April 20, 2022
Subject: Public Comment Planning and Environmental Review Department Priority-Setting Workshop, FY 2022-23 Annual Work Program
Workshop Date: April 21, 2022
Dear Mayor Perotte, Mayor Pro Tempore Kasdin, Councilmember Aceves, Councilmember Kyriaco, and Councilmember Richards:
Please consider the following comments when determining priorities for the Planning and Environmental Review Annual Work Program:
1. I support staff’s recommendation to develop a Permit Procedures Manual by December 2022.
Please do not let this slip off the priority list.
2. The recommendations of the June 1, 2017 Citygate Report (available on the City’s website at https://www.cityofgoleta.org/projects-programs/studies-and-other-projects/citygate-planning- improvement-progress) should be implemented. This report set deadlines of 30, 60, 90, 120, or 180 days for initial efforts , depending on the effort . Although the report is nearly five years old and the “status” of each task is listed as “In Process”, it seems relatively few of these concrete steps have been taken.
While I continue to generally support all the Citygate Report’s recommendations, of particular importance is rebalancing planning skill sets and position allocations in the department to improve organizational efficiency, as discussed in Recommendation #7.
3. Create a Consent Calendar for the Design Re view Board to reduce cost associated with hearings (e.g., for Final approval following discretionary approval by another Review Authority), especially for “good actors” that coordinate with the DRB early in, and throughout, the project development process.
4. A publicly -accessible list of Title 17 changes requested by members of the public should be created, made available online, and regu larly updated. The document should also record how often each change is requested and some of the relevant details pertaining to the issue. Such an effort will allow staff, interested members of the public, and the City’s elected and appointed officials to better understand which parts of Title 17 create undue and unnecessary additional cost and therefore may need to be addressed.
5. Please include the development and adoption a policy regarding public outreach, with goals and specific action items to achieve those goals. Some specific actions should include:
a. Materials for large items must be released at least 10 days in advance. b. If a hearing for an ordinance (or similar) is postponed due to reasons unrelated to the ordinance (e.g., the agenda for the meeting is full), the materials for the hearing should be released to allow the public additional time to review.
c. The Staff Report, Monarch Press articles, Social Media posts, etc. should h elp the public understand the implications of a project or proposed change (e.g., characterize cost and benefits of an ordinance amendment).
d. If misinformation is widely published, a retraction with corrected information should be published equally as widely.
e. "Factual" claims should be critically considered before they are published. f. Outreach should consistently go above and beyond the minimum requirements for public notification, including regarding timing of when materials are made available. g. All interested parties should be notified of project updates, including when a related item is brought forward for closed session meetings.
6. Review Staff workload, and compare it to the appropriate position description, to determine whether any staff members are working out of class.
An example, based on my experience: As an Assistant and Associate Planner, I had significant responsibility for both training junior staff as well as counter operations. The position descriptions for these positions do not mention training junior staff, and the position description for an Associate Planner does not mention counter operations. When this topic was raised for discussion with management, as I recall, the response was essentially that no change could be made because (1) funding to make a change and resolve the situation (e.g., assign counter operations and related training to a Senior Planner, which has at least some responsibility for at training junior staff) was not available and (2) these duties are allowed under the “Other duties as assigned” portion of every position description. As I understand it, at other jurisdictions, “other duties as assigned” are typically limited to 5% to 10% of staff time. In my experience, this threshold was significantly exceeded. I do not believe this portion of the position description should be used as a “catch-all” to allow junior staff to work out of class without compensation.
7. Devote significant time to Title 17 Amendments . The following are some example proposed changes, some of which have been discussed publicly at recent meetings:
a. In general, Title 17 is excellent at protecting resources from impacts that would result from larger development projects, but there are few to no exceptions to these standards for small projects on previously-developed property, even when it is clear that a project would not impact a protected resource. This results in significant additional cost and delay for residents, property owners, businesses, and City Staff time. At a minimum, changes should be made to:
i. Chapter 17.30, Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas . Exemptions from Chapter 17.30 should be considered, and likely added, f or projects (grading, additions, accessory structures, etc.) on previously -developed, small (e.g., 0.25 - acres or less) residential properties.
ii. Chapter 17.43, Archaeological and Tribal Cultural Resources.
Please refer to my comments submitted for Agenda Item B.6 of the April 18, 2022 City Council hearing for more details. Some of the overarching considerations include:
1. Coordinating with the AIA Archives. While the Archives are available to property owners to perform this work, please do not put this burden on residents.
2. Improving enforcement mechanisms by providing additional fines for those that disregard ordinance requirements; refer to “Item H” of my previous comment letter.
3. Revising 17.43.020(A)(3) and (A)(4) for clarity. Staff often state that work in previously-disturbed soil is exempt (per (A)(3)), but (A)(4) requires that an applicant provide “evidence, as documented in as -builts plans, previous grading plans, or other documentary evidence… that the previous earth disturbance affected depths equal to or greater than the development being considered.” These two exemptions conflict with each other.
Note: Table 5 indicates that effort on this work was to be completed by June 2021.
As discussed during recent mee tings, additional work (permit history research, working with the tribes, clearing up language pertaining to exemptions, etc.) is ongoing and will likely take a substantial amount of time to resolve. Please ensure this work is included in the work plan.
b. It is unclear h ow to process permit applications for small accessory structures, patio covers, first- and second -story additions, etc. for single family dwellings, as well as duplexes, on properties with Land Use and zoning designations of Planned Residenti al.
This is especially true when the properties were originally permitted via a Development Plan. For example, as I understand it, a basic 125-square foot patio cover could normally be approved administratively, but within the Second University Village , would likely require:
i. Approval by the Planning Commission as the existing lot coverage already exceeds 30% for most (possibly all) properties.
ii. A Biological Study (for many properties) due to their location within 300 feet of a concrete-lined portion of Tecolote Creek.
iii. A Major Conditional Use Permit (for some properties) due to their location within 100 feet of a concrete-lined portion of Tecolote Creek. iv. A Development Plan Amendment (or SCD) may be required (under the current code) for all properties for any addition or change – a massive over -reach that could require all property owners within the Development Plan to approve the project and is further complicated by the fact that the records for some Development Plans seem to have been lost by the County . The old code, on the
other hand, required that single -family dwellings in lots zoned for Planned Residential to be processed as if they were in the single-family zoning district; this was not included in Title 17.
Each of the above is unnecessary. A patio cov er or small, rear -yard addition should be processed administratively, without a Biological Study (let alone a Major Conditional Use Permit), Development Plan Amendment, SCD, etc.
c. Return “setback averaging” to Title 17.
The old (County) code allowed for “ setback averaging,” which allowed development to encroach into setbacks (up to specified limits) if certain conditions were met, which included offsetting (or increasing) the setback elsewhere. This was not included in Title 17; instead, property owners mu st apply for a Modification to be approved by the Zoning Administrator at significant additional cost with no upper limit (it’s a deposit-based project, not a flat fee). Setback averaging should be brought back to allow Staff to process such small changes administratively.
d. Portions of buildings within five feet of a residentially-zoned lot should not be allowed to have windows or doors, as was consistent with the County’s old zoning ordinance. This is particularly important for properties with zero -lot-lines (of which there are many residences on both sides of the 101). Currently, there is nothing to prevent a property owner of a residence on a zero lot line from installing a fire-rated window to peer directly into their neighbor’s side yard, and the neighbor has no opportunity to be notified of (let alone appeal) such a project.
e. Regarding Accessory Structures:
i. A single, small accessory structure (e.g., 60 square feet or less) on a developed property should be exempted from side and rear yard setback requirements provided that they are at least five feet from any other structure on the property.
Many people have small storage sheds on their property within the side and/or rear yard setback, and this becomes problematic when they apply for a permit unrelated to the structure.
ii. Create an Administrative Design Review process for small accessory structures at the rear of a property, not visible from the public right of way. f. Title 17 allows the rear yard setback on a residential lot to be reduced to 15 feet when it backs up to a park or a permanently closed street. Language should be revised to include “…or similar, as determined by the Director” to allow Staff to review projects on a case - by-case basis. For example, there are some properties that back up to a 15-foot-wide concrete drainage ditch (not shown as ESHA on any maps). Because this concrete drainage ditch is neither a park nor a permanently -closed street, reducing the setback to 15 feet cannot currently be approved administratively. This has resulted in significant additional cost for at least one property owner desiring a rear-yard addition.
g. Noise associated with air conditioners should be measured at the property line, not the source. (The current code requires that noise limits be met at the source). h. Include a requirement that Zoning Administrator and Director Decisions be advertised via electronic mail to all who have signed up to receive updates from the Planning Department. At present, such email notifications are not typically provided and one ha s to constantly monitor the City’s website (or be located within 300 feet of a project) to receive a Public Notice.
i. Clarify the difference between a Zoning Clearance process and a Substantial Conformity Determination process for a property with a Development Plan. E.g., is a SCD required for all accessory structures, or would a ZC (possibly with DRB review and approval) suffice? j. Per Title 17, flat fees are non -refundable. While I generally support this, such a rigid requirement does not benefit our communi ty and puts an undue pressure on the City’s Permit Technician to catch issues with a proposed project before accepting it. Instead, the ordinance should be re -written to allow flexibility, especially when major project hurdles are identified very early in the review process. For example, language could be revised to state that flat fees are generally not refundable but the Director has discretion to refund such fees in part or in whole on a case-by-case basis.
Related, DRB hearing fees (and possibly Planni ng Commission and City Council hearing fees as well) are typically collected upon application submittal. Sometimes, projects are cancelled well before a single hearing is held. In such an instance, these fees should be refunded in full; presently, they cannot be refunded.
k. It would be beneficial to provide minimum requirements, or guidance, for live-work units.
For example, in I -OI, what is the minimum “living” space and office space needed to qualify a proposed project as a “live-work” project? Would one office with twenty three- bedroom apartment units suffice qualify?
l. 17.53.020(A) exempts “Repair and maintenance activities that do not result in an addition to, or enlargement or expansion of the structure. ” Occasionally, entire structures (e.g., carports) or buildings may need to be replaced due to age. The exemption should be clarified to help guide whether a replacement of a carport, building, or other structure qualifies as “repair and maintenance activities.”
m. Regarding signs:
i. Allow tenant panels on permitted signs to be replaced without need for a new permit (and associated cost in both fees and time) provided that the panel meets the requirements of an adopted Overall Sign Plan. The current requirement (requiring a Zoning Clearance) has cost Tech Park @ Cremona multiple thousands of dollars without any benefit to the City or its residents. ii. Create a process for administrative review of a Zoning Clearance for small signs, particularly in industrial zones. Currently, a DRB hearing is required even for basic
signs, resulting in significant additional cost and delay to businesses that solely wish to have a small wall sign to identify their business on the building.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Chris Noddings
City of Goleta Resident
From: Mike Butler <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 1:45 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Bird Rides, Inc. - Public Comment
Hi All,
I'd like for this to be read in the public comment section. Thank you!
--
My name is Mike Butler and I'm a member of Bird's city partnerships team. Bird remains interested in serving the Goleta community in order to provide clean, affordable transportation for your residents. We understand there are legislative barriers, but we are committed to working with the city staff and local organizations to ensure we implement a program that will be hugely beneficial for the community at large.
Our recommendation is to work with the staff on a 6-12 month pilot program that would be of no cost to the city. Our team is aware there's a long road ahead. Nonetheless, I look forward to potentially working with the city down the road.
Best,
--
Mike Butler | 213.282.4685.
Senior Account Executive, City Partnerships
B I R D
1 From: Michael Aling <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 6:43 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Electricity in New Construction
To Whom it May Concern,
I support the switch to all‐electric new construction in Goleta. I grew up in Goleta, and have strong ties to this town and the surrounding area; and because of early exposure to its ocean, cliffs, mountains, and open spaces, I'm pursuing a career in emissions control, renewable energy, and sustainability research at MIT. From my studies, I have seen how inertial, how slow to change infrastructure can be once it is in place ‐ particularly long‐lasting fossil fuel infrastructure.
New constructions are a relatively small portion of residences and buildings in Santa Barbara and Goleta (and please keep it that way ‐ Ellwood has shrunk far more than it should have), so catching them now has minimal impact on our near‐term energy mix. But because it takes so long to cycle through all constructions, the process must start immediately ‐ so that we can be ready for a clean Californian electricity grid and interconnected national grid.
Thank you for your time,
Michael Aling
6159 Craigmont Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
1 From: BILL WOODBRIDGE <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:18 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: electric building code for new construction
Goleta City Council Persons:
I strongly support the Sustainability 2022-23 work plan with electric buildings for new construction as a top priority. It seems there is time to have it go into effect on Jan. 1, 2023 to match California's 3-year building code.
Thank you,
Bill Woodbridge
Goleta
1 From: JO Powell <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:38 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: All Electric Construction? Well Yeah!
Re: Sustainability 2022‐2023
Let's do this!
I'm shopping for rooftop solar myself, as it is clearly imperative that we do everything we can, as a community and individually, to limit the effects of ignoring this for the last half a century.
We have much to atone for.
This is a start. Do it NOW.
Jan Powell
7162 Marymount Way
Goleta, CA 93117
805.558.2237
1 From: Fran Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 8:52 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: electric buildings
Dear Goleta City Council members,
We are fortunate enough to live in Encina Royale, a condominium community that is completely electric. Heating and cooking without gas is healthier and saner and the way forward to saving the planet.
We strongly support future construction of all electric buildings in accordance with the sustainability 2022‐23 workplan and urge full compliance by Jan. 23 to match the state's three‐year building code.
Frances & Roger Davis
249 Moreton Bay Lane #3
Goleta, CA 93117
‐‐
Fran
1 From: Alex Potter <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:05 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Input for Sustainability 2022-23 workplan
Dear Goleta City Council,
I am writing on behalf of myself and my family to say that we strongly support the Sustainability 2022-23 workplan with electric buildings for new construction as the top priority.
In my informed opinion as a parent and engineer there is no greater local priority than to assure that our actions align our community behind policies that help us assure the greatest possible long term prosperity of this good (great) land. The facts are clear that supporting green building codes, sustainable transportation and infrastructure, regenerative agriculture, and support for individuals and businesses transitioning to green practices are the most important things we can do to this end. The more quickly we divest from the fossil fuel soaked policies of the past the better.
Please pass the Sustainability 2022-23 work plan and assure it goes into effect on Jan. 1, 2023 to match California's 3-year building code. Our children and grandchildren's future depends on it.
Sincerely,
Alex Potter
7617 Anchor Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
1 From: Carolyn Chaney <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 9:39 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Going electric for new buildings
I support the City of Goleta staff in their recommendation that the City start the path to ensuring all new buildings are electric, an action already taken by the Cities of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo and more than 50 California municipalities. It is a no brainer.
Carolyn Chaney
"Tell me, what do you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?" Mary Oliver “Of all the paths you take in life, make sure a few of them are dirt.” John Muir 1 From: Patrick Keeley <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 9:21 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: New buildings should go ALL ELECTRIC
Dear City Councilmembers,
As a Goleta resident, I would like to strongly support the Sustainability 2022‐23 workplan with electric buildings as the top priority. I believe that this is imperative to the future of our beautiful city, and think there is time to enact such rules by the new year.
I also hope that the city can provide incentives or subsidies to retrofit older homes for an all electric future.
We need to ditch dangerous and dirty natural gas ASAP.
Sincerely,
Patrick Keeley
61 Amador Ave,
Goleta, CA 93117
1 From: Nadia Abushanab <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 10:31 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Support for All-electric building ordinance
Dear City Council,
SBCAN, the Santa Barbara County Action Network, strongly supports an ordinance requiring new buildings to be all‐ electric. Many cities across California and throughout the nation are making this switch because of the environmental, financial, and health benefits. We need to phase out fossil fuels in all forms in order to stave off the worst of climate change. This will require brave and perhaps controversial decisions from our leaders. Switching to all‐electric for new buildings will ensure we are not locking in 30‐50 years of fossil fuel use with each new building that is built in Goleta. In the long run, electric appliances actually save money because of the increased efficiency, and the fact that electricity is getting cheaper as solar and wind become more prevalent. Lastly, combusting natural gas within homes, mainly through the form of gas stoves, has been linked to health issues such as asthma in children. Electric induction stoves are much more energy efficient, safe, and personally I have found them to be extremely gratifying to cook with when I have had the chance.
Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you will move forward with an all‐electric building reach code as a high priority.
Very best,
Nadia Abushanab, SBCAN.
‐‐
Nadia Lee Abushanab (she/her)
Advocacy and Events Director
SBCAN
[email protected]
508‐740‐8504
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automa tic download of this picture from the Internet. 1 From: Michael Chiacos <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2022 12:35 PM
To: City Clerk Group; Paula Perotte; Kyle Richards; Roger Aceves; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Please pass an all-electric code or natural gas prohibition Dear Mayor Perotte and City Councilmembers,
Community Environmental Council strongly supports making an all‐electric reach code or preferably a natural gas prohibition a top priority for the City of Goleta. We have been advocating for this policy consistently for a couple years now at Goleta, and we are happy to see it now at the top of the priority list. Passing such a code is one of the largest things a city can do to affect community‐wide greenhouse gas emissions.
Santa Barbara, Ojai, and over 50 cities in California have passed such a code. The County of Ventura is developing their code right now, and two weeks ago the County of Santa Barbara voted to move forward a code. Other cities in the region are also considering them.
All‐electric buildings are:
Less expensive to build and operate, which leads to housing affordability. They are healthier for inhabitants, as there is no gas combustion inside the home, which can lead to asthma and other health issues.
They are also a big way cities can lead on sustainability by using clean electricity rather than natural gas in homes.
Central Coast Community Energy offers a $15,000 incentive to adopt such a code https://3cenergy.org/reach‐ code‐program/. The City of Goleta should act quickly to make sure the code goes into effect on Jan. 1 2023 to match California's 3‐year building code.
Thank you for prioritizing this important issue.
Michael Chiacos
Director of Climate Policy
Community Environmental Council
1219 State Street, Suite A, Santa Barbara CA 93101
(805) 963-0583 x204 | (805) 284-4179 (Cell)
Facebook | Instagram | Twitter| LinkedIn
CEC advances rapid and e
quitable solutions to the climate crisis. See our impact report to learn why we are a 2020 California Nonprofit of the Year, a 2020 City of Santa Barbara Climate Hero, and a recipient of the highest possible ratings from Charity Navigator and Guidestar.
CEC (por sus siglas en inglés) avanza soluciones rápidas y equitativas a la crisis climática. Vea nuestro informe de 2 impacto para saber por qué somos la Organización Sin Fines de Lucro del Año 2020 de California, el 2020 Ciudad de Santa Bárbara Héroe del Clima y tenemos las calificaciones más altas posibles en Charity Navigator y Guidestar.