From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 9:52 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Heritage Ridge
I support the Heritage Ridge project proposal as a meaningful educational tool for the entire community.
Stephanie Acree
Member, Barbareno Band of Chumash Indians
75 Clyde Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
415.246.8265
From: Veronica Correa <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 3:53 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Cc: Mary Chang
Subject: Heritage Ridge
I support the Heritage Ridge project proposal as a meaningful educational tool for the entire community.
Veronica Amador
Vida Amador
Gia Amador
Member of the Barbareno Band of Chumash Indians
3180 Cheshire Dr.
San Jose, Ca.
95118
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: Mary LL <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 4:02 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Cc: Mary Chang
Subject: Heritage Ridge Project
I support the Heritage Ridge project proposal as a meaningful educaƟonal tool for the enƟre community.
LyneƩe Lopez
Joshua Ordaz
Jesse Ordaz
Member of the Barbareno Band of Chumash Indians
LyneƩe Lopez
From: Janice Correa <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 4:09 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Cc: Mary Chang
Subject: Heritage Ridge
I support the Heritage Ridge project proposal as a meaningful educational tool for the entire community.
Janice Correa
376 Mustang St.
San Jose,Ca
95123
Sent from my iPhone
Comments RE: The Heritage Ridge Residential Apartment Project. Page - 1
DAVID GAUGHEN
7456 Evergreen Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
Telephone: (805) 985 – 7229
Email: [email protected]
March 05, 2023
To: The Mayor and Council Members
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117
Subj: Comments RE: Agenda Item “C.2 23-014 The Heritage Ridge 332 Residential Apartment Project,” meeting date March 07, 2023
Ref. (1) Staff report for Agenda Item C.2 (H eritage Ridge, 807 pages), meeting date March 07, 2023 (2) David Gaughen’s written submittal to the Planning Commission entitled “Concerns Regarding Agenda Item B.1 22-543 Continued Review of Heritage Ridge 332 Residential Apartment Project,” meeting date November 14, 2022
(3) Strategic Energy Plan: City of Goleta – May 2019 (102 pages) (4) Senate Bill (SB) 100 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases, September 10, 2018.
Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members:
I appreciate the time and effort that went into preparing Reference 1.
Water Availability
Per Reference 2, my primary concern, including the shared opinion of multiple neighbors, is the new water demand and resulting effect on the Goleta Water District’s (GWD) resources especially since we were experiencing a State wide drought (i.e., California’s Second Water Conservation Regulation went into effect on June 10, 2022). Additionally, it appears that this Project, combined with Willow Springs I, Willow Springs II are entitled to 100.89 AFY of water as provided by the GWD which equates to approximately 32,875,150 gallons of water/year (see https://www.unitconverters.net/volume/acre-foot-to- gallon-us.htm for conversion). Furthermore, per Ref. 1, “the site is considered an existing customer of the GWD and meets the criteria for an exemption as outlined in GWD Resolution No. 2014-32.” In any case, the combined authorized use of 32,875,150 gallons/year is considerable, and I encourage the City to work with the GWD to greatly expand our water supply inventory through the planned development of: 1) New storm water/rainwater reservoirs, 2) New storm water/rainwater capture facilities, and 3) New desalination plants and other water producing technologies.
Ideally, both the City and the GWD must invest in new infrastructure resources that increase our water supply in an attempt to offset future water demands from residential developments such as this.
Goleta’s Strategic Energy Plan and SB 100
Reference 4 (SB 100: California Renewables Program) states in part the following:
Comments RE: The Heritage Ridge Residential Apartment Project. Page - 2 “The bill would require that retail sellers and local publicly owned electric utilities procure a minimum quantity of electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources so that the total kilowatthours of those products sold to their retail end-use customers achieve 44% of retail sales by December 31, 2024, 52% by December 31, 2027, and 60% by December 31, 2030.
Reference 3 (Strategic Energy Plan: Goleta) states as follows:
“In December 2017, the City of Goleta City Council unanimously adopted a goal of 100% renewable electricity supply for the community by 2030 with an interim goal of 50% renewable electricity for municipal facilities by 2025 (see page 4).”
“Goleta electricity demand is forecasted to be 218 GWh (gigawatt-hours) in 2030. Under a business- as usual (BAU) scenario, local renewable generation and SCE renewable generation are forecasted to comprise only 63% of Goleta’s electricity mix in 2030 (see page 8).”
Reference 1 presents the following:
“… the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the City’s CAP, Strategic Energy Plan, or any other applicable plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. This impact would be less than significant (see page 58).”
“The project would be served by Southern California Edison, which is required to increase its renewable energy procurement in accordance with SB 100 targets (see page 62).”
In summary, the Heritage Ridge project will be serviced by Southern California Edison (SCE), SB 100 requires publicly owned electric utilities (e.g., SCE) to procure 60% of their electricity products from eligible renewable energy resources by December 31, 2030, and Goleta’s Strategic Energy Plan presents a goal of 100% renewable electricity supply for the community by 2030. First, it is unclear why Goleta’s renewable energy goal is 40% higher than California’s for 2030. Second, since this project is to be serviced by SCE and if SCE complies exclusively with the minimum requirements of SB 100, then by default this project would Not comply with Goleta’s Strategic Energy Plan’s goal for 2030 (i.e., 100% renewable electricity supply by 2030). As such, I encourage the Mayor and City Council to direct staff to revisit Goleta’s Strategic Energy Plan in an attempt to draft modifications that reflect the minimum requirements of SB 100.
Senior Affordable (41 units)
Per the demographics for renumbered Redistricting Map 701, 20 % of Goleta’s 32,754 population consists of residents Age 60 and above. Per Ref. 1, the breakdown of Senior Affordable housing units consists of: a) 1 unit for an onsite resident manager; b) 10 units for veterans; c) 10 units for seniors who are unhoused with significant medical needs; d) 10 units for seniors who are unhoused and have mental health and other needs; e) 10 units for lower income seniors in need of affordable housing. I believe this breakdown is a disproportionate reflection of Goleta’s Senior demographics, and further believe a breakdown such as the following could be more accurate: a) 1 unit for an onsite resident manager; b) 5 units for veterans; c) 5 units for seniors who are unhoused with significant medical needs; d) 5 units for seniors who are unhoused and have mental health and other needs; e) 25 units for lower income seniors in need of affordable housing.
As such, I respectfully request that the City Council and Mayor express their intent to deny this section in an attempt to negotiate a higher number of affording housing units for lower income seniors and a lower number of units for the remaining senior categories.
Comments RE: The Heritage Ridge Residential Apartment Project. Page - 3 Conclusion
Unfortunately, it appears that The Heritage Ridge project will be approved and hopefully it will have a positive impact on our local community, in particular our lower income senior population, instead of the predictable drain on: A) Goleta’s Limited Water Resources, B) California Energy Production & Distribution, C) City Waste Water Collection & Treatment, and other infrastructure components.
Thank you for your time,
David Gaughen
906 Garden St. Santa Barbara, CA 93101
PHONE (805) 963-1622 FAX (805) 962-3152
www.EnvironmentalDefenseCenter.org
March 6, 2023
The Honorable Paula Perotte
Mayor of City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
Submitted by email to [email protected]
Re: Heritage Ridge Residential Development Project
Dear Mayor Perotte and Councilmembers:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Heritage Ridge Residential Development Project (“Project”), which will come before the Council for consideration on March 7, 2023. The Environmental Defense Center (“EDC”) submits these comments on behalf of our clients The Goodland Coalition, Citizens Planning Association, Sierra Club, by and through the Santa Barbara-Ventura Chapter, Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council, and Santa Barbara Audubon Society. Since mid-2021, EDC and our clients have worked with Heritage Ridge owners (“HRO”) to reduce the impact of the Project on the environment and ensure Goleta’s General Plan policies, ordinances, and other requirements regarding environmental protection are honored.
EDC’s clients have members who live, visit, work, and recreate in the City of Goleta and would be affected by the Project. The Goodland Coalition advocates for policies that protect, preserve, and improve Goleta’s unique character and encourage and facilitate participation of Goleta residents in community planning and decision-making. Citizens Planning Association is a nonprofit grassroots organization that focuses on county-wide land use issues, advocating for the best standards of design and natural resource protection in order to maintain sustainable communities and protect the heritage of Santa Barbara County. For over 40 years the local Sierra Club Santa Barbara-Ventura Chapter has been working to protect wildlife and wildlands, clean air and water, public health, a sustainable future, and a healthy environment across the Santa Barbara region. Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council protects creeks and wetlands on the south coast for the benefit of fish, wildlife, clean water, and people. The Santa Barbara Audubon Society, a chapter of the National Audubon Society with more than 1,100 members in Santa Barbara County, works to connect people with birds and nature through education, science-based projects, and advocacy.
March 6, 2023
Heritage Ridge Project
Through our discussions with the applicant, we achieved significant revisions to the Project design that will result in important community benefits, including protecting Los Carneros Creek with a minimum 100’ buffer, and landscaping with native plants found in Goleta on over three and a half acres throughout the site, including the Streamside Protection Area (“SPA”), the wildlife corridor and the area slated to be a new City park. The native plant communities will become habitat for native birds and pollinators, while honoring the Chumash heritage of the site, and providing a unique amenity to residents and visitors to the public park.
If the City Council approves the Project as currently designed, the environmental benefits of the Project will be achieved without reducing the affordable or market rate housing by a single unit. We all recognize that housing, and affordable housing in particular, is critically needed in Santa Barbara County, and this Project demonstrates that housing projects can go forward in a way that not only meets legal requirements, but also creates natural spaces that are in keeping with the values of Goleta residents who place a premium on protection of the natural environment and open space.
On November 29, 2022, we and Heritage Ridge owners wrote to you to request the addition of proposed draft conditions which, if approved, would ensure the important community benefits achieved through negotiation would be incorporated into final project approval. Since then, we have worked to address concerns raised by City staff regarding the costs to maintain the native habitat in the proposed park, as well as the issue of a cloud on title for Lots 1-3, proposed for title transfer to the City and the Housing Authority. In order to ensure the Project can go forward, our clients made significant concessions and have agreed to amend their settlement agreement with Heritage Ridge owners to address the feedback we received from City staff.
The proposed conditions of approval in the 2/24/23 Staff Report reflect a compromise that meets community objectives and legal requirements related to environmental protection. The conditions require the permanent protection of the SPA, the establishment of new native plantings in the park, the wildlife corridors, and other areas throughout the site, and provide for a dedicated source of funding for any extra costs the City may incur that are associated with the long-term maintenance of the native plantings in the park, while providing needed affordable housing to the community. We ask that you approve those conditions as part of Project approval.
This letter covers the following topics:
o Streamside Protection Area
o Native Plantings/site design
o Funding for Park Maintenance
o Park Design Options
I. Streamside Protection Area
Goleta’s Conservation Element Policy CE 2.2 (“Policy CE 2.2”) establishes Streamside Protection Areas (“SPA”) with a minimum 100’ buffer on both sides of the City’s creeks and streams unless “there is no feasible alternative for development that will avoid the upland [] March 6, 2023
Heritage Ridge Project
buffer” and a project’s impacts will not have significant adverse effects on the stream’s vegetation or biotic quality. Policy CE 2.2. The Heritage Ridge Project, as originally designed, would have extended 33’ into the Los Carneros Creek Streamside Protection Area on the creek’s south side. Through negotiations with HRO, the Project design now ensures protection of Los Carneros Creek by meeting the minimum required 100’ Streamside Protection Area consistent with Policy CE 2.2 as outlined in the Revised Site Plans of 9/22/22.1 Per General Plan Policy CE
2.4, the SPA within the Project’s footprint will be permanently protected through a deed restriction.
The Project’s Landscape Plans, Habitat Exhibit and Plant Palette outline coastal sage scrub and coast live oak woodland native plant communities that will be established in the upland SPA buffer, while the requirements contained within the proposed Conditions of Approval in the Staff Report set out additional requirements for establishing and maintaining that vegetation. Specific conditions affecting the SPA buffer include, for example, Condition 26 (C), requiring planting of native plants from the Goleta and Devereux Slough Watersheds within the SPA, and 26 (H), limiting activities within the SPA to maintenance, e.g., replacement of plantings and the irrigation system, weed control, trash removal. This section also allows maintenance of utility infrastructure. Taken together, the Conditions and Revised Site Plans will ensure the SPA will serve as natural, wildlife habitat in perpetuity.
II. Native Plantings/Site Design
Through our negotiations with HRO, we achieved changes to the Project to incorporate the establishment of native plant habitat at a more than 1:1 ratio compared to habitats currently mapped as ESHA. Our agreement with HRO will result in the establishment of several important native plant communities, such as coastal sage scrub, coast live oak woodland, and native marsh plants in the retention basins, among others. The terms of our agreement with HRO are now enshrined in both the Revised Site Plan and the proposed Draft Conditions of Approval contained within the Staff Report.
Specific Conditions that relate to establishment and subsequent protection of the native plantings are contained within Conditions 26 (A-J) as follows:
o 26(A) requires that native plant palettes are maintained for the life of the Project, requires replacement plantings in fall or winter and allows other plant species if original plant species do not thrive in that location; defines “life of the Project”; o 26(B) requires coastal sage scrub vegetation communities to have at least 80-85% native plant cover, and allows coyote brush in coastal sage scrub areas; o 26(C) requires plants grown from seeds collected in habitats occurring in Goleta and disallows ornamental natives in native planting areas such as coastal sage scrub;
1 The Project includes a SPA Buffer of 106 feet from the riparian vegetation of Los Carneros Creek based on the 2015 map in the FEIR and a buffer of at least 100 feet from the riparian vegetation shown on Figure 4.3-2 in the RDEIR.
March 6, 2023
Heritage Ridge Project
o 26(D) disallows ornamental native plants that will hybridize with locally sourced natives, and requires measures to control exotic and noxious weeds; o 26(E) allows slight modifications of locations of native plant areas so long as acreage remains the same;
o 26(F) requires native plants to be maintained for the life of the Project; allows the City to use its “best efforts” to maintain the plantings within the park, based on budget resources;
Change requested to 26(F):
This Condition contains a few typos and does not contain reference to the funding mechanism for native plantings contained in proposed condition 50(J), therefore, we request the following revisions:
“Where these native plantings occur on Lot 3 of the Heritage Ridge Map, the City will use its best efforts to maintain the native vegetation planted in the City Park Lotpark in a good faith consistent with the conditions of approval based on budget resources, including the funding mechanism set forth in Condition 50(J) and at a similar level to other City-maintained public parks.
o 26(G) requires signage and fencing to protect native plantings; o 26(H) limits activities within the SPA to protect native plantings; o 26(I) requires native plant communities outside the SPA to be protected for the life of the Project.
Change requested to 26(I):
This Condition contains an internal inconsistency. To reduce ambiguity, we request the deletion of the words “found on lot 4” from line three of 26(I) because it contradicts “including the Park” as Lot 4 does not contain the park, as follows:
“CSS, Coast Live Oak Woodland, Native grassland and Marsh plant palettes and vegetation communities and all areas planted with local genotype native plant species on the Project site outside the SPAfound on Lot 4, including the park, shall be maintained with said vegetation and plants for the life of the Project.
o 26(J) outlines standards for design of the vegetated stepped retaining walls on the west side of the Project and the native plants to be established there.
III. Funding for Park Maintenance
We support Condition 50(J) which would establish a dedicated fund to maintain native plantings within the park for the life of the Project. With that funding, we believe that the City’s concerns are addressed, and the community benefits of the changes we achieved with HRO on the Revised Site Plan will be achieved.
March 6, 2023
Heritage Ridge Project
Change requested to 50(J):
Our clients request the following addition to the end of Condition 50(J) to clarify the City may use principal from the dedicated conservation fund if needed to maintain the native plantings in the City Park Lot:
“If any maintenance, replacement, or other costs are not met by the interest from the initial $250,000 amount, the City will assess the needs of the City Park Lot during its budget process and determine whether to allocate additional funds from the principal towards maintenance of the native vegetation. In the event principal funds are depleted, the City will continue to use its best efforts to maintain the native plants in compliance with the conditions of approval.”
IV. Park Design Options
In response to the City Parks and Recreation Commission’s concerns that the park did not include sufficient active design elements, HRO submitted three park options with varying park amenities which they presented at the Planning Commission hearing on November 14, 2022.
The three park design options are Option 1 (Low Active), Option 2 (Moderate Active), and Option 3 (Most Active). Our clients are opposed to Option 3, the most active design, and they agree with Goleta’s Planning Commissioners who voted 4-1 on November 14 to reject Option 3 because it failed to strike the proper balance of providing active recreation components while still “respecting the cultural resources on the site.” (Staff Report at 6). Our clients oppose the Most Active design because, in their view, it would not be in keeping with the park as a native plant habitat for people and wildlife, nor with the protection and respect for the Chumash heritage of this site.
Our clients are not opposed to the Revised Site Plan with Exhibits CL-1, CL-2, CL-3, and LH-1 dated 9/22/22 and Park Options 1 or 2 in the Staff Report, and support the Conditions of Approval contained in the Staff Report, with the small changes we suggest.
Thank you for your consideration of our comments. We look forward to the City Council’s discussion about these matters at the March 7 hearing.
Rachel Kondor
Staff Attorney
cc: The Goodland Coalition
Citizens Planning Association
March 6, 2023
Heritage Ridge Project
Sierra Club Santa Barbara-Ventura Chapter
Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council
Santa Barbara Audubon Society
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
March 3, 2023
Transmitted via e-mail: [email protected]
Mary Chang
City of Goleta
Planning and Environmental Review Department
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117
RE: Heritage Ridge Conditions Of Approval 14-049-GPA-VTM-DP-DRB
Dear Ms. Chang,
Introduction
On behalf of Red Tail Multifamily Land Development, LLC, we are providing you with the below list of remaining comments on the Conditions of Approval as listed in the Staff Report for the City Council Hearing on March 7, 2023. We would appreciate the City’s consideration of our comments and requested changes, so that we can ensure a successful project and smooth partnering of efforts with the City.
Any of these requests that are acceptable to the City could be provided to the City Council by way of green sheet. Those that are not supported by City Staff, will be discussed at City Council.
VTM Conditions
Condition #1 (pg 265 of Staff Report):
The ‘vacation of an easement that accommodates an alignment of Los Carneros Road’ should be noted that the vacation is required as part of a recorded property exchange agreement previously executed years ago w/ Towbes. (ie, the City’s vacation of the old Los Carneros Road alignment is an existing legal obligation of the City and is NOT CONTINGENT upon an exchange for the Variable Width Road Easement on Los Carneros for road widening/bike lane purposes)
Condition #17 (pg 272 of Staff Report):
Wording needs to include construction costs associated with the Park’s unique location. Suggested re-wording is as follows:
• “Reimbursement is available for only the following costs that are reasonably incurred, including construction documents prepared after entitlement of the Project, prevailing wage labor, playground and physical park amenities,
2 construction equipment, and materials, professional survey services, and professional construction management, performance bond, and inspection and testing services, and certain efforts related to cultural resources within the park boundaries, including, but not limited to: Phase 3 Data Recovery (CR-1(a)), Surface Preparation and Fill Soils within CA-SBA-56 (CR-1(b)), Excavations within Northern Midden Area (CR-1(c)), Monitoring (CR-1(d)), Continued Chumash Consultation (CR-1(e)), Human Remains (CR-1(f)), and Chumash Heritage Monument (CR-2(b)). Park improvement costs that are not reimbursable include but are not limited to: design costs incurred prior to Project entitlement, engineering costs incurred prior to Project entitlement, all costs associated with accounting, legal and other professional services; overhead administrative charges; costs incurred as a result of requirements by the Environmental Impact Report of the Project, including but not limited to the Project’s mitigation and monitoring report; and costs incurred as a result of private settlement agreements and negotiations with third parties.
Reimbursement of park improvement costs shall not be made until the Public Works Director has verified that the Permittees’ documentation and reimbursement requests meet this Condition.”
Condition #18 (pg 273 of Staff Report):
The City’s revised wording almost reads as if only the offer (to dedicate the park) will be recorded with the Final Map. Why was the wording changed this way? Suggested re-wording is as follows:
• The Permittees will enter into an agreement for an offer to dedicate the park, which will include a maintenance agreement as described in Condition DP 47.b.
This agreement is to be approved by the City Attorney or designee and be recorded with the Final Map.
Condition #20 (pg 273 of Staff Report):
The City’s revised wording doesn’t make sense to have an REA between FLT and GF Frontier (both being owners of the same property). Wasn’t the REA to be between Lot 3 & 4, so each entity had the right to perform work across lot boundaries (overhanging trees, etc.)? Suggested re-wording is as follows:
• “A Reciprocal Easement Agreement (REA), between the FLT Heritage Ridge TG, LLC. and & GF Frontier, LLC, and the City across Lots 3 and 4, is to be approved by the City Attorney and in substantial compliance with the attached Exhibit A to Exhibit 4 of Resolution No. 23 -___, granting easement rights in favor of City for park access and parking, granting easements through the Permittees’ property for utilities serving the park, and providing access to Permittees and City for the purpose of trimming trees.”
DP Conditions
3 Condition #3.e (pg 398 of Staff Report):
FYI to City - Development of Lot 2 and portions of Lot 4 requires some work in the Archaeo zone – see 31.D.
Condition #4 (pg 401 of Staff Report):
FYI to City - Development of Lot 2 and portions of Lot 4 requires some work in the Archaeo zone – see 31.D.
Condition #31.A.iv (pg 409 of Staff Report):
Reword – soil capping can be done with motorized vehicles (from outside-in).
From MMRP GEO-1: “Fill soils must be placed and spread from the outside to the inside of the archeological area with track earthmoving equipment such that the equipment must only be working on top of the fill soils. The fill soils must be placed such that the earthmoving equipment does not come into contact with the archeological area native soils or the geogrid.”
Condition #31.D (pg 410 of Staff Report):
Reword to allow for “fencing to remain in place except to accommodate construction as necessary” (ie, Development of Lot 2 and portions of Lot 4 requires some work in the Archaeo zone – see 31.D). Also, soil capping can be done with motorized vehicles (from outside-in). From MMRP GEO-1: “Fill soils must be placed and spread from the outside to the inside of the archeological area with track earthmoving equipment such that the equipment must only be working on top of the fill soils. The fill soils must be placed such that the earthmoving equipment does not come into contact with the archeological area native soils or the geogrid.”
Condition #32.A.ii (pg 410 of Staff Report):
Does the “approved drainage facility” include the wetland retention area to the SW of the project site? “On-Site” needs to include the regional wetland retention basin.
Condition #40 (pg 413 of Staff Report):
Check wording of last sentence – “Food waste containers are required if facility.”
Condition #42.H (pg 414 of Staff Report):
Check wording of last sentence – “Food waste containers are required if facility.”
Condition #47.b (pg 420 of Staff Report):
Wording needs to clarify process and timing of acceptance. Suggested re- wording is as follows:
• “The Permittee of Lot 4 will be responsible for the installation and implementation of the plan. Once Permittee has completed construction on the park, and the Permittee shall maintain the park until for 90 days after at which time, the City will accepts title to the park. During the 90 days, the City will
4 engage with the Permittee for the City’s standard inspection and final sign-off procedure, for which, acceptance of completion of the park and acceptance of title will not be unreasonably delayed or withheld. Permittee’s obligations to maintain Park includes…”
Condition #49.U.i (pg 427 of Staff Report):
Reword to allow for “fencing to remain in place except to accommodate construction as necessary” (ie, Development of Lot 2 and portions of Lot 4 requires some work in the Archaeo zone – see 31.D).
Condition #50B (pg 429 of Staff Report):
This condition needs to be removed. As you are aware, the Heritage Ridge Project qualifies as an affordable housing project based on its commitment to provide affordable housing. (Gov. Code, §§ 65915(c), (i), 65589.5(h)(3).) The City ensures that this affordable housing will be constructed through, among other conditions, the Affordability Control Covenant and Regulatory Agreement (DP 3.f) and the recorded Agreement to Provide Affordable Housing and Restrictive Covenant (DP 47.a). Given the protections for the project under state housing law, including the Housing Accountability Act and state Density Bonus Law, we cannot agree to any proposed conditions that seek to impose City standards on the market-rate portion of the project until the affordable component of the project is constructed, such as Condition 50.B. We are not aware of any objective, written City standards in effect when the Project’s application was complete that would allow for the City to impose such conditions on the Project. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(d), (j) [specifying that the City can only apply existing, objective development standards in effect at the time the application was deemed complete to housing projects and precluding the City from unduly conditioning an affordable housing project].)
Further, the City’s proposed conditions further may create significant impediments to the timely construction of the Project, including the affordable portion of the Project. For example, the proposed condition 50.B may:
• Impact HASBACO’s ability to construct the affordable portion of the Project; • Create issues for lenders on all the parcels subject to the Project; • Add significant costs to the Project for a temporary parking lot that is not required for the Project approvals under state law or the City’s Code Furthermore, placing this requirement on the Project at this late date does not make sense, and is contrary to other provisions in State Housing Law. As you are also aware, this Project qualifies as an affordable housing project entitled to concessions and incentives as well as waivers of development standards under State Density Bonus Law – including concessions and incentives related to parking. (Gov. Code, § 65915(p) [applicable parking ratios], (d) [concessions and incentives], (e) [reductions of development standards].) For example, this Project still maintains the right to use a concession/incentive or a reduction in development standards to further reduce the City’s parking requirements. Without using concessions/incentives or a reduction in
5 development standards, the Project already only requires 455 spaces, yet the Project provides 494 spaces (39 additional spaces and more than the 31 proposed in Condition
50.B). As such, State Density Bonus Law provides an alternative path for the Project to avoid unnecessary and counter-productive conditions.
Condition #50J (pg 429 of Staff Report):
MOAs are recorded on title. The amendment to the Settlement Agreement will make clear that the Settlement Agreement does not apply to the City once the property transfers to the City. Suggested re-wording is as follows:
“Upon transfer of title of the public park on Lot 3 of the Heritage Ridge parcel map, the park parcel must be clear of any encumbrances and/or clouds on title including recordation of any Memoranda of Agreement of from private agreements of which the City is not a party.”
Conclusion
We appreciate your time in review of the above information and requested changes. If there is anything I can help clarify, please feel free to contact me.
We are available to answer any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Jaren Nuzman
Project Manager
[email protected]
949-285-7730
TK Consulting, Inc
CC: Lisa Prasse, City of Goleta
Ron Wu, Red Tail Multifamily Land Development, LLC
Todd Temanson, Red Tail Multifamily Land Development, LLC Tyler White, Red Tail Multifamily Land Development, LLC Jay Skjerven, Red Tail Multifamily Land Development, LLC Chris Jellison, Red Tail Multifamily Land Development, LLC John Polanskey, HASBARCO
Bob Havlicek, HASBARCO
Tim Kihm, TK Consulting, Inc.
CR-1(a). Limited Phase 3 Data Recovery. The applicant must provide a Phase 3 Data Recovery Program Plan developed by a City-approved archaeologist for excavations at the Northern Midden Area at CA- SBA-56.
Plan Requirements: The Phase 3 plan must be prepared in accordance with the City of Goleta’s Cultural Resources Guidelines (1993), Open Space Element Policy 8.5, the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (1990) Archaeological Resource Management Reports (ARMR): Recommended Contents and Format, and Public Resources Code § 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(b). The plan must include:
• Research design;
• Discussion of relevant research questions that can be addressed by the CA-SBA-56 resources; • Methods used to gather data, including data from previous studies; • Laboratory methods to analyze the data;
• An assessment of artifacts recovered and any corresponding field notes, graphics, and lab analyses; and
• Results of investigations.
The plan must provide for a systematic sample of the area to be capped, such that the research value of the deposit is adequately characterized. Location of limited Phase 3 data recovery units must be identified in consultation with local Chumash tribal representatives to ensure that the previously identified, undisturbed burial is avoided.
The Phase 3 must be funded by the applicant and must be prepared by a City-approved archaeologist.
The Phase 3 must be documented in a draft and final report and must be reviewed and approved by a City-retained archaeologist. Pursuant to City Cultural Resource Guidelines, the final report, archaeological collections, field notes, and other standard documentation must be permanently curated at the UCSB Repository for Archaeological Collections.
The Phase 3 must specify that a local Chumash Native American consultant must be retained by the applicant to observe all excavation activity associated with the Program. The consultant must maintain daily notes and documentation necessary, and provide the observation notes and documentation to all interested Chumash representatives who request to be informed of the Phase 3 excavation progress.
Mayor and Council members March 5, 2023
I am sorry to see Heritage Ridge come forward to you for a final approval. This is still a bad project after all the years with few changes for the better. There are still a number of problems. Two of those issues are the relinquishing of the Los Carn eros public Right Of Way easement to the Heritage Ridge development and inadequate guarantees that the Affordable Housing will ever be built.
The easements can't be vacated according to the Street and Highway Code "unless it is unnecessary for present or prospective public use". The Right Of Way can't be vacated because there is a need for it in the future. In the future when both the curb, gutter, and
sidewalk, and a Class I bike are built, the City would have to buy the ROW back.
These needed projects and other projects will cost the City more or even prohibit them if
the ROWs are given away to Heritage Ridge now.
The vacation of the Los Carneros Right Of Way easement that is so important to the community shouldn’t be approved. The developers have never seriously considered a project without using the Los Carneros ROW, although it has always been a serious issue for residents.
The othe
r and most serious issue is the inadequacy of the guarantees that the Affordable Housing will be built. We need strong protections in place to keep this out of town developer from getting his money and leaving. We will be left with only a deed restricted site with
no affordable housing. There needs to be additional requirements such as requiring that the affordable housing is built before any occupancy permits are released. It appears that currently all the City will get is a site with concrete pads. But we will not get the much promoted affordable housing. There is a big difference between an empty lot and actual rental units.
I hope that you think about the cost that the residents of Goleta , along with other sources will have to pay to build the housing. Please don’t approve this project without strong
provisions being made requiring the developer to provide more funding or building the affordable housing.
Sincerely, Barbara Massey
From: Alexis Doulton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 2:42 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Cc: Mary Chang
Subject: Heritage Ridge Park Project
Dear City of Goleta Planning Commission,
I am writing to support the Heritage Ridge Park project. The park’s Chumash cultural theme features and landscape will provide imagery that celebrates the heritage and history of the original inhabitants of the land and their connection to nature. The nature playground feature will provide recreation and education space for creativity, physicality, and an opportunity to engage in social experiences. Our community needs this 2-acre public neighborhood park that provides a cultural interpretative space.
Alexis Doulton
Santa Barbara, CA
March 6, 2023
Dear City of Goleta Council Members,
SUBJECT: Heritage Ridge Residential Apartment Project, item C2
The League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara is pleased to reconfirm our support for the Heritage Ridge Residential Apartment Project that includes 31% of affordable units and a park. For details see our November 14, 2022 letter.
We would like to reiterate our appreciation for all parties who worked diligently on this project to get the best outcome for the community--in particular, the Environmental Defense Center, the City of Goleta planners, Red Tail, TK Consulting and the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara County.
Sincerely,
Vicki Allen
Vice President, Communications for the League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara
From: Barbara Lopez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 6, 2023 5:32 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Cc: Mary Chang
Subject: Heritage Ridge Park
We support the Heritage Ridge Park project, designed to celebrate my Chumash heritage, give children, community members and visitors a space to learn about Chumash history.
Sincerely,
Christina Lopez
Andrew Jacinto
Christian Jacinto
Members: Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians
805.967.2500 | www.SBSCChamber.com
Mailing Address: 5662 Calle Real #204, Goleta, CA
Visitor Center: 120 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA
3/7/2023
Mayor Perotte and Goleta City Council
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA, 93117
RE: Heritage Ridge Residential Apartment Project
Mayor Perotte and Councilmembers:
The Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce, representing businesses from Goleta to Carpinteria, would like to offer our support once again for the Heritage Ridge Residential Apartment Project.
Businesses in Goleta and throughout the South Coast consistently raise lack of housing options for their employees as a top barrier to business vitality. To meet this need, we will need to see an increase of various housing types with options across income levels. This Tuesday the Chamber released The Road Home, a living document that discusses the current state of our region’s housing crisis, and proposed solutions, from a local business community perspective. The Heritage Ridge project was included in a list of projects and sites which the Chamber believes are critical pieces of addressing the varied housing needs of Goleta and the South Coast region. Heritage Ridge plays an important role in increasing our local rental housing supply with 228 market-rate units, 63 family special needs affordable units, and 41 senior affordable units.
The Heritage Ridge Project has been under review since 2014. They have worked hard to ensure that they are consistent with the City’s goals and development standards, as well ensuring the project is environmentally sensitive. This project not only brings much needed housing to our area, but it is also a great fit for our community, which is reflected by the 8 years of community collaboration and partnership building that led to tonight’s hearing.
We ask that the Council move forward with this important local housing project by certifying the final environmental impact report and approving the Heritage Ridge Project as presented.
Thank you for supporting local housing.
Sincerely,
Kristen Miller
President & CEO
Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce