65266.00005\41034714.1
A genda Item B.10
CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: February 21, 2023
TO
: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: Robert Nisbet, City Manager
SUBJECT: Establishment of a County Housing Element (6 th C y c l e ) A d H o c Committee and Appointment of Councilmembers Thereto
RECOMMENDATION:
By Minute Motion, approve:
A. The establishment of a County Housing Element (6 th Cycle) Ad Hoc Committee, which shall consist of two members of the City Council; B. The appointment of Mayor Pro Tempore Richards and Councilmem ber Kasdin to the County Housing Element (6th Cycle) Ad Hoc Committee; and C. The automatic termination of the County Housing Element (6 th C y c l e ) A d H o c Committee upon certification of t he County’s Housing Element or upon effectiveness of the zoning ordinances necessary to implement t he County’s Housing Element, whichever comes later.
DISCUSSION:
At the February 7, 2023 City Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tempore Richards requested concurrence for the establishment of a City Council ad hoc comm ittee related to the County of Santa Barbara’s Hous ing Element Update (“HEU”) for th e 6 th Housing
Element cycle (“Ad Hoc Committee”). Councilmember Kyriaco concu rred. Mayor Pro Tempore Richards offered to participate on the Ad Hoc Committee and Councilmember Kasdin was recommended by other Councilmembers to fill the seco nd seat on the Committee. The item was propos ed to be brought back to the Febr uary 21, 2023 City Council meeting for Council consideration and action.
The Ad Hoc Committee will serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council. The Committee will study and monitor the process and development of the County’s HEU (6
th Cycle) and its potential effect and impact on Goleta; work with City staff; participate in meetings with the County as appropriate; and make recommendations to the City Council. The City Manager shall provide staff support to the Ad Hoc Committee as necessary to assist with its designated work.
1 65266.00005\41034714.1
Meeting Date: February 21, 2023
The Ad Hoc Committee may meet as needed at the convenience and discretion of its members, giving due considerati on to staff availability when st aff is desired for a meeting. Upon either (i) certifi cation of the County’s Housing Element (6 th Cycle) by California’s Department of Hous ing and Community Development, i n compliance with State Law, or (ii) effectiveness of the zoning ordinances neces sary to implement the County’s Housing Element (includi ng, specifically, its site inventory list), whichever comes later, the Ad Hoc Committee shall be deemed automatically terminated as the Committee’s objective will have been completed.
With respect to the status of the County’s HEU, the Board of Supervisors held a meeting on February 14, 2023 at which the draft County HEU was discussed. Speakers on behalf of the City spoke to hi ghlight City-related concerns with respect to the currently-drafted HEU and the County’s proposed process. These public comments reflect the same sentiment and comments previously made by City representatives to the County relating to the conceptual and draft HEU. If approve d, the Ad Hoc Committee will continue to monitor the County’s HEU and work wi th staff to address City-related concerns and matters, as previously noted.
Reviewed By: Legal Review By: Approved By:
___________________ ______ _____________ ______ ___________ Kristine Schmidt Megan Garibaldi Robert Nisbet
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager ATTACHMENT:
1. Letters - City of Goleta to County of Santa Barbara
2 Attachment 1
Letters - City of Goleta to County of Santa Barbara
3 CITY COUNCI L
Paula Perotte
Mayor
Kyle Richards
Mayor Pro Tempore
Stuart Kasdin
Councilmember
James Kyriaco
Councilmember
District 2
Luz Reyes -Martín
Councilmember
District 1
CI TY MANAGER
Robert Nisbet
January 13, 2023 SENT VIA EMAIL
Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Barbara
105 East Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
RE: Santa Barbara County 6th cycle Housing Element Update Dear Chair Hartmann and Honorable Members of the Board of Supervisors, We write to you in the spirit of regional cooperation and collaboration regarding the County's preparation of its updated Housing Element. We understand the challenges faced by the County and other jurisdictions throughout the State in develop ing and submitting this document wit h a looming deadline.
However, we are alarmed and deeply concerned by the County's process and apparent lack of transparency and public outreach, including inadequate communication with the City of Goleta. In particular we are troubled by potential development of the parcels under consideration on agricultural and open space that are immediately adjacent to the City. As you know, these properties have long been identified in City planning documents as potential future se rvice areas. If these properties wer e fully developed there would obviously be very real and s ignificant impacts -- most notably traffic -- to the City and our residents.
Attached please find a memo from our Planning Director with sev eral questions about the County's process as well as sugg estions for how we can move forward collaboratively. We look forward to future collaborations with the County that are based on transparency, open communication, and mutual respect.
Sincerely,
Paula Perotte, Mayor Kyle Richards, Mayor Pro Tempore
cc: Mona Miyasato, CEO, County of Santa Barbara
City of Goleta City Councilmembers
Robert Nisbet, City Manager
4 CITY COUNCIL
Paula Perotte
Mayor
Kyle Richards
Mayor Pro Tempore
Stuart Kasdin
Councilmember
James Kyriaco
Councilmember
District 2
Luz Reyes-Martín
Councilmember
District 1
CITY MANAGER
Robert Nisbet
January 13, 2023 SENT VIA EMAIL
[email protected]
Lisa Plowman
Director, Planning and Development Department
County of Santa Barbara
123 E. Anapamu Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
RE: Santa Barbara County 6
th cycle Housing Element Update
Dear Ms. Plowman:
City of Goleta staff have been follo wing the County’s Housing Element update process and we appreciate the c hallenges faced by the County as well as the other South Coast cities for the 6
th cycle. The purpose of
this letter is to provide some observations and suggestions regarding your Housing Element updat e, particularly as they relate to potential housing sites the County has identified that are adjacent to Goleta. As you might expect, City leadership has heard substantial concerns from Goleta residents.
A key concern expressed to us is that the County’s process for identifying and evaluating potential housing sites should be explicit, deliberate, objective, well-documented, and public. Such a process would begin with a parcel-specific tabulation of the current housing capacity of unincorporated land, based on ex isting land use and zoning designations. County staff has stated that there is insufficient capacity under existing zoning to fully accommodate the RHNA, but it is essential to see the actual methodology and ana lysis followed in reaching that conclusion before proceeding to the analysis of potential zoning changes.
Typically, the Housing Element first quantifies the shortfall of sites that must be made up through rezoning. This detail would be informative and is fundamental to justifying the County’s approach.
It would also be helpful to document the methodology and criteria used in the sites analysis, for both ex isting residentially zoned sites and potential sites for rezoning. Typically , such criteria would include the likely development densities for different zoning districts, constraints, such as infrastructure availabili ty, environmental resources (e.g., 5 January 13, 2023
agriculture, ESHAs) or hazards, access to urban services, existing uses that could inhibit development or redevelopment (for non-vacant sites), and fair housing considerations, such as access to opportunity as identified by HCD/TCAC maps.
Since the focus of the sites analysis is on parcels having realistic capacity for housing development during the next 8 ye ars, we suggest that your anal ysis specifically identify potential constraints that could hinder development in that timefram e. For example, the Goleta Water District current ly has a moratorium on new water connections within its service area and no timeframe has been identified for the lifting of the moratorium. Other potential constraints that should be consid ered include the recently updated Cal Fire designations of fire hazard zones and what effect fire hazards would have on the likelihood of development.
Other relevant planning considerations woul d also include consistency with County and LAFCO policies regarding urban development outside of current city boundaries and spheres of influence, especially land used for agricultural production or open space. In a recent public workshop, County staff refe renced an “Urban-Rural Boundary Line.” We suggest an explanation of the relationship between this line and your site selection process be included.
With regard to vacant vs. non-vacant sites, we understand the higher standard of review under State law for “underutilized” parcels. However, non-vacant sites may be appropriate for the sites inventory, if those sites wo uld support other policy objectives, such as preservation of agricultural lands and open spac e. In our experience, non-vacant sites may be used to fulfill RHNA obligations with appropriate documentation, such as sites with marginal uses, vacant buildings or ot her signs of economic distress. The County should among other things thoroughly evaluate the viability of the potential housing sites shown in yellow on Planning & Development’s interactive online map.
The County’s Housing Element website has been very useful to both City staff and Goleta residents and we look forward to reviewing updated information as it becomes available.
We appreciate your consideration of thes e ideas and look forward to continuing to collaborate with you and your staff going forw ard. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or 805-961-7541, if you would like to discuss this matter further.
Sincerely,
Peter Imhof
Director, Planning and Environmental Review Department
cc: Robert Nisbet, City Manager
Anne Wells, Advance Planning Manager
6