Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning, everybody. This is the June 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. One moment while we fix the sound system. All right. So starting again, this is the June 3rd, 2026 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. Please call the roll.

IN THIS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, WE START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, ACTUALLY. YOU START WITH WHAT? PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. OKAY.

PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. AND BEGIN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE. And the TV coverage announcement, please.

Yes. TV coverage announcement. Planning Commission hearings are televised live on County Santa Barbara Television, CSB TV, Channel 20 at 9 a.m. in the South Coast, Lompoc, San Ynez Valley, Santa Maria, and Orca areas. Rebroadcast of Planning Commission hearings are on Fridays at 5 p.m. on CSB TV, Channel 20. This hearing will also be streamed live on CSB TV's website and digitally archived on the County website.

THANK YOU. AND ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

WE'LL START FROM LEFT TO RIGHT. COMMISSIONER PARK. I'M HERE. COMMISSIONER FORD.

HERE.

COMMISSIONER CONNOR. HERE. AND COMMISSIONER MARTINEZ. HERE.

AND FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER SECRETARY, THE AGENDA STATUS REPORT, PLEASE.

MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS, IN REGARDS TO THE STATUS OF OUR AGENDA, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE STANDARD AGENDA, WHICH IS THE FIRST ONE IS A VESTING DETERMINATION, AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AND STAFF AND THE APPLICANTS ARE AVAILABLE TO PRESENT ON BOTH THOSE ITEMS TODAY. I CAN MOVE THE PROJECTION REPORT IF YOU'D LIKE, MR. CHAIR. So at our last hearing, we canceled the hearings in June, so we have no hearings on either June 10th or June 24th. So we'll return as a commission on July 1st, and that will be here in Santa Barbara. As of now, we have the Hope Via's track map on that, and as well as the airport land use compatibility plan on July 1st. And again, that'll be here in Santa Barbara. After the July 1st hearing, we will be in Santa Maria for the development plan transfer of ownership of the Santa Maria Asphalt Refinery. Again, that's July 8th in Santa Maria. And then July 29th, we have one item, and that's the tentative parcel map, and that is scheduled to be here in Santa Barbara. And then August 5th, we have one item, which is a CUP and development plan for an equestrian arena. And that will be here in Santa Barbara as well. After August, there are no items projected through the rest of the year. That concludes the projection report, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. And this is the time on our agenda for public comment. Public comment period is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on today's agenda. Are there any requests to speak either in person or online?

Mr. Chair, we have received no request to speak on general public comment. We did receive one letter that's in the box file. Just wanted to acknowledge it from Yonah Zimmer.

And is that considered comment during the public comment period?

Yes.

All right. Item seven on the agenda, planning commissioner informational reports. Individual commissioners may present brief reports on planning issues such as seminars, meetings, and literature that would be of interest to the public and or the commission as a whole. Do any commissioners have anything to report? No? Commissioner Park.

Oh. Daydreaming, my light was on.

Actually, your light is on.

I know.

Okay. No? All right. No requests. Director's report and Board of Supervisors hearing summary. Do we have the director here?

Mr. Chair and Commissioners, there will be no director's report. Director Plowman is out of the office at the moment.

Okay. We are up to the standard agenda, item number one. Please call that item.

Yes, we will start with it. item number 125 DET-00001, granite construction b-rock quarry vesting determination. Consider hearing on the request of granite construction company to consider the following case number DET-00001 and to determine that the vested rights determination is not a project pursuant to section 15378 of the state guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Very good. Are there any ex parte and site visit disclosures that any of the commissioners wish to offer? Commissioner Ford.

Thanks a lot. Along with Commissioner Park, I visited the B Rock Quarry site on Monday and met with the plant manager, Sean Diggins, and the resource manager, Sean Palmer.

Commissioner Park.

And I was, of course, at that meeting. Then I also had a meeting with some of the same folks about a week earlier at the granite plant near Buellton.

Very good.

Commissioner Martinez?

None.

Okay. And I have the same disclosure to make. My visit was yesterday with the same people. Very interesting site visit. So thank you for that. All right. Staff presentation.

All right. Good morning, everyone. Chair, members of the Commission, I'm Katie Null, and I'll be presenting the request for a BROC vesting rights determination. Do we have a presentation? Wonderful. The project site is the B Rock Limestone Quarry located about nine miles southeast of San Ynez in the third supervisorial district. The quarry is on the south side of Highway 154 across from the Bradbury Dam observation site at Lake Kachuma. The site is accessed from a private road, which is highlighted on the screen. The applicant, Granite Construction, is requesting a vesting rights determination for 72.1 acres of the B Rock Quarry to continue mining the remaining marketable limestone reserve. The quarry currently operates under a 2003 conditional use permit and reclamation plan, which covers about 59.5 acres, which is shown here in blue. The vesting determination request includes an additional 12 7.6 acres of available limestone, which is shown in green The area in green is not covered under the existing conditional use permit or reclamation plan if the vesting rights determination is confirmed it would replace the need for a conditional use permit to mine the entire 72.1 acre limestone reserve At B-Rock, the limestone formation is drilled and blasted, then sorted, crushed, and screened prior to being hauled to market by truck. The Bureau of Reclamation owns the mining claim under a federal declaration of takings between 1950 and 1953 to provide material for local public projects, including construction of the Kachuma Dam, which is now called the Bradbury Dam, the Loro Canyon Reservoir, and the Glen Annie Reservoir. Once their mining claim expired, the owner continued to extract limestone from the site until 1987 when the county directed the operator to apply for a conditional use permit and a reclamation plan to comply with local and state land use entitlement requirements. Since then, the mine has been operating under a CUP and a rec plan. The vesting rights determination is not considered a project under CEQA because the determination simply acknowledges the legal right of an operator, but it does not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. Any future mining impacts would be analyzed under CEQA with a submittal of a new or revised reclamation plan. In accordance with the State Mining and Reclamation Act, also known as SMARA, and the Land Use Development Code, if an applicant can show that the mine had identified the intended geographic and operational scope of an established mining operation prior to the county's 1952 permit requirements, then a vested right is established. For vesting determinations, three findings must be made. Finding 1. An operation may be considered vested and does not require a permit as long as no substantial changes have been made since 1976. For BROC, the Declaration of Takings, the Federal Bureau's Technical Record of Design and Construction for the Kachuma Dam, and other news articles describe the operations of the mine in a very similar manner to present-day operations without any substantial changes. These activities include blasting, sorting, crushing, screening, all of that with limestone on site and then trucking it off site. These documents are provided in attachment E of the hearing package. You can see these photos. They show the plant is substantially the same between 1951 and 2003. Finding two. An operation may be considered vested if the operator has incurred substantial liabilities for work and materials necessary for the surface mining operation prior to 1976. Substantial liabilities generally mean financial commitments tied to developing and operating the mine. Some examples include purchasing mining equipment and constructing roads and the processing facilities. the Bureau had established a full surface mining operation for the Kachuma Dam by 1951. They established an access road and the excavation equipment and processing site all by 1952. In 1952, the Bureau reported excavating almost 120,000 cubic yards of material costing just under $300,000. Once the Bureau withdrew their right to the quarry, Buell Flat Rock Company took over the operation and continued excavating materials through the 1980s. Excavation over that time increased from around 13,000 tons to 200,000 tons per year, according to county records. In 1963, B Rock was the source of 100,000 tons of rock for flood control requirements following an extensive flooding year. Significant finances were devoted to improving and maintaining excavation equipment over the years. Finding three, pursuant to the diminishing asset doctrine, the area to be excavated was clearly intended to be excavated at the time permit requirements went into effect. The county's permit requirements for surface mining went into effect on October 20, 1952, through the adoption of ordinance number 700. However, federal documents from 1949 identify the full extent of the 72.1 acre limestone reserve at the B Rock Quarry, and letters between Bureau representatives also confirm the quarry was used for follow-up projects by the Bureau after 1953. These aerial photos show evidence that mining activities had occurred across the limestone reserve and have been expanding over time. Therefore, the owner intended to excavate the entire limestone reserve. Staff recommends that your commission make the required findings for approval for the vested rights determination specified in attachment A and determine that the vesting rights determination is not a project subject to environmental review under CEQA. That concludes my presentation. Staff is available for questions and we also have the applicant team present. They have a presentation and will also be available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Nall. Do the commissioners have any questions for our staff? Commissioner Park.

Yes, my questions all relate to what I believe is the one public comment letter we received on this project. And that was from We Watch. And it says that there's visible light from the project at night and suggests that there be hooding of lights and so forth. Do you know whether the... IS THERE A MINING OPERATION OR PROCESSING DURING THE NIGHT?

COMMISSIONER PARK THROUGH THE CHAIR, THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL FOR THE QUARRY OPERATIONS DOES HAVE LIMITATIONS TO OPERATING HOURS. THERE ARE SOMETIMES EXCEPTIONS TO THOSE LIMITATIONS. If we haven't received any evidence that any light pollution is coming specifically from the quarry, so we can't necessarily confirm that. However, yes, the operation does have limitations to not operate during the night.

you know, I drive by there all the time at night, and I never noticed it. But we watch folks who are very reliable, and they say they see something. But I'm wondering if addressing their concerns with their suggestions of hooded lighting and so forth would interfere with the operation, or whether it's just sort of more like security lighting, and that they could... MAKE THAT CHANGE. AND, OF COURSE, I'LL BE ASKING THE APPLICANT TEAM, TOO. BUT I WONDER IF YOU KNOW.

COMMISSIONER PARKER, THROUGH THE CHAIR, THAT'S DEFINITELY A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT'S TEAM. I HESITATE TO SAY THAT THROUGH THIS PROJECT AND THIS HEARING, require them to shield lighting because they do have a prior approval with conditions of approval and mitigation. This project in front of us isn't necessarily touching any physical changes to the environment, so I find it would be challenging to require mitigation for the project description in front of us.

We're on the same page. Great. Thanks.

Any other questions from other commissioners? All right, seeing none, the applicant is invited to make its presentation.

COMMISSION, MY NAME IS JORDAN MAIN, I'M A LAND USE CONSULTANT PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF GRANITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND I'M HERE TODAY WITH TWO REPRESENTATIVES FROM GRANITE, SEAN PALMER, THE RESOURCE MANAGER, AND SEAN DIGGINS, THE PLANT MANAGER, AS WELL AS GRANITE'S EXTERNAL COUNSEL, ADAM GERNSEY, AND WE DO HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION THAT I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH. First would really like to thank County staff That's not often that a vested rights determination. I think comes through a planning department so staff did an excellent job Thoroughly analyzing the evidence that we provided and assessing the vested rights. I just wanted to acknowledge that and GIVEN THE THOROUGHNESS OF THE STAFF REPORT, I'M GOING TO TRY TO MAKE THIS BRIEF AND NOT DOUBLE UP ON MATERIAL THAT KATIE JUST PRESENTED. I DID WANT TO TAKE A STEP BACK, THOUGH, AND INTRODUCE AND SUMMARIZE GRANITE CONSTRUCTION AS A COMPANY AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE B-ROCK COREY TO THE LOCAL COMMUNITY. SO GRANITE IS A NATIONWIDE CONTRACTOR HEADQUARTERED IN GRANITE WAS FOUNDED IN 1922, SO IT'S ONE OF THE OLDEST CONTRACTORS IN THE STATE. IT'S BEEN AT IT FOR OVER 100 YEARS. HEAVILY INVESTED IN THE LOCAL COMMUNITY WITH A STRONG PRESENCE, EMPLOYS OVER 500 FOLKS LOCALLY, AND ALSO INVESTED WITH LOCAL COMMUNITY EVENTS. GRANITE HAS BEEN OPERATING AT THE B-ROCK COREY SINCE 1992, AND I THINK KATIE MENTIONED THAT. The B Rock Quarry itself is a really critical local resource for Santa Barbara County. And when we take a step back and think about what it provides, aggregates are the basic fundamental building blocks of the construction industry. They go into asphalt and concrete, which are used in roads, buildings, structures, schools, hospitals, literally almost everything we encounter in our daily lives structurally comes from aggregate at its core. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HAS ESTIMATED THAT ON AVERAGE EACH RESIDENT IN CALIFORNIA USES FIVE TO SEVEN TONS OF AGGREGATE PER YEAR. AND THAT INDICATES AN OVERALL DEMAND IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY IN EXCESS OF TWO MILLION TONS A YEAR. AND TO SUPPLY THIS LOCAL DEMAND THERE ARE REALLY TWO CRITICAL COMPONENTS THAT NEED TO BE MET. Number one is a local resource. So having aggregates locally has a huge and profound environmental benefit to reduce truck traffic and emissions from having to import material from distant sources. It also obviously lowers costs for construction projects. And maybe most importantly, not all aggregates are created equally. So high quality aggregates exist where they exist geologically. And B Rock Quarry has very high quality limestone that meets the specifications of Caltrans and the local public works departments, making it suitable for use in roadways. Here's BROC material being used on the slide on the current Highway 101 project between Carpinteria and Santa Barbara. So it's a really important local source of materials for the building industry and a driver for the local economy. TURNING MY ATTENTION TO THE VESTED RIGHTS AND, AGAIN, JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW. SO THERE WAS ANOTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWED THIS. THIS SLIDE KIND OF REITERATES THAT THE VESTED RIGHTS REQUEST IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE VESTED RIGHT FOR THE EXISTING APPROXIMATELY 60 ACRE COREY THAT'S UNDER PERMIT ALONG WITH THE RELATIVELY SMALL AREA OF ADDITIONAL LIMESTONE RESERVE THAT'S BEEN MAPPED AND IDENTIFIED AT THE SITE TOTALING ABOUT 12.6 ACRES. And I wanted to walk through the vested rights process just because it's potentially very different than almost any hearing maybe you'll go through this year. This confirmation hearing is not a traditional land use hearing. A permit is not being granted or an approval. Instead, this is a confirmation of a property right that is protected by the Constitution. And the entire basis of the property right is based on evidence and is not discretionary. It's evidentiary. Here, as Katie mentioned, there's overwhelming evidence of vesting. And I work on quite a few of these vested rights projects throughout the state. This one has more evidence than I think I've ever seen on a vested rights request, mainly because we have the benefit of really detailed records that the government kept in connection with the Kachuma Dam construction. So we have very clear and convincing evidence that mining started before the vesting date. There was a variety of uses associated with that mining that have continued to the present day. The mining on the site has continued since, and it's the only use that's been devoted to that area of the property since the 1940s. The operations, Katie showed a nice progression slide. The operations have continued across the aggregate deposit over time, progressively, indicating an intent to mine the full extents of the deposit. and production has increased over time in response to market demands, hitting as high as approximately 500,000 tons in 1997. So overall, there's really overwhelming evidence to support a confirmation of vested mining rights to the extent of the currently known deposit at the B-Rock quarry, and we respectfully request your confirmation and adoption of the motion recommended by staff.

Are there questions for the applicant?

Yes, I have some.

Commissioner Park.

You know, I've been involved with this mine one way or another for the entire time I've been on the Planning Commission, which is eight years, and so I hear things and then I don't remember who said them or when I heard them, but I seem to recall hearing that it's something like 70 percent of the product here from this quarry goes to government projects, is that right, or in the ballpark?

I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD ESTIMATE BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SIMILAR TYPE INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE 70% IS A GOOD ESTIMATE FOR GOING INTO PUBLIC WORKS.

OTHER THING THAT I THINK IS, WELL, IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO OTHERS BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT YOU FOLKS HAVE HEARD. I DROVE BACK AND FORTH along the mine on 154 for about 15 years before I ever knew the mine was there. I mean, I would see the trucks. I didn't know what they were doing and so forth. At least from my point of view, I can't see the quarry from the road and even the new part, which is on that opposite face. So when we go back and look at the pictures of the Butte You know, that's looking from the south. So that view of the big rock there is not the view that the public's ever had. That's the view that cows and deer have. And I think even with the new area to be quarried, it won't be visible from 154. I wonder if you can confirm that and whether you can, have any history of any complaints about visual impact. I haven't seen them in our hearing record.

Yeah, I think this is one of the really unique benefits, maybe, of the quarry site being a component of a very large contiguous land holding and not visible from a prominent location. Some quarries in this is a function of what I mentioned about the geology really dictating where these sit. This one has the benefit that geology places it in the center of this parcel that is not visible from many locations. And I'm not aware of any Complaints related to visual impacts and in fact to address your your we read the the comment letter we were actually a little surprised by its contents just because The the granite construction hasn't received directly any complaint and given its location We wouldn't anticipate that there would be any lighting related impact so there may be some confusion about surrounding uses maybe on the property But we certainly are committed to looking into that further, but aren't aware that lighting would impact the campground.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant? Commissioner Ford.

Thanks so much. On slide four, I love data, and I'm just kind of interested if you know how this data was compiled in terms of the I guess I understand the two million tons of aggregate used in the state of California every year, and then is it just a simple math problem to say that every resident uses five to seven tons?

Yeah, that's a good question. So the 2 million is actually representative of what would be anticipated to be used just in Santa Barbara County. The demand throughout California is actually much greater than that. So California, the state geologist publishes an official report on some routine cadence, just recently updated it. And over time, just based on annual consumption and use throughout California, they average based on population, what the total amount of aggregate used is in terms of each person, what they would theoretically require just for quality of life improvements. So this is Caltrans roadways being built and bridges throughout the state. So on average, it's worked out to between five and seven tons per year for every resident throughout the state, which is really kind of an alarming amount. It's a very high number that most people maybe don't appreciate until they hear it.

Thank you.

You bet.

All right. Thank you. All right. We are ready for public comment. Are there any requests to speak either online or in the room?

Mr. Chair, we have no requests to speak for this item and no letters submitted.

All right. We will close the public hearing. AND MOVE DIRECTLY TO COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND DELIBERATION. ANYBODY WANT TO START OFF? COMMISSIONER PARK.

I'M GLAD TO START BECAUSE IT'S IN MY DISTRICT AND I'VE BECOME FAMILIAR WITH IT OVER THE YEARS. THIS SITE SUPPLIES AN IMPORTANT MATERIAL FOR OUR PUBLIC AND THERE ARE FEWER AND FEWER MINDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO DO THIS. This will not be visible from the road. I THINK I MIGHT HAVE SEEN IT GOING UP THE TEPASKET TRAIL NEAR THE TOP, BUT IS THAT A MAJOR CONCERN FOR THE PUBLIC? I'VE NEVER MET ANOTHER PERSON THAT'S GONE UP THE TEPASKET TRAIL. SO I THINK IT'S NOT GOING TO BOTHER ANYBODY. WHAT WOULD BOTHER PEOPLE IS IF WE COULDN'T USE THIS RESOURCE AND HAD TO OPEN NEW MINES IN PLACES, IT WOULD BE A PERMITTING NIGHTMARE FOR ANY APPLICANT. MR. MAINE PROBABLY IS AWARE OF THAT, WHAT A NEW MINE WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND IT WOULD BE You'd be hard to find a spot where you would have the screening that you have here. So it just seems to me to make sense for everyone that this mine be allowed to expand into the area of the limestone that it knows is there. So I absolutely support the project.

Thank you. Commissioner Ford.

Thank you. Well, as well as Commissioner Park, I think that there's so much evidence here that is strong. And while it is rare for us to address something of this nature, It's clear that there's evidence for the pre-existing operation. The photos are really helpful. The documents that we've seen are also great evidence. And I really enjoyed knowing the historicals perspective. I think the staff report was impeccable and I loved the site visit, so I will also be ready to confirm that the evidence is overwhelming and confirm the vested mining rights.

Thank you. Commissioner Martinez? I have nothing constructive to add other than I would support the recommendations.

And I am in the same position. The staff report was complete and and convincing, and the applicant's presentation and the information the applicant provided to the staff I think makes this an easy decision for this Commission. And so I will be ready to support a motion to support the staff recommendation. If the staff would put the staff recommendation back up on the screen so that we can have an appropriate motion, I would appreciate that. And there it is. All right. Who wants to make the motion? Sorry.

We wouldn't have noticed.

That's fine.

All right, so there is our staff recommendation, point 1.2. Is there a commissioner who'd like to make the motion to support the staff recommendation? Commissioner Park.

Yes, and I'll do that because it's in my district. I will move that we... follow the staff recommendations that are laid out on slide 10 of the staff presentation and that are incorporated in the staff report and that we adopt the findings that are attached to the staff report.

Thank you. Is there a second?

I'll make a second.

All right. Commissioner, four seconds. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Motion is unanimously adopted. Thank you to the staff, thank you to the applicant for an excellent presentation. And I think we're ready to move on to item number two on the agenda. Please read the item.

Got it.

All right, we're gonna just pause briefly while our staff rearranges the Folks at the table.

Okay, I will read item two into the record. Item number 26, GOV-00003, Five-Year Capital Improvement Program Comprehensive Plan Conformity Determination. The following is the hearing at the request of Planning and Development Department staff on behalf of Board of Supervisors to review the proposed new projects and the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program. for fiscal years 2026 to 2031 and report to the Board of Supervisors as to their conformity with the comprehensive plan pursuant to government code 65401 and 65402.

Very good. Any ex parte disclosures from any members of the Commission? Seeing no request to speak, let's move on to the staff presentation.

Good morning, members of the Commission. Alex Tuttle with Long Range Planning. And just a quick introduction of the team here. We have moving down the line Kathy King, Supervising Planner. Ali Castaneda, project planner, and Danielle Moore, project planner, who will be running the presentation. We also have a couple of staff from different departments in the room with us that can answer particular questions you may have about any of the projects from both General Services and Public Works. This is a program or project that we do each year, so with that, I'll pass it off to staff. Ms. Moore?

Good morning Chair McConner and Commissioners. My name is Danielle Moore and I'm joined here by Ali Castaneda and today we'll be presenting the 2026-2031 capital improvement program known as the CIP Comprehensive Plan Conformity Review. Today's hearing is to review the new projects in the five year 2026 to 2031 capital improvement program as referred by the Board of Supervisors. Staff reviews the new projects to see if they conform with the county's comprehensive plan as required by government code sections 65401 and 65402. Now we'll be diving into the CIP process and government code requirements in the following slides. The CIP is a compilation of proposed capital projects which implement various plans across the county. The CIP is done in a five-year planning period annually, and General Services has a lead role in the CIP process and handling the property management of all other county departments besides the three shown on this slide. This chart shows how today's hearing fits into the annual CIP process. First, each county department prepares a list of proposed projects which they send to the County Executive Office to include in the new CIP. The CIP is then developed by the Budget and Research Division. The Board of Supervisors conceptually approves the CIP and then refers the projects to the County Planning Commission for conformity determination. As we are doing today, planning and development staff prepares recommendations regarding the conformity of all the projects with the county's comprehensive plan. Afterwards, staff will forward your findings to the Board of Supervisors for receipt and file. Government Code Section 6541 requires that the county prepare a list of new projects recommended for planning, initiation, or construction in the upcoming fiscal year and perform a programmatic level review of all new capital projects. Government Code Section 65402 has three main triggers, which are the following. The first is the acquisition or disposal of property. The second is the vacation or abandonment of streets, including easements and road right-of-way. And the third is the construction of any new public buildings or structures. Now I will hand off the rest of the presentation to Ali.

THANK YOU. IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, WE WILL REVIEW THE SPECIFIC PROJECTS IDENTIFIED IN THIS FIVE-YEAR CIP AND THEIR CONFORMITY DETERMINATIONS. THE 2026-2031 CIP INCLUDES 14 PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE REVIEW, INCLUDING 10 THAT HAVE NOT BEEN REVIEWED IN PREVIOUS YEARS. Two projects were reviewed previously, but conformity could not be determined at that time, and new information is now available. Two other projects were found in conformity previously, but have changed significantly since that determination was made so as to require additional review. OF THE 14 PROJECTS REVIEWED, SIX ARE FROM PUBLIC WORKS TRANSPORTATION, FOUR ARE FROM LACUNA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT, AND FLOOD CONTROL, RESOURCE RECOVERY AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, GENERAL SERVICES AND PARKS ALL HAVE ONE PROJECT EACH IN THIS CONFORMITY REVIEW. THIS MAP SHOWS THE LOCATIONS OF THE 14 REVIEWED CIP PROJECTS. The proposed projects include acquisition of parcels for a new library, sewer lines, storm damage repairs, and mobility improvements, just to name a few. As you can see, a majority of the projects are located in the North County. And to clarify, Site 11 Mission Canyon Slipout Repairs includes four interconnected projects that are located at the same location. For government code section 65401, conformity review, eight projects conform to the comprehensive plan and six projects have insufficient information for a conformity review determination and will therefore require future review. For government code 65402 review, six projects out of the total 14 trigger review, Five projects conform to the comprehensive plan and one project is insufficiently developed. In addition, two projects out of the 14 have an unknown status and will require future review. This conformity review is part of the CIP is not considered a project as defined by CEQA and therefore not subject to environmental review. The CIP is a government funding mechanism and does not commit to any specific project which could result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. However, each project selected for funding in the CIP will need to complete their own secret process. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the recommended actions as listed on page one of the staff report and summarized here. To review and consider the new CIP projects conformity with government code sections 65401 and 65402, to report the County Planning Commission's conformity findings to the Board of Supervisors, and to determine the Planning Commission's review of the CIP is not a project pursuant to CEQA. We would also like to acknowledge the important role General Services in facilitating the CIP as a critical resource in coordinating the conformity review. We have here in the audience Diana Estorga, Capital Division Chief of General Services, and Ted Tabor, Assistant Director of Real Property. This concludes our presentation, and we are available for questions at this time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there questions of staff from any of the Commissioners? Commissioner Park.

You know, I've watched this process several times. It's the first time I ever thought about, are projects not ready for conformity determination? And so if I understood the slide correctly, there are some projects here that are not. They'll require further review. And I presume that's our Planning and Development Department's determination. Is there disagreement among departments about this? Do I have folks in the audience wanna say, no, these are ready. We don't need to go through this process again.

Commissioner Park through the Chair. We met extensively with each of the departments that have projects in the CIP because we want to make sure that our observation that there might be additional information needed is not going to be difficult for them. And so we don't have any disagreements with the departments. And we have a sense that the projects, while they're in conceptual design and not finished, we also inform the departments that they can independently with each project come before you for a conformity review in the future.

Here is a follow-up question. I am really presuming the answer should be no. Is there anything the Planning Commission can do today that would hasten those conformity reviews or make it easier to do that?

Well, in cases where the projects are ready for 65401 conformity review, we have put that before you so that even if they are kind of part of the way through and still require 65402, we made sure that we went as far as we could to assist with the projects.

So the most efficient thing we can do to be helpful is just simply adopt your recommendations.

Yeah. We were as thorough as we could possibly be.

Well, and I appreciate that. Thank you.

Commissioner Ford.

Thanks. Just for the information of the public and also for me, could you give examples of what insufficient information might be?

To Commissioner Ford for the chair, some triggers for insufficient information are the CEQA process for the project is still outstanding. As my supervisor Kathy said, also the project's still in conceptual review. Our ideal state for reviewing projects is before they're initiating construction and right after they're towards the final design stage. So any projects that might be earlier than that, that usually will be a trigger for insufficient information. and also if the project is a few years out or if it's still pending um funding makes sense thank you commissioner martinez i have a quick question why don't you just say to just kind of trigger something in mind so

if I'm a department and I'm thinking of a project, do I go to you first to say, what do I need to be in conformity? Because otherwise, if I do everything and then come to you and say, and hear the message, this doesn't conform. Well, that was all for not in a sense is so do they come to you first?

Well, Commissioner Martinez, through the Chair, I would say that there's kind of a running list. We're recommending action on conformity review for the projects that have enough information. Over the years, and because some projects do take numerous years to go through the design process or there's changes that need to be kind of reincorporated in the project, we do revisit projects over a number of years. So each year when we go through this process, we do check in with the department, see how the projects have advanced, and see if there's any way that they're could be enough information to pick it up each time that we do our annual review. But I think you're asking the question if a project is brand new on the CIP list that comes to us from the board, are the departments meeting with us to make sure that there's enough to complete the conformity review? And I would just say that we meet with them as soon as the board releases the CIP list. And we did meet with every department sometimes numerous times. And we do share our needs as far as what would be a complete design or a complete review. And because the projects take a long time, the departments know what they should be aiming towards if they want to be part of this annual review next year or if they want to come before you as an individual project for conformity review.

Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you for that. Any other questions or comments from the commission? Seeing none. All right. Public comment, are there any requests to speak either in the room or online?

Mr. Chair, we have no letters submitted for this item. If anybody would like to make a public comment on this item, please raise your hand in the chat or in the audience. Seeing none, we have no public comment for this item.

All right, no public comment, therefore we'll close the public hearing on this item and move directly to Commission deliberation. Anybody wish to lead off on the... Can we put up the staff recommendations up on the screen, please, just to refresh ourselves about that? Here we are. Three items.

Commissioner Ford. Thanks. I just have a question of my fellow commissioners since I'm fairly new. Is anything controversial about this? Mr. Park or Mr. Martinez?

I just know that in the past... From my recollection, because I was trying to remember, in the past there's been some issues as to what projects were approving, in a sense, and more description. But these this year just seem really kind of straightforward. I know that was probably the most I can recollect in the past.

Thank you.

Well, I kind of tried to stir some up, but there really wasn't anything to do. Our role is limited. We are not really approving the project in terms of is it well designed, or do we like the color of the roof, or is the funding appropriate? We are just looking at conformity with the general plan. I think we are ready to roll.

Thank you for that clarification. I do, too, feel ready to roll. That is it.

commissioner park's explanation i think reflects my own understanding as well we're not approving any of the projects that are on the list what we're doing is making a recommendation to the board of supervisors to find that the projects on the list are consistent with our long-range plans so that it checks a box and moves these projects towards the next stage which is design and permitting in whatever permits that they may require may or may not come to us for review at some other point. So I would think this is a preliminary and relatively easy step to take provided that the consistency findings can be made. So I'm comfortable with it as well. Is there a commissioner who would like to make a motion related to the staff recommendations?

Commissioner Martinez. I'll make the motion to adopt the staff recommendations as presented here on our screen at slide 15.

Very good. Is there a second?

Yes, I'll second it.

Commissioner Ford seconds it. Is there any discussion on the motion? No discussion on the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. The motion is unanimously approved. And thank you to staff for very clear and excellent work on this particular matter. All right.

And thank you, Mr. Martin, for filling in.

I'm sorry, say again.

I wanted to thank Mr. Martin for filling in and telling me he did a good job. Thank you so much. And you did a good job as fill in chair because it's the first hearing I've ever been to where we actually had matters and it was over by 10.

Well, thank you for that. But this was not a heavy lift. Let's put it that way. And there being no other business, I believe this meeting is now adjourned and we will have our next meeting on July 1st. Is that right? Very good. Thanks, everybody. Thank you to the staff.