written correspondence, so I'll give it back to you.

Okay. Well, I'll open it up to my fellow commissioners for questions. After that, we'll move to comments. Commissioner Bauke.

Thank you for your statement. I just got a question of clarification on it. There's a report by MNS that's attached to our staff report. On page 12, it talks about next steps. What you were describing, are those the next steps? I want to make sure that what you're describing and what it's saying here proactive measures are being taken by the district such that within we can solve this problem before another still happens. So I just want to make sure what you are saying matches up with what's in the report or because the report has this next step statement that them doing a technical report is what you were talking about this force main study the technical report that's referenced in this. I'm just trying to correlate your statement with what's stated there.

Sorry. Thank you, Commissioner. That step in the force maimed assessment report, that was submitted in January of this year. So that next steps was to evaluate the options moving forward, which is what we re-engaged.

Which is the April document you were talking about? Yes. Okay, that was what I was starting to understand. Yes.

So we've been presented with multiple options on rehabilitation, replacement, or realignment of the force maims. All of those options are being considered now as fast as possible, given the summary.

I appreciate that.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Barnwell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is a pressurized line. So I just want to add whatever weight we can here to say that this looks like a cockamamie location for this line. I mean, it looks like the line ought to tuck along the base of the Mesa if it's pressurized and then go across the bridge and never be in the waterway again. I would hate to think there'd be another spill, particularly if it's under pressure, right? I mean, if it spills, it comes spewing out across that very sensitive area. So I like this proposal, and I also want to double down on the idea of a relocation of the line. And I want to come at it from the perspective of the incredible sensitivity of that biological area. We have had so many things come in front of the council over years and the planning commission and everything about how sensitive that slew is. And this looks like it's in the wrong place to maintain that sensitivity. But thank you for coming in front of us. Fully supportive of everything, and I would urge you to continue those discussions about realignment, because this doesn't look like it's right at all. Probably left over from former thinking processes, right? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Commissioner, Vice Chair DiLuccio.

Thank you. Thank you for doing all the analysis. You did jump on it after this situation and had the second occurrence, and you did a lot of technical reports. So, Now you're determining how you're going to go forward with either replacement or to refurbish. Is it involving both main lines? Are they both in bad condition?

Thank you, Commissioner. Yes. To put it simply, both lines will be replaced. One of the very early... determinations that if we're gonna go through the trouble and expense of replacing one, we need to replace both. The older line was installed in 1962, and it appears to be in good condition, but it's not a ferrous material, so part of our technical report wasn't able to evaluate it the same way we did the newer pipe. That pipe was installed in 1978. It was expected to be a 100-year pipeline, and it failed at 46 years. So according to their thinking, without cathodic protection, it was expected to be. So yes, at this point, rehabilitation is being considered, but preliminary analysis thinks that if we're going to go that far, it makes sense to just replace both of them.

So where did the five years come from? You alluded to within five years. Is that what you said? There could be another spill?

That is what the engineer determined in the summary. That was their determination.

Okay. And how would this be financed? Do you have emergency financing, you know, reserve money, or how is this curious?

Yes and no. We're exploring financing opportunities. There are obligations that we already had on our books with the treatment plant, as well as other capital projects that were planned. Obviously, this is an emergency situation, and we will have to do some financial work reprioritizing, but those options are being explored while we determine which method is going to be the most feasible and effective.

Okay. Thank you for showing up today. It shows that you do care and you want to correct the situation. Thank you.

Other questions? I just have one question that might not be in our purview, but I'm curious because one of the pipes you mentioned was supposed to last until 2078, and I think the other one was still another 10 years from now. Is there a warranty? Is there a process to?

No? Okay. All right. Just curious. Thank you.

All right. Then we'll move to deliberations and comments. And if you can, Ms. Metzger, I think it was slide eight and also page eight in our staff report for the recommended findings. Any comments or deliberations? Sounds like we're ready to make a motion.

I'll make a motion. That we motion for approval of the coastal development permit and also the CEQA determination that the project is exempt from further environmental review.

I'll second the motion.

And any further discussion?

I just want to say that I appreciate the work that we're doing to ensure that this doesn't occur again. I think obviously for this commission it was concerning that this happened multiple times and We're obviously doing this retroactively, but I appreciate the work that you all are doing, and I hope that we have now taken the steps to ensure that this does not continue to occur.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Ms. Carvington, may we please have a roll call vote?

Thank you, Chair Boss. I'll begin with Commissioner Wardlow.

Yes.

Commissioner Barnwell. Yes. Commissioner Bauke. Yes. Commissioner Peterson. Yes. Vice Chair DiLuccio. Yes. And Chair Boss. Yes. Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you and I believe this action is appealable for 10 calendar days. So thank you for your time and appreciate the comments today. We'll close that item and we'll move on to our administrative portion of our agenda beginning with committee and liaison reports. Do we have any from the staff hearing officer? No? Okay. Any other committee or liaison reports? Any discussion on subcommittees or workshops today?

I do have a question for Megan.

As to the council joint meeting, have we defined the agenda and the topics and how that meeting is going to be run?

We have. Well, yes and no. We do have the topic. It was a part of your tentative, the tentative agenda that you'll received an email today. So the topic is going to be the Better Buildings Ordinance. Now let me read it. In full August 17th central business district. So a better buildings pilot program. Um, it's looking at, um, an ordinance initiation or staff direction from both the planning commission and the council. It's, um, uh, focused on the central business district specifically. Um, so, and then, um, the staff that will be presenting will be Brandon Moore from public works, Alelia. from Sustainability and Resilience, and then Allison DeBusk from Community Development. So those will be the staff leading the discussion and getting feedback from both. So that's the agenda item. Beyond that, I don't have further clarification, but we'll be getting a packet on that.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Barnwell.

Why did I think we were going to be discussing housing?

Commissioner Barnwell, through the chair. So that is a housing-oriented discussion. So it's called the Better Buildings Pilot Program. My understanding of it is that it's looking at better buildings in terms of sustainability and our environmental goals, but then also density, better buildings goals. How do we help bring residential units into the downtown CBD core, looking at beyond just repurposing, So we have our adaptive reuse program already in place, but how do we go beyond and allow more densification, but then also achieving our sustainability goals of stormwater, et cetera?

Well, considering the eagle eye of our esteemed city attorney, I want to be sure that the boundaries of the discussion are large enough For example, when the State Street Master Plan came in front of us, Mr. Palazzoides, I think his name is, mentioned that to put housing along State Street, he thought that we needed to go to two-way traffic on Anacapa and Chapala, which at first it blew my mind, and then at second I thought, oh my God, yes. But that kind of a discussion about transportation and about parking and the whole picture of what it means to put housing down there. I want to be sure that we notify the general public that that is what we're going to be talking about. Because, you know, housing isn't a single word. It's a hyphenated housing transportation. And I want to be sure that, you know, the public gets to kick in on this as well as us. But the largest definition of what it is we're going to be looking at, and you say the Central Business District, which, if I'm not mistaken, actually has a line going around it. Correct. So that means we're not going to be able to talk about stuff on the outside of that line?

Commissioner Barnwell?

Yes.

I'd be happy to, Megan and I would be happy to meet with you separately and talk about what the better building ordinance is so you have a better understanding of what it is. I don't want to get too involved in housing discussions right now, but... I can, I'll talk with you offline and explain it a little bit.

Okay. Well, I'm just, and to you I say I want that to be as big a discussion as we can possibly have. Understood. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think it might be helpful for all commissioners to better understand the better buildings as well. So thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Commissioner Peterson?

Yeah, I, two questions related to, do we, have we determined the location of that meeting? It's going to be here? Okay.

It'll be in council chambers. Here.

Okay. And then two, are we at the last meeting for 3245 Cliff Drive, were you going to report back with the language for the coastal development permit in the minutes? Or do we have to like vote on it again at a different meeting?

We don't. So the typical process is that we revise the resolution and reflect in the minutes your direction and then try to capture that in the revised conditions before you approve those. So then you'll have to ratify those minutes in that reso on the next, I believe, August 13th? Yeah. Hearing. So before you vote to approve, please review them. And then if you have any suggestions, we welcome it. We will do our best to capture the intent of all the comments and the language that was discussed. But certainly if you feel there's something we missed, please let us know.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we adjourn, I just want to close out with a moment of silence and recognition and memory of

Mayor Sheila Lodge.

Thank you. It's now 2.40 p.m. That concludes our July 9th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing. Our next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, August 10th. Do I have that date right?

13th.

13, thank you. Thank you, and have a good afternoon.