Goleta City Council
July 20, 2023

Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 15:17:08 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: 7400 Cathedral Oaks (“the Shelby Residen8al Project”) in Housing Element Date: Tuesday, June 6, 2023 at 3:14:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Deedy Hedrick
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
AHachments: image001.jpg, image002.png, image003.png
June 6, 2023

Mayor Paula Pero2e
Mayor Pro Tempore Kyle Richards
Via Email
Council Member Stuart Kasdin
Council Member James Kyriaco
Council Member Luz Reyes-MarDn

RE: 7400 Cathedral Oaks (“the Shelby Residential Project”) in Housing Element

Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members:

My name is Deedy Hedrick and am a Property Supervisor for Meridian Group Real Estate Management, Inc.

We are a small property management business in Goleta and the South Coast. I write to you today to strongly encourage you to include 7400 Cathedral Oaks into the Housing Element. Our community is in desperate need of new housing. I know this not just because we provide housing to thousands of people as part of my job but because many of my eighty-three co-workers cannot live in our community. Several commute from Lompoc, Santa Maria, Buellton, Carpinteria, Ventura, Santa Paula, and Oxnard. I personally commute from Buellton daily and have for the past 20+ years. Having so many co-workers commuDng negaDvely impacts our business. It adds to the traffic problems our community faces as well and contributes to employee burnout. This hinders performance and producDvity for my business.

While I am glad that the City of Goleta has joined in the lawsuit against UCSB because they are not providing enough housing for their students, I also want to see the city encourage new housing developments within our city. The Shelby ResidenDal Project is a perfect fit for the development of new housing. It is surrounded on two sides by the Glen Annie Golf Course and has housing developments on the other two sides of the property. This well reviewed site offers the best chances to be able to get some housing developed quickly.

Knowing Dr. Couvillion as a long-term trusted member of the community I know he and his family will take great care to bring to fruiDon a beauDful project that families will treasure.

Please endorse and support this property being added to the Housing Element. Thank you for your consideraDon. I would be happy to discuss this issue with any of you should you have any quesDons. My phone number is 805-722-1376.

Sincerely,

Meridian Group
Real Estate Management, Inc.

Deedy Hedrick
Senior Property Supervisor

Thank you,

Deedy Hedrick
Senior Property Supervisor

5290 Overpass Road | Building D | Santa Barbara, CA 93111 [email protected] | www.meridiangrouprem.com
Office: 805.722.1376 | Fax: 805.692-5020
DRE#01272282

Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:20:36 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: Housing Element - Shelby Parcel
Date: Friday, May 19, 2023 at 10:14:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Mark Ingalls
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] CC: [email protected]
ADachments: image001.png

Dear Mayor Perotte and City Council,

As the Property and General Manager for the Camino Real Marketplace for over 27 years, I am writing to you about Goleta’s housing crisis which is a barrier to Goleta’s economic development. I have been actively involved in the business community on the South Coast and Goleta Valley, as well as many civic and non-profit organizations, and have seen the Goleta Valley and the City of Goleta grow and prosper over the years.

I am keenly aware of the current housing shortage on the South Coast and specifically in Goleta and the impacts it is creating on businesses and their employees. I am always disheartened when I admit that upwards of seventy-five percent of our tenants’ managers live outside of Santa Barbara County. Of the 32 businesses, only three managers live in Santa Barbara County, and only one lives in Goleta.

Unfortunately, this is not unique to our businesses.

This creates traffic impacts on Highway 101 as people are commuting to and from work. Additionally, when folks can’t live in the community they work in, it keeps them from fully integrating into the community. When they shop for goods and services, they do so in the communities they live in. When they volunteer in their communities, they do so in the communities they live in. These folks never get the opportunity to fully integrate into the community where they work, in this case, Goleta.

Business owners and leaders convey to me on a regular basis the real impacts and loss of business, performance, efficiency, and revenue loss they experience when employees are delayed in their one- hour commutes or impacted by traffic and delays because of the 10+ years of freeway construction between Goleta and Ventura County.

The lack of new housing to meet the jobs in Goleta has directly influenced and impacted the City’s long-term growth plans.

I recently completed a term serving on Goleta’s Economic Development Strategic Plan Advisory Team.

Housing local workers was listed as essential and necessary, and an integral element for a robust and sustainable Goleta economy.

If the Council is committed to economic development to “attract and grow businesses, create and retain jobs, and make the community a better place,” then the Housing Element must include sites with legitimate potential for significant housing creation.

We need housing immediately to fill the deficit of affordable lack of housing options in Goleta.

I am urging you to include the Shelby project in the Housing Element.

The Shelby proposal is a project that would bring a much-needed workforce and affordable housing to Goleta. It would allow employees to live near where they work and be involved in the community. The Shelby proposal could take advantage of its proximity to existing schools with capacity and would provide resident children within walking distance of nearby schools.

Residents could bike or take the bus to work on existing transit corridors. This well-reviewed site offers the best chance for new housing in the next few years.

In addition to being a parcel with the best chance to provide a significant number of new housing units for Goleta, I like this site because it is owned by a local property owner--Dr. Glynne Couvillion and his family. Dr. Couvillion has lived in the area for well over 50 years and is committed to retaining Goleta’s unique character. He’s listened to the community, the businesses, and the City and continues to work with the City and community to put forth the best project for our community.

I urge you to include the Shelby Residential Project in the current Housing Element to begin to address Goleta’s housing challenges.

Thank you for your consideration.

Mark Ingalls,
Camino Real Marketplace

Mark Ingalls,
Property Manager
(805) 685-3458- office
(805) 896-3134- cell
[email protected]

Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 13:07:18 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: Fwd: Support for development of the Shelby Residen8al Project Date: Monday, May 29, 2023 at 11:08:40 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Frank Thompson
To: Valerie Cantella
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Frank Thompson <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, May 29, 2023 at 11:04 AM
Subject: Support for development of the Shelby ResidenMal Project To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, Kyle Richards ([email protected]) <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Dear City Council Members and Mayor,

My company provides site selection and acquisition services, economic feasibility, loan processing and other development services to housing authorities and non-profit housing development corporations operating in Santa Barbara County.   I have looked at the “Shelby” parcel several times in the past 10 years as an attractive location for new housing development.

The site has many distinct advantages as an “infill” site, although it has not been previously recognized as such in official planning documents:
it is surrounded on 3 sides by urban development,
more than 75% of its perimeter is in non-vacant uses,
it has immediately-adjacent water serving infrastructure, it has immediately-adjacent waste water infrastructure, it is on a major transportation thoroughfare,
it is on a bus line with a bus stop,
it is on a bicycle transit corridor,
it is free from flood hazards,
it is not near an earthquake fault,
it is more than 500 feet from a freeway,
it is not in an airport noise or safety hazard zone
it is not on prime agricultural soils.

The long term issue has been maintenance of a reasonable “urban limit line” near Cathedral Oaks Road.  This issue has been highlighted by the County’s classification of the adjacent golf course property as an “agricultural” use.  The County may have had its reasons for this, but in the eyes of economists and most planners, a major outdoor entertainment business hosting a regular commercial restaurant and bar, conferences, parties, weddings, and similar events, surrounded by irrigated and manicured lawns is not agriculture and certainly is not the type of “vacant land” defining “in-fill” development under current State standards.

Consequently, one would properly recognize the Shelby parcel as a very rare in-fill opportunity on a non-prime agricultural parcel.

Any type of housing would be needed by the citizens of Goleta and the Shelby parcel’s topography lends itself to a mixed-income residential development, consistent with the City’s inclusionary and other policies.  Given the pending adoption of the City’s new Housing Element, taking policy steps to permit the near-term development of the Shelby parcel  would help to alleviate our current housing crisis.

Sincerely,

Frank Thompson
Housing Consultant
Friday, June 2, 2023 at 11:26:47 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: Please approve the Shelby Residen4al Project
Date: Thursday, June 1, 2023 at 4:03:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Tony Vallejo
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

As the City evaluates its response to HCD’s more recent comments on the City’s housing element, I am asking you to include the Shelby parcel in the list of sites available for much- needed workforce housing.

I have been a homeowner in Goleta for over 20 years, where I have raised my family. I have also owned a business in this area and volunteered in numerous nonprofit organizations.

Based on this experience I have seen repeatedly how the persistent lack of workforce housing impacts our community:

As a business owner it makes it incredibly difficult to find employees.

As parent I see the struggles my adult children and their friends have in finding affordable housing in the area (which is why so many leave).

As a board member at organizations like United Boys and Girls Club and Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital Foundation I see the struggles they have finding employees and the struggles the people they serve have in maintaining their quality of life.

I am urging you to include the Shelby project in the Housing Element. The Shelby proposal is a project that would bring much-needed workforce and affordable housing to Goleta.We are desperately in need of this type of housing to alleviate the crisis we are in and this project is much closer to moving forward than any other parcel you may be considering . If the Council
is committed to economic development to “attract and grow businesses, create and retain jobs, and make the community a better place,” then the Housing Element must include sites with legitimate potential for housing creation. We need housing immediately, and this well- reviewed site offers the best chance for new housing in the next few years.

In addition to being the parcel with the best chance for new housing, I like this site because it includes a local property owner Dr. Glynne Couvillion and his family, who bring a long-term, local commitment to our area. Dr. Couvillion has lived in the area for well over 50 years and is committed to retaining Goleta’s unique character. He’s listened to the community, the businesses, and the City and continues to make changes to develop the best project for Goleta.

I urge you to include the Shelby Residential Project in the current Housing Element to begin to address Goleta’s housing challenges. Thank you for your consideration.

Warmest Regards,
Tony Vallejo, CPA
Partner

Nicholson & Schwartz
Cer3fied Public Accountants
111 E De la Guerra St.

Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805-969-9662
805-969-7672 fax

[email protected]
www.nicholsonschwartz.com

STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The informa3on contained in this email message is privileged and confiden3al, intended only for the use of the individual or en3ty named above. If you have received this email in error, please no3fy us immediately by return email or calling 805-969-9662, and delete this message. Thank you.

Monday, June 5, 2023 at 14:02:43 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: Shelby Residen-al Project
Date: Sunday, June 4, 2023 at 1:09:17 PM Pacific Daylight Time From: Steve Couvillion
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Dear Mayor Pero*e and City Council members
My local business requires a group of over 15 well trained and specialized administrators to keep our prac@ce running. We have relied upon the local community for this remarkable pool of dedicated employees un@l this year.

Unfortunately limited housing has forced our most talented employees to leave the area. We are now outsourcing this department to an online company based out of state.

I have been a small business owner, and physician in Santa Barbara County for the past 15 years with over 50 employees living in Santa Barbara and goleta and over 150 employees within Santa Barbara County.

Affordable housing con@nues to be a major issue, both in my medical business and my interac@ons with local hospitals and medical clinics.

For several years, this has affected our ability to hire and retain adequate staff and para medical personnel.

Unfortunately, outsourcing is now a reality for our business in the current affordable housing shortage. This housing challenge is now affec@ng our ability to hire and retain new physicians.

I am hoping you can include the Shelby project in the housing element. This will provide relief to the impacted workforce and shortage of affordable housing in Goleta. This property is uniquely located close to schools and work.

Reducing the burden on our healthcare workforce will provide be*er care for all of us in Goleta.

Providing affordable housing now can keep valuable jobs in our county. The Shelby residen@al project in the current housing element will help to address Goleta’s housing challenge. Thank you for your a*en@on.

Stephen Couvillion MD
From: April Reid <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2023 10:41 AM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Objection to rezoning Kenwood Village
Dear City Council and City Clerk:

Via e-mail at: [email protected]
This e-mail is written regarding the July 20, 2023 meeting objecting to the Housing Element 2023-2032 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session. I am respectfully requesting that you do NOT authorize the rezoning of the Kenwood Village property located at 7264 Calle Real. The property is currently zoned partly for agricultural use and partly for single family housing. The developer wants the property rezoned to multi-family housing which is inconsistent with the suburban area that surrounds the property.

I own the property at 15 Baker Lane (my home) and 17 Baker Lane (a rental property that currently has tenants). I am attaching a letter I wrote on September 4, 2019 regarding Kenwood Village explaining many of the reasons I am opposed to the property being rezoned. I am also attaching an e-mail I wrote on September 4, 2019.

Some of the reasons I am opposed to the property being rezoned, which are more thoroughly articulated in my previous letter attached above, are as follows:

1. It would effectively kill all/most of the animals that live on the property, including the garter snakes, that were deemed by the California Department of Fish and Game to be “sensitive.” It will also kill the mice, rats, skunks, opossums, rabbits and raccoons that live on the property. Further, it would diminish the habitat/food supply for the birds of prey on the property. Protecting endangered species should be a top priority for Goleta. There are also endangered plants on the property according to the developer.

2. The property has successfully been used for growing vegetables, such as pumpkins and tomatoes, for many decades. There is no reason the land can not continue to be used for agricultural purposes.

3. The 284 units the developer wants to build on the 9.48 acres is way out of line with the rest of the neighborhood, which are mostly ranch style houses with a few 1 1/2 to 2 story houses sprinkled in. The developer wants to build multiple duplex and triplex units, which would destroy the aesthetics, character, peace and quiet and environment of the currently picturesque, low density community.

4. The units that will be 2 stories high will block the view of the mountains, the freeway and the ocean for the people who live in the small, one story ranch houses.

5. There is already too much traffic in the area as it is. The developer himself said the US 101 southbound ramps at Storke Road “exceed the City’s acceptable operating standard.” Also, an article in the Santa Barbara News Press stated Calle Real at Baker Lane ”has been the site of fatal incidents including two people killed in a car crash.” This area is already considered one of the most dangerous roads in Goleta. The area will only become more dangerous with additional traffic.

6. The developer has already admitted that there would not be enough parking for the multiple units the developer plans to build, so he expects that people who own or visit the units will park on the streets near the units, such as Baker Lane, Violet Lane and Daffodil Lane, which are all PRIVATE, small, one black streets. There is not enough room for the cars at the Kenwood Village units to park on the small, one block long PRIVATE streets. The streets were meant for the owners and visitors of the PRIVATE streets to use. He also expects people to park on Tuolumne.

7. The developer claims to be concerned about the neighborhood. However, the Fire Department told me he received a violation for not cutting the weeds on the property. Further, one time when the weeds were tall, someone lit the weeds on fire while using M.J. and the property burned up to the telephone lines located directly behind my rental property at 17 Baker Lane, Goleta, CA. I was lucky both my houses did not burn down. As it turned out, the picture in the newspaper showed the weeds on the property were taller than the firefighter who helped put out the fire. If the developer can’t even be trusted to take care of the property and cut the weeds when it is just a field, he certainly can not be trusted to build houses properly.

PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD THE MONSTROSITY DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY. IT WILL BE A DISASTER FOR THE CURRENT RESIDENTS AND FOR THE QUIET, PEACEFUL

EXISTENCE WE CURRENTLY HAVE, AS WEKLL AS THE ENDANGERED SPECIES THAT LIVE ON THE PROPERTY.

Thank you for your consideration.

April Reid-owner
15 and 17 Baker Lane
Goleta, CA. 93117

-----Original Message-----
From: Bradley Blue <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2023 3:38 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
Subject: Hi

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please don’t destroy Goleta. No
More new housing

Sent from my iPhone

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2023 7:10 AM
To: Kim Dominguez <[email protected]>
Subject: Over crowding with high density allowances
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

I’m not sure you are the right person to be contacting, but I just want to voice my concern with regard to what appears to be a new push for high density allowances in Goleta. I have witnessed first hand the ravaging of small coastal areas up and down the coast of California, by wealthy investors who buy allowances waving the prospect of uncomfortable density, for the prospects of fattened tax coffers. It is the destroyer of the coastal communities. Just look at what is happening to once attractive communities such as Ventura, Morro bay, Pismo. We are destroying the very landscape that attracts tourists in order to meet arbitrary plans to increase and fatten small town coffers. Please put the brakes on expansion sand high density allowances.
- Rick Worth, Goleta
Sent from my iPhone
From: George Relles <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 4:30 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Comments for July 19 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Dear City Clerk,
Submit the comments below to Goleta's City Council and Planning Commission. Thank you.
* * *
I am submitting this comment on behalf of Goleta's Shelby Foothill Coalition regarding your

deliberations on what Goleta parcels should be submitted to RHNA for potential rezoning.

We appreciate your need to submit a rezoning plan that would identify the parcels available to meet housing requirements.

This comment is to oppose your submitting the "Shelby Parcel" for rezoning as part of Goleta's housing element. Here are the main reasons for our request that you keep this parcel zoned for agriculture.
 First, this parcel was and is zoned for agriculture in Goleta’s General Plan. Goleta residents, and Goleta City staff and Council, carefully crafted the General Plan over a period of many months. Changing the Shelby zoning now would contradict and disrespect all that effort.
 Second, rezoning this parcel for development would extend urban sprawl into the Goleta foothills, setting a dangerous precedent for further sprawl and its attendant increased cost of city services, especially fire protection.  Third, our opposition to rezoning is about affirming Goleta residents’ desire to protect agriculture and open space, as embodied in Goleta’s General Plan. In 2012 Goleta residents voted for G2012, Goleta’s Farmland Protection Initiative, by 71%, reaffirming residents’ determination to protect agriculture in Goleta. Because the application for the Shelby development project was submitted just before G2012, the Shelby parcel is not subject to G2012; however, this parcel IS subject to Goleta’s General Plan, which zones this parcel for only agricultural use.  Fourth, our Coalition members, such as the Santa Barbara Audubon Society and the Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council, have expressed concern about the negative impacts of this development on sensitive habitat and the creek. This parcel is a key wildlife corridor that, although now compatible with agriculture, would be destroyed by the human activity associated with a housing development.  Fifth, Goleta's challenged and variable water supply would be further taxed by residential development on this parcel. Currently, this parcel does not have enough water to accommodate the proposed development. Goletans have made and continue to make sacrifices to conserve water.
 Sixth, we resist any assertions that such a development would help relieve Goleta’s shortage of affordable and workforce housing. The Shelby plan proposes 60 market rate units that are likely to be priced well over units $1,000,000, each, unaffordable to over 95% of South Coast residents.

In addition to these objections, we observe that there are many other parcels for you to consider more than sufficient to achieve the aims of the housing element but without converting agriculturally zoned parcels outside Goleta's urban limit line, outside Goleta's General Plan and outside our community values.

Thank you for your careful consideration of these issues.

Sincerely,
George Relles for The Shelby Foothill Coalition, as listed below Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara County
The Goodland Coalition
Santa Barbara Audubon Society
Santa Barbara County Action Network
Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council
-----Original Message-----
From: Bradley Blue <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2023 3:26 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
Subject: Hi
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Please don’t overbuild in my town of Goleta. It’s turning into a crowded LA. Really sad and terrible planning.

Newsom doesn’t live here.

Sent from my iPhone
From: Karen Campbell
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: development thoughts
Date: Monday, July 17, 2023 9:16:10 PM
Dear City of Goleta,
Usually, the developers build the most density to get the most bang for their buck.

Seldom do they think about the environment or the people involved.

Any development that puts cars in " other areas" has yet to consider the client's needs.

This development, as it stands, sounds like a disaster waiting to happen.

With gratitude,
Karey Campbell
Karen Campbell, M, A, CCC-SP
CEO/Founder of Community Counts Inc.
310-396-2291
All information in this email is confidential and the property of Community Counts. The data is intended only for the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all original copies.

I am expressing my emphatic NO VOTE to build Kenwood Village apartments which will lack parking as well as a tremendous increase of traffic and associated problems.

We live on Violet Lane which is a private street. We own the property that extends to the middle of the street and do not allow uninvited cars to park in front of our homes. Those cars are towed.

I'm sure our opinions are not considered but I'm still expressing my anger.

Julie Ritter
7 Violet Lane
Goleta, CA 93117
Posted on Nextdoor:

Kenwood Village- Sorry if this is sent twice.

This property is located at 7264 Calle Real
between 7-11 and Baker Lane off Glen Annie offramp. The City Council is going to consider whether to rezone the 9.48 acres from agricultural and single family homes to 284 units of single family, duplexes and triplexes.

The developer said there would not be enough parking
on the property, so the tenants and their guests would have to park on the surrounding streets, some of which are PRIVATE streets.

Also, the traffic in the area would increase dramatically and the endangered animals on the property would probably not survive. Anyone who wishes to make any comments to the City Council can e-mail them at [email protected]
; write a letter to City Council and City Clerk at 130 Cremona Drive, Goleta, CA. 93117 or appear at the hearing on July 20, 2023 at 5:30 at the address above.

D EREK W ESTEN
1800 JELINDA DRIVE
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93108
EMAIL: [email protected]
TELEPHONE: (805) 708-4411
July 18, 2023
City Council of the City of Goleta
Planning Commission of the City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
Re: 7190 Hollister Avenue and Easterly Vacant Parcels (~10 acres) Dear Mayor Perotte and Members of the City Council, and Chair Smith and Members of the Planning Commission:

I am writing on behalf of myself and Daniel E. Hochman, the two representatives of the property owners of the captioned parcels.

We believe that the three parcels above, as initially recommended by City Planning Staff, should all be designated in the General Plan and zoning ordinance for high density housing.

For some 50 years the Girsh/Hochman and Westen families have owned three parcels of property on the north side of Hollister Avenue and west of Santa Felicia, now directly across from the Camino Real Marketplace. A portion of the westerly parcel, approximately 3 acres in size, has an old er office building now occupied by the Jubilee Church; the remainder, to the north, remains undeveloped. The remaining two adjacent parcels, one approximately 4 acres and one approximately 3 acres, have never been developed and remain vacant. For convenience, we will refer to all three parcels as “the three parcels.”
Background
We have held the properties in their current state for all these years in large part because we have not seen the opportunity for their development in ways that we thought would benefit what is now the City of Goleta. The Girsh/Hochman and Westen families have are lifelong residents of Santa Barbara and still hold to the old fashioned view of trying to play a very constructive role in the building of community. You may know that we played an important role in the development and creation of the Camino Real Marketplace (the Girsh/Hochman and Westen families owned the underlying land).

The Girsh/Hochman family donated the initial 12.5 acres that formed what is now the Lester A. and Viola S. Girsh Park and made doubling the size of the park possible. Derek Westen served as Chair of the Foundation for Girsh Park and was instrumental in the complex transactions that led to the beautiful park we enjoy today. And Daniel Hochman served both as Treasurer and as President as the Park came into its own. The Marketplace helped make cityhood possible.

For many years, as we have watched the remarkable achievements of the City, we have believed that the three parcels are ideally suited for high density housing. We were therefore very pleased to be informed that the three parcels had been placed on the recommended list for such zoning. And we D EREK A. W ESTEN
-2- July 18, 2023
are surprised that, very recently, for unknown reasons, the two easterly parcels were removed from that list and placed on the Alternate list. We think that is a mistake.

High Density Housing
It goes without saying that the City has an urgent need for additional housing. Quite apart from state mandates, it is obvious that there is a need for housing. Demand is high. It is especially difficult for young people and young families, many of whom provide vital services to the community, to live in the communities to which they are contributing and that they help keep safe and vital. Only higher density housing can serve that need.

The three properties are perfectly located on a major transportation corridor, bounded on the north by the Southern Pacific Railway and Highway 101, and to the south, directly across the street from the Marketplace. With the vibrant Marketplace in place, additional commercial development is not appropriate or needed We believe that the location of the property on a major corridor and just walking and biking distance from the Marketplace and the incredible businesses and services it provides means that traffic impacts from housing on the three properties will be less than from other properties that might be considered for housing.

And there are enormous advantages that will derive from the opportunity to master plan all three parcels together. We always resisted proposals over the years to develop just one of our parcels without master planning all three because we thought separate development was not as good either for us or for the community. The upper portion of Pacific Oaks currently ends right across from the property line dividing the approximately 3 acre parcel to the west and the two approximately 7-acre parcels to the east. If the parcels are master planned together, then there is an obvious opportunity to have Pacific Oaks extended partway onto the properties, straddling the boundary line, and providing outstanding access to all three parcels with the minimum of separate entrances off Hollister Avenue. If the parcels are developed separately, and especially if developed for differing uses, separate access off Hollister will be necessary, but multiple access points would be problematic, and the opportunities for master planning of external access and internal flow will be lost. Just imagine how the Marketplace would be if all the separate areas had been developed separately as strip malls, without the beautiful central area surrounded by inviting businesses!
We believe that the three properties are ideally suited for the recommended high density residential use.

ESH
For some time there has been a concern that a significant portion of the middle parcel and a small portion of the other parcels was designated as ESH, which would—if valid—significantly impact use of that portion of the property. Mark de la Garza, a highly experienced biologist and one respected by the City, has done a thorough in-the-field analysis of the property over several seasons and concluded that the designation is not accurate because, in fact, protected species are simply not present. We will D EREK A. W ESTEN
-3- July 18, 2023
be submitting an application for updating of the General Plan asking that all but a trivial portion of the property be removed from the ESH designation. We believe the current ESH designation should not impact the zoning designation.

We will add that that elimination of the ESH designation will allow for much more attractive housing development on the three parcels. Under applicable City policies, if a portion of potentially developable housing property cannot be used because of ESH, then density can be increased on the remaining portion. It is obvious that if, instead, the housing can be master planned over a much larger area, the massing, height, and impact can all be designed to have a positive impact for the surrounding properties and the community as a hole.

Conclusion
We respectfully urge the City Council and Planning Commission to recommend that all three parcels be designated on the General Plan and then appropriately zoned for high density housing. We look forward to this Thursday’s hearing and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Sincerely,
Derek Westen
cc. Daniel E. Hochman
City Planning Staff
Stephanie Edmondson

Fr
om: Sam Chesluk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 11:51 AM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; lreyes- [email protected]
Subject: Kenwood Village Rezone is a No-Brainer!
Hello all, I understand that there is an upcoming mee�ng Thursday which will consider Kenwood Village for rezoning to residen�al high density.

This should be an obvious choice as Kenwood Village is the perfect infill property currently surrounded on three sides by houses and condominiums and it fronts Calle Real and the freeway.

As we all know - Goleta is suffering from a lack of housing and needs to address this for local families and workers.

As business owners, we are losing our staff to other states, and more and more people must commute to Goleta from further and further away.

As you look for non-controversial, logical solu�ons in terms of iden�fying parcels for housing development – Kenwood Village should stand out as a “no-brainer” for rezoning.

Thank you!
-Sam Chesluk
Sam Chesluk • Senior Account Executive
O 805.690.3718 M 805.450.7469
www.curvature.com
DISCLAIMER: This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) addressed in the message. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute, or copy this e -mail. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that disclosing, distributing, or copying this e -mail is strictly prohibited.

From: valerie oesterling <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 11:46 AM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Subject: 7264 Calle Real between 7-11 and Baker Lane off Glen Annie offramp.

Hello city of Goleta,
I am deeply concerned about the growth that Goleta has seen in the last 20 years the continued growth plans.

The plans for many additional homes don’t take into consideration…

1. Water supply-We are in a drought. Even by ending the water rationing at the end of 2023, why not keep our usage within existing limits for when we are again in drought conditions. It will happen we all know it.
t is irresponsible to build just because we had a “wet winter.” How does Goleta plan on supplying water to new projects when our water supply is, as it will be in the future, exist under extreme stress?

2. SCE. We have power outages due to grid maintenance. I assume our grid is already is as stressed or these outages wouldn’t be happening.

3. Traffic. The offramp at Glenn Annie Stork is a nightmare on the weekends. I have been at a "full stop" on the freeway on some days. There have been numerous accidents on the freeway at the offramp, according to the PulsePoint App.

There has been no effort, even though I contacted CalTrans directly, to mitigate the harm and potential catastrophic injury that can arise from drivers who are speeding along unaware of the gridlocked traffic situation.

4. Density. There is much more opens space past the Winchester offramp. Why, if you must add housing, put it where we are already experience more traffic and high density. Between this and all the new housing that UCSB is adding, something has to give. I believe that we should put housing somewhere that can handle the issues that higher density brings.

5. Crime. More people more crime.

6. Parking. People who live in small neighborhoods don’t want strangers walking by their houses and all hours to get to their cars parked on already crowded streets.

Here is a list of developments in the last 30 years, possible a little more but close enough. All without need changes to roads for density.

Winchester Commons
The development north of Calle Real that includes Jenna Drive and Kalley Drive The Hideaway
Hollister Village
Cortona Point Apartments
The Village at Los Carneros
Willow Springs
The Tree Farm
The Tuscan Village of lux homes next the Bacara and near the Santa Barbara Shores county park.

Stork Ranch
UCSB Faculty housing next the the open space
Winslow Hew Homes by City Ventures
LX Grossman Homes off of S. Kellogg Ave.

Westmont Mariposa at Ellwood Shores
Maravilla
Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 12:59:16 Pacific Daylight Time

Subject: SHELBY PARCEL AND GOLETA HOUSING ELEMENT
Date: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 at 11:04:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time From: Eric Onnen
To: '[email protected]'
CC: Valerie Cantella, Valerie Cantella
AGachments: image001.png, image002.png
Dear Council- I am wri1ng in support of including the Shelby Parcel in the Goleta Housing Element. Housing is a cri1cal infrastructure for a vibrant community and done well will be beneficial for genera1ons. Our policies, that allow, support and encourage Good development should reflect the current priority. Our limited availability for new development makes the challenge much greater. The opportunity is also Great. My hope is your decisions on Housing going forward ac1vely embrace the Opportunity.

The Shelby Parcel has long been iden1fied as a excellent site for housing. I hope you know the history, if not, look into it, worth the effort. I recall concepts of over 100 market rate units of mixed types. When you consider the parcels inclusion, both market rate(MR) and below market rate(BMR) are important. Please don’t allow a reduc1on in MR, get the addi1on of BMR, using the precious space as well as possible. All economic segments of Goleta will benefit from greater availability and choose.

Our policies in place may require adjustments to beVer accomplish Housing goals, especially those that reduce usability of space. The balancing of these policies will be your task, I do not envy you that assignment.

Good planning is always a work in progress and includes change.

Eric Onnen
President
Santa Barbara Airbus
Direct: 805.964.7759 x 4
Toll Free: 800.423.1618
Website:
www.sbairbus.com
 Please re-consider before prin1ng this e-mail. Re-use and recycle! Thank you.

From: Felicia Saunders <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2023 4:43 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: No on rezoning of Kenwood Village
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

No on rezoning of Kenwood Village by Glen Annie. This would be a disaster for human and wildlife.

NO!
Felicia Saunders
379 Daytona Drive
Goleta CA
Sent from my iPhone

From: Jim Morrison
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Proposed Kenwood Village 7264 Calle Real Goleta Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 11:56:50 AM
Greetings all,
I hope this email finds you all well.

I’m writing this email to show my strong opposition to the Kenwood Village project proposed at 7264 Calle Real.

Glen Annie/Storke is already heavily overrun with vehicle, bicyclists and pedestrians almost 24 hours a day. We do not need more housing in this area! Please find an alternate location closer to Hope Ranch or Montecito so the people who work and support Hope Ranch and Montecito do not have to commute as far.

Let me reiterate, Goleta North does not need more housing developments due to its already high density urban development. In the past, this would have never even be considered due to an EIR.

Sincerely,
Jim
From: Amy Bankoff
To: City Clerk Group
Cc: Mary Bankoff; Peter Bankoff
Subject: I oppose re-zoning 60 Colusa Dr. and 7264 Calle Real.

Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 12:04:08 PM
Hello,
I own 37 Colusa Drive. I firmly oppose the re-zoning of 60 Colusa Dr. and 7264 Calle Real because of the environmental impact, the inability of the roads to handle more traffic, and the negative impact of increased housing on traffic congestion.

When I purchased my property in 2016, I was given plans of the neighborhood that showed the parcel encompassing 60 Colusa Drive to be a protected zone because it was identified as an endangered frog habitat. I was told the land would never be built on because of this. I often hear the frogs at night and it is one of the best aspects of living here.

Their sounds offset the noise of the freeway and traffic from Highway 101, the intersection at Storke/Glen Annie, and on Calle Real. The open space provides a much needed balance to these heavily trafficked adjoining areas.

Additionally, the pavement on Colusa Drive has been in terrible condition and need of repair for several years. I know it has been repaired in the past five years and then quickly damaged again because the road simply cannot handle the traffic for which it currently provides. Any increase to the demands on this road would be highly detrimental by causing further damage and continuing ongoing repair is not economically reasonable or practicable.

The amount of traffic congestion at Storke/Glen Annie and Calle Real is already difficult to manage as well. The proposed increase for re-zoning for more housing would negatively impact the flow of traffic, the amount of noise and the quality of the neighborhood.

I strongly oppose the re-zoning of 60 Colusa Dr. and 7264 Calle Real due to their ecologically sensitive environments, the insufficiency of these roads to carry more traffic, and the harsh effects a housing increase will have on noise, traffic congestion, and the quality of the living environment. - Amy Elizabeth Bankoff
With Gratitude,
Amy Elizabeth Bankoff
Re: 7264 Calle Real (“Kenwood Village”) in Housing Element

Dear Honorable Mayor and Council Members,

My name is John Price, I am a local business man of 40+ years and active developer in the Santa Barbara/Goleta area. Most recently have developed 176 units in Goleta, Cortona Point and am uniquely familiar with the development process and housing needs of our community. I am writing to you today to encourage you to include 7264, “Kenwood Village” into your Housing Element.

Our community for many years has been plagued with the lack of inventory resulting in soaring rental rates, forcing our workforce to move to surrounding and more affordable cities such as Lompoc, Buellton, and Ventura. I employee nearly 150 employees across my retail businesses and understand the struggle of hiring and retaining employees locally. Making way for more property development alleviates much of these problems and creates more mixed income housing choices brining our workforce back to the Santa Barbara/Goleta area.

The Kenwood Village is a great project that makes sense for the area. It is surrounded by housing communities and commercial properties. My family owns the property at 7340 Calle Real, just down the road that has retail, gas station, and offices. A project such as this would allow for more housing opportunities for our local work force including the much needed affordable housing. I believe that local’s best understand the needs of our community and I am very pleased with the local team behind this project and believe they will do this right and put forward a high class project. Including this project in your Housing Element simply makes sense and will be a benefit for our hard working community members.

I fully support this property being included in the Housing Element and urge you to make the same conclusion to begin addressing the ongoing housing challenges of our community.

Thank you for your consideration.

John Price
Price Management
[email protected]
From:

To:

Mike Baker
City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village is located at 7264 Calle Real
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 12:41:29 PM
Hello,
I have recently become aware of a development plan for Kenwood Village located at 7264 Calle Real. As I understand the plan, the developer is asking to rezone from agricultural/single family homes to multi-family homes so that 284 units of two story single family, duplexes, and triplexes can be built. My guess is this is an inflated number so that they can "negotiate" it down a bit so it'll get rezoned and all will feel it was a win-win. And I suspect that after rezoning they'll come back to the table and try and negotiate the number back up. Rezoning is what THEY need as a starting point - "a foot in the door".

As a nearby homeowner I am adamantly against this absolutely ridiculous idea of ultra-high-density housing. If it were completely built with only single family homes that would be bad enough. This corridor of Hollister Avenue cannot support more traffic [and people] without dire consequences.

We do not need a thousand more cars and 2 thousand more people on 9.5 acres of land here, which would undoubtedly all spill over to the surrounding areas, which are extremely limited and stressed right now. The proposal is nothing more than a [likely out of town and possibly foreign/hedge fund owned] developer attempting to maximize profits at the expense of the well-being of our local neighborhoods and community.

I wholeheartedly urge the whole council to deny any zoning changes. Please imagine that each of you you live in your [currently] beautifully peaceful homes across the street from this development before you make your decisions.

Respectfully,
Michael Baker
179 Salisbury Ave
Goleta CA 93017
805.968.4948

From: Mantrita
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Rezoning of 625 Dara Road Should NOT be approved (Zoning Workshop, July 20, 2023) Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 2:46:00 PM
To: Goleta City Clerk &
Members of the City Council:

Mayor Paula Perotte
Mayor Pro Tempore Kyle Richards
Councilmember Stuart Kasdin
Councilmember Luz Reyes-Martín, District 1
Councilmember James Kyriaco, District 2
Robert Nisbet, City Manager
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
Deborah S. Lopez, City Clerk
Members of the Planning Commission
Jennifer Smith, Chair
Katie Maynard, Vice Chair
Jason Chapman, Commissioner
Jennifer Fullerton, Commissioner
Anne Miller, Commissioner
Peter Imhof, Secretary
Winnie Cai, Deputy City Attorney
Deborah S. Lopez, City Clerk
Subject:

Proposed Rezoning of 625 Dara Road (from RS to RH)
With regards to the Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop, Thursday, July 20, 2023, 5:30 P.M., City Hall, 130 Cremona Dr., Goleta, CA, specifically:
"A.1 23-349 Recommendation: Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session", Table 1 and Table 2, rezoning of 625 Dara Road from RS to RH.

I strongly disagree with the rezoning.

Please note that the rezoning proposal has not been
posted on the property. Now were the neighbors notified similar to the last rezoning process.

When the property was rezoned several years ago (during COVID), it was proposed that the property would be used for senior assisted living and limited in size and height. At the first meeting, it was suggested that Legal look into putting that restriction in the rezoning process.

This restriction did not come up again and appears to have been conveniently ignored. The targeting for senior assisted living was used to justify that the amount of traffic and other impacts would be somewhat equivalent to the then existing 12 lots (plus ADUs).

Is this new
rezoning attempt a "bait and switch"?
It is my understanding that changing the zoning to RH would increase density, reduce green space, increase height and other changes. This is inconsistent with a property that is surrounded 100% by single family homes.

Please do not allow the rezoning.

Sincerely,
M. Cole, Arundel Rd, Goleta
From: Paula Hamer
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 9:00:19 PM
SUBJECT: Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session July 19, 2023
To the members of the Goleta City Council and Planning Commission, I was recently informed of this meeting and the importance of what rezoning the Kenwood Village property can have for the workforce in Goleta. As a person who grew up in Goleta and has watched the communities fall short in affordable housing, I was very interested in making a statement for your consideration.

I returned to Goleta (after being away several years) for a job opportunity. I was excited to get back to my hometown, friends and familiar surroundings. I was not expecting the disastrous housing situation I found myself in trying to find a home to live in, on my own. I had to commute over an hour each way for months before I couldn’t handle that anymore and found myself renting a room in a house with strangers. After renting homes on the central coast for years, and owning a home in Colorado, to now having to rent a room to avoid commuting for my job was demeaning to me, and it was embarrassing. Although my income hadn’t changed, my living conditions had downgraded considerably. Now I live on my own, but I live in a 300 sq. Ft. converted garage and rent storage space for what doesn’t fit. In an affordable housing situation, as a first-time home buyer in this area, I could likely get a home loan with my savings and excellent credit, but I don’t see that ever happening in Goleta with the current housing issues for average or less than average earners. I have a degree in the field of Early Childhood Education, preschool/infant toddler, teacher/director and the average preschool teacher earns $17 - $25 an hour in this city. If I was able to own, or even have the ability to rent a home, I would have the opportunity to use it as a State Licensed home childcare
facility, which is a much-needed necessity in our community and would also increase my economic advantage with business ownership. That is a benefit for me, and our community.

I hope you do offer the property owners that could benefit the people like me the rezoning they need to build homes, and affordable homes for the workforce that are currently struggling to stay afloat living here.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,
Paula Hamer

From: Tony Vallejo
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 9:46:41 PM
I am writing you today to ask that you to include the Kenwood Village project in the list of sites available for much-needed workforce housing.

I have been a homeowner in Goleta for over 20 years, where I have raised my family. I have also owned a business in this area and volunteered in numerous nonprofit organizations. Based on this experience I have seen repeatedly how the persistent lack of workforce housing impacts our community:

As a business owner it makes it incredibly difficult to find employees.

As parent I see the struggles my adult children and their friends have in finding affordable housing in the area (which is why so many leave).

As a board member at organizations like United Boys and Girls Club and Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital Foundation I see the struggles they have finding employees and the struggles the people they serve have in maintaining their quality of life.

The Kenwood Village is a project that would bring much-needed workforce and affordable housing to Goleta. We are desperately in need of this type of housing to alleviate the crisis we are in, and this project is much closer to moving forward than any other parcel you may be considering. If the Council is committed to economic development to “attract and grow businesses, create and retain jobs, and make the community a better place,” then the Housing Element must include sites with legitimate potential for housing creation. We need housing immediately, and this well-reviewed site offers the best chance for new housing in the next few years.

I urge you to include the Kenwood Village Project in the current Housing Element to begin to address Goleta’s housing challenges. Thank you for your consideration.

Warmest Regards,
Tony Vallejo, CPA
Partner
Nicholson & Schwartz
Certified Public Accountants
111 E De la Guerra St.

Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805-969-9662
805-969-7672 fax
[email protected]
www.nicholsonschwartz.com
STATEMENT OF CONFIDENTIALITY & DISCLAIMER: The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential, intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you have received this email in error, please notify us immediately by return email or calling 805-969-9662, and delete this message. Thank you.

July 19, 2023
Re: City of Goleta’s Study Session regarding HEU Sites Inventory, July 20, 2023 Dear Goleta City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, The League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara is pleased to have an opportunity to comment on the Sites Inventory for the latest draft of the City’s Housing Element Update. We understand that potential rezone sites have been added to accommodate a predicted shortfall of 554 lower income units (plus buffer) identified in the state’s June letter. Our League’s housing positions support an increase in housing for very low to moderate income households and we agree that the RHNA targets (Regional Housing Needs Allocation) mandated by the state are a useful guide to make up for years of inadequate housing production.

During our examination of issues impacting South Coast housing elements, we have learned that many of our local essential workers, young professionals and new parents are in the lower income categories. It’s time to put a welcome mat out for local residents and workers, particularly those of lower income and those in need of affordable family housing.

We have the following specific suggestions:
1) T o better understand how the City of Goleta intends to achieve its affordable housing RHNA goals, we would like more transparency. Specifically, what are the underlying assumptions about the total number of housing units and their income levels that will be generated for each site? The allocation for very low to moderate income units in Goleta is 75% of the total 1837 units - 1006 for very low or low income (55%) + 370 moderate income (20%). Without the assumptions behind the sites, it is impossible to evaluate the sites and the ability to meet RHNA goals.
2) We encourage Goleta to follow the lead of the County in identifying sites that the City owns, or that are owned by other public agencies such as school districts or by faith communities. This step can help lower production costs and prioritize residents and workers with a local preference and deed restricted units. 3) We urge you to work with the Goleta Water District to prioritize housing projects with significant levels of affordability for water allocations. Given the scarcity of water in the Goleta valley, this is essential.

It is important to prioritize the production of the more affordable units. Otherwise the state density bonus and other programs that result in mostly market rate housing may lead to a “build, build, build” mindset that can sacrifice livability and safety for no significant improvement to our community’s housing security.

Thank you for your attention to this critical issue.

Respectfully Yours,
Vicki Allen Dianne M. Black
Vice President of Communications and Leadership T eam Leadership T eam Member

From: Levi C. Maaia
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Support for Rezoning Kenwood Village – A Vital Step for Goleta"s Future Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 8:39:13 PM
Dear Honorable City Council Members,
I am writing to express my support for the rezoning of the proposed Kenwood Village development to residential high-density in Goleta's revised Housing Element. As a local business owner, I firmly believe that this project is a crucial and necessary step towards addressing the housing challenges that our community faces, and it holds immense potential for a more sustainable and vibrant future for Goleta Valley and the entire South Coast.

Kenwood Village, as an infill property, boasts a unique opportunity to enhance the existing neighborhood, as it is currently surrounded on three sides by houses and condominiums and prominently fronts Calle Real. This strategic location makes it an ideal choice for a high-density residential development that will contribute positively to the community fabric.

One of the most pressing issues we face today is the scarcity of housing for our adult children and workers. In my business, I have personally experienced the impact of the housing shortage on our workforce. Talented individuals are compelled to seek opportunities in other areas due to the lack of available housing, and this poses a considerable challenge for local businesses like ours. The departure of skilled workers not only disrupts the growth of our businesses but also hinders the overall economic development of the entire region.

Furthermore, the ever-increasing number of commuters traveling from distant areas to work in Goleta and Santa Barbara has resulted in detrimental consequences. The environmental impact of extended commutes in automobiles not only affects our local air quality but also contributes to the broader issue of climate change. Additionally, longer commutes rob individuals of valuable time they could be spending with their families, leading to strained work-life balance and reduced well-being.

The shortage of housing also poses significant challenges for healthcare and emergency services on the South Coast. As we have witnessed in the past, delayed response times due to the distance traveled by emergency and healthcare workers can have dire consequences in critical situations and disasters.

Rezoning Kenwood Village and providing adequate housing options will enable us to attract and retain first responders and healthcare personnel, ensuring a robust, swift and efficient response to emergencies.

By supporting the development of new housing, the Goleta City Council can be directly responsible for positive environmental, social and economic impacts. Therefore, I strongly urge you to support and approve the rezoning of Kenwood Village to residential high-density in the revised Housing Element. This project represents a golden opportunity to tackle the pressing issue of housing shortages and create a more inclusive, sustainable, and thriving community.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I hope that my support for Kenwood Village will be one of many voices advocating for positive change.

Very truly yours,
Levi C. Maaia
805.967.2500 | www.SBSCChamber.com
Mailing Address: 5662 Calle Real #204, Goleta, CA
Visitor Center: 120 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA
July 19, 2023
Mayor Perotte, City Council, and Planning Commissioners City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117
RE: Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session Dear Mayor Perotte, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

The Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce, representing businesses from Goleta to Carpinteria, would like to highlight the importance of rezoning the proposed sites before you. We would like to call particular attention to the three sites mentioned below: 490 South Fairview, 7264 Calle Real, and 7400 Cathedral Oaks.

The Chamber supports the City’s decision to rezone the proposed sites for residential use and is excited to see the City considering additional sites as part of the Housing Element. Earlier this year the Chamber published Phase 3 of our Road Map to Recovery series, The Road Home, which focuses on prioritizing the timely increase of housing supply on the South Coast to meet the pressing needs of our residents and economy. As part of The Road Home the Chamber identified various sites that could realistically be built, and within a timely manner. Our current housing supply crisis calls for quick action, much faster than the 8- year timelines of the Housing Element.

Many of the underutilized sites identified in Housing Elements throughout the South Coast have leases that stretch into the next 5 years, or beyond. While any vacant or underutilized sites being rezoned for housing is an important part of the long-term solution to our region’s lack of housing, we need action now. The Chamber encourages the City to look at sites that are ready to be developed immediately, which is why the Chamber is highlighting our support of the three aforementioned sites.

The Chamber is very supportive of the rezone of the Yardi site, 490 South Fairview. The Chamber has hosted tours to this location in the past and was proud to hear of Yardi’s decision to reconsider the use of this site as the needs of the business and workforce shifted. The conversion of this office space to rental housing is exactly the kind of solution the community and the City should be looking to support. Not only will this allow an underutilized site to provide much needed housing to our community, but the additional residents it will bring to the area will breathe further life in Goleta’s downtown district. We hope the City will not only commit to the rezone of this parcel, but that they will work with the applicants on future proposed projects to ensure the process goes smoothly and timely to bring this much needed housing to our community as soon as possible.

The Kenwood Village site, 7264 Calle Real is another great example of a property that could be utilized in order to address our region’s housing supply crisis quickly. This site is already surrounded by various other types of housing and located right on Calle Real. Given its location, this site makes sense for high density residential in order to yield enough units to not only make progress toward the City’s RHNA requirements, but provide much needed housing supply to our community. This is also a site where residential development has been previously considered, meaning that we can count on a project to meet our 805.967.2500 | www.SBSCChamber.com
Mailing Address: 5662 Calle Real #204, Goleta, CA
Visitor Center: 120 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA
community’s needs to be accomplished sooner rather than later. The Chamber plans to add both the Kenwood Village and Yardi properties to our The Road Home document and plan to meet housing needs and our region as quickly as possible.

The Chamber is also very supportive of the rezone of the Shelby property, 7400 Cathedral Oaks. The Shelby property is one of the first sites the Chamber identified in our The Road Home document as a site that could be quickly utilized to meet the housing needs of our region. For this reason, the Chamber was surprised to see that the Shelby property was not being considered for rezone at this meeting. Especially considering the property owner’s willingness to develop the site for housing and the City staff’s outreach to property owners to come up with this list of vacant and underutilized properties. This site is surrounded by other housing, the golf course (which is being considered for residential rezone in the County’s housing element), and is right on Cathedral Oaks. Given the location of this site, it makes sense to include it in this list of considered sites. Much like the previous projects, the property owner of this site, Dr. Couvillion is a trusted local member of the community who will work with the City to provide a project that meets the community’s needs, and could do so in a timely manner. The Chamber highly encourages you to consider this site, as in many ways it makes just as much sense – if not more, as some of the other sites before you.

Thank you for consideration of rezoning the vacant and underutilized sites being presented to you in order to address our community’s housing supply crisis, especially the Yardi Site, Kenwood Village, and potentially the Shelby property.

Sincerely,
Kristen Miller
President & CEO
Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce

1 From: Thomas Swiech <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 10:29 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello,
For what it’s worth I and I Goleta resident and am writing in about the rezoning situation.

If this helps preserve the Glen Annie Golf Course then I support the proposing rezoning of the Kenwood Village project. I support this plan because I’d rather see the glen annie golf course stay there. Why ruin a part of the local economy and a beautiful piece of Goleta to make it more like LA here.

From what I understand rezoning and building more housing will happen regardless, it’s more of a matter of where at this point. Can we not ruin the golf course in the meantime.

From: Dean Gaston
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Support for the Kenwood Village development
Date: Thursday, July 20, 2023 9:13:06 AM
July 20, 2023
Dear Mayor and City Council Members
I would like to emphasize the need for additional affordable Goleta
such as the proposed " Kenwood Village '' development could provide.

I am the co-owner of a CNC Machine Shop in Goleta and I am experiencing a very difficult time not only expanding but also retaining my business because of the lack of affordable housing.

The majority of my employees live in communities that require as much as one hour of commuting time to come to work.

They are
always looking for employment at a closer distance and they quit when they find employment near their residences.

This problem has been in existence
for virtually all small business
owners and approving the Kenwood Village development will be very much welcomed and appreciated by all.

Sincerely,
Constantine Gastouniotis
[email protected]
805-683-4919
From: Emre Disli
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Comment for Housing elements study session
Date: Thursday, July 20, 2023 11:12:53 AM
July 20, 2023
City of Goleta,
As a resident of Goleta for the past 21 years, I am in complete support for an affordable housing concept especially at 60 COLUSA AVE.. As a city and region, we face a housing affordability crisis as well as not enough housing.

We have so many new students that come to UCSB who cannot find a place to live.

One of those students is my daughter who recently graduated from High School last month. I believe if everything gets built as planned, there is going to be a lot of great units for students and other community members to enjoy. I would rather see beautiful buildings in that location rather than an empty lot. I believe this is also going to help nearby businesses thrive while boosting the local economy.

A stable, affordable
home is the foundation for everything. It gives children the chance to establish healthy habits and focus on their goals and education which in turn has a massive impact on educational achievements and economic output. This is not just housing, this an invest in our community, and I support it.

Sincerely,
Emre Disli,
From: Mclaughlin, Kirsten (CCI-California)
To: City Clerk Group; Paula Perotte; Luz Reyes-Martin; Stuart Kasdin; Kyle Richards; James Kyriaco Cc: Gartner, Eleanor (CCI-California); Dustin Hoiseth
Subject: July 20 Housing Element Workshop
Date: Thursday, July 20, 2023 12:04:25 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Mayor Perotte, Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, On behalf of Cox Communications and our Goleta-based team, I would like to express our support for the addition of desperately-needed housing in the City. The lack of necessary and affordable housing, particularly for the workforce population, is a direct impediment to the economic growth of Goleta, as well as directly impacts Cox’s local team. Having recently adopted Goleta’s Economic Development Strategic Plan where housing has been identified as a priority issue, we encourage you to consider the rezoning of identified vacant and underutilized sites identified in our community.

Thank you for your support in making Goleta a great place to work, live, and do business.

Kirsten
Kirsten G. McLaughlin
Market Vice President, Santa Barbara
O 805-681-3606
C 805-319-2892
22 S. Fairview Ave. Goleta, CA 93117

Ken Alker
Kenwood Village, LLC
290 Winchester Canyon Road
Goleta, CA 93117
July 20, 2023
Dear Honorable Goleta City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, My name is Ken Alker and I own the 10 acre parcel of land on Calle Real known as Kenwood Village.

At the time of purchase, the land was zoned mostly for residential use, but also for commercial use near Calle Real
(it was zoned 100% residential from 1958 until 2001; for 43 years). I am a local business owner and employ dozens of employees, but I have found it very difficult to recruit and retain local workers due to the lack of housing in the City of Goleta. I am also dismayed at the fact that my adult children are priced out of the area that they call home - Goleta. My hope for the past 15+ years
has been to develop Kenwood Village into homes that my employees, employees of other local companies, and our adult children can afford. I have worked diligently with the City in the planning
process to develop this site, and I have conducted numerous studies demonstrating that this site is ideal for residential development and will have less than significant environmental impacts.

In this letter, I am specifically responding to April Reid's letter to the City of Goleta dated 7/16/2023 regarding the Kenwood Village project. I feel I must set the record straight on several of Ms. Reid's erroneous assertions regarding Kenwood Village.

Ms. Reid has made reference to a “developer” in multiple instances throughout her letter. I am the owner of the property. I own two Goleta-based companies with employees seeking local housing. I have lived and worked in Goleta since graduating from UCSB in 1989. I am an electrical engineer; I am not a developer. There has never been a developer associated in any way with this land while I have owned it (nearly 16 years).

Most of my citations are taken from the 2016 Kenwood Village Environmental Impact Report (EIR).

The EIR is posted on the City's web site and can be found here: https://www.cityofgoleta.org/your- city/planning-and-environmental-review/ceqa-review/kenwood-village. 1) Ms. Reid states that, "Protecting endangered species should be a top priority for Goleta. There are also endangered plants on the property according to the developer." For the record, the second sentence is incorrect. The EIR page 5.3-8 states, "The field surveys conducted over the site by SII and others resulted in no observations of any rare, threatened, or endangered plant species within the project site. Further, the current annual mowing practices, past agricultural practices, and observable and identifiable plants, habitats, and soils suggest the site does not support habitat for special-status plants." Furthermore, on page 5.3-7, in reference to non-avian wildlife, a variety of bird species,
and aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates, "there are no documented occurrences of any formally listed state of federal threatened or endangered species within the reach of El Encanto Creek adjacent to the project site."
2) Ms. Reid states that, "The property has successfully been used for growing vegetables, such as pumpkins and tomatoes, for many decades. There is no reason the land can not continue to be used for agricultural purposes."

John Lane told me that he farmed the property for about ten years but ceased operations October of 2004. He planted both pumpkins and tomatoes, but the whole area got blight so he was no longer able to farm tomatoes. He stated that the farming at the top of the property was always marginal and that he could never plant winter crops at the bottom of the parcel as it gets too wet. Then when two of the lots near Calle Real were built, his access got cut off. For all these reasons, he chose to stop farming the property, and declined to restart farming on the land when I offered.

I spoke with other farmers who had no interest because the land is surrounded on three sides by residential uses. They cited concerns over potential complaints from neighbors regarding farming noise (tractor noise, labor noise during planting, maintenance, and harvest), diesel particulates in the air from tractors and other farming equipment, pesticides, and chemical use. The lack of reasonable access to the property with farm equipment was stated as a major impediment.

No farming operations have been performed on the Kenwood Village site since John quit in 2004, almost 20 years ago.
3) Ms. Reid states that, "The developer himself said the US 101 southbound ramps at Storke Road 'exceed the City’s acceptable operating standard.'"
Ms. Reid is quoting from an old Scoping Document that was authored by the City of Goleta, not a developer. The EIR (the newer document, also published by the City of Goleta) page 5.9-18 further explains that, "The U.S. 101 southbound ramps/Storke Road and Hollister Avenue/Storke Road intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour with and without Project-added traffic. The Project’s traffic additions (V/C increase of 0.003) would not result in significant impacts to those intersections based on the City’s cumulative traffic impact threshold (V/C increase of 0.03 or more). Therefore, the Project would not utilize a substantial portion of an intersection’s capacity and would result in less than significant (Class III) cumulative impacts to the study area intersections." Additionally, Table 5.9-9 shows that there is "no significant impact" in regard "U.S. 101 southbound ramps at Storke Road".
4) Ms. Reid states that, "The developer has already admitted that there would not be enough parking for the multiple units the developer plans to build, so he expects that people who own or visit the units will park on the streets near the units, such as Baker Lane, Violet Lane and Daffodil Lane, which are all PRIVATE, small, one black streets. There is not enough room for the cars at the Kenwood Village
units to park on the small, one block long PRIVATE streets. The streets were meant for the owners and visitors of the PRIVATE streets to use. He also expects people to park on Tuolumne." Per Table 3.5-1 in the EIR, the proposed project requires 140 parking spaces but provides 145 spaces.

Each proposed residence would have a two car garage, and on-street parking would be provided to meet guest parking requirements. In addition to vehicle parking, bicycle parking posts would be provided throughout
the site to accommodate visitors.

The parking requirements for the project are not only met, they are exceeded. Never has anyone associated with this project stated that there would not be enough parking for the project, nor has anyone associated with the project stated that they expect owners or visitors to Kenwood Village to park on Baker Lane, Violet Lane, Daffodil Lane, or Tuolomne.

5) Ms. Reid states that, "... the Fire Department told me he received a violation for not cutting the weeds on the property."
I personally mow the weeds at the property with my own tractor (I grew up tending 20+ acres of avocados and live on a small farm now and own farm equipment). I have never received a violation from the fire department regarding weed abatement. I called the fire department yesterday and they verified that there are no violations on record for the property.

I hope that the above sets the record straight. I have always encouraged anyone who has comments or concerns regarding Kenwood Village to contact me, and I still encourage this. I have spoken to many
of the neighbors and community members over the years, and my goal, as always, is to improve the land responsibly, and to be a good neighbor. I look forward to working with the City to help alleviate the impacts of the housing crisis that employers and parents of adult children in our lovely City have
been facing for many years.

Sincerely,
Ken Alker
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 9:46 AM
To: Andy Newkirk <[email protected]>
Subject: July 20, 2023 hearing for support of the Council to rezone parcels in City of Goleta.

Dear Andy -
A week ago, I received a call from Stephanie inviting me on July 20th to attend and support the PC and the City Council hearing for changes to the zoning due to the new housing element/ up-zoning of available parcels of land in the City of Goleta.

As the City Council of Goleta trying to satisfy the HCD demand regarding housing issues, I am happy to help the City by allowing the changes to the zoning of my property to accommodate and fulfilling the RHNA numbers.

I asked my friend Michael Bennett to speak on my behalf. Unfortunately, I am not able to attend the hearing due to bad health as I was hospitalized 2 days ago at Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital.

As you recall I already received approval for GPAI for a Senior Care Facility (consisting of 150 to 175 units). I am still trying to find an operator to take over to build and push the project forward. Whether this project will go forward or not the zoning has to be changed anyway to RHD, not RMD (because of the number of units).

This property is perfectly suitable for up-zoning to high density. It is a total enfiled, has already water allocation, already has an entitlement (which received a negative declaration), it could be used as SB9, two sides of the property face two separate streets, and one side to a park. I believe this is a site that the Council favors the most for high-density use. After all the Council already approved this parcel (GPAI) to be used as high-density housing.

In conclusion, I am supporting the City Council to change the zoning of my property to Residential High Density (RHD).

I also like to appreciate and thanks the advance planning staff for the difficult work that are doing.

Regards,
Hersel Mikaelian
(805) 252-0775

From: Jennifer McGovern
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Support for Rezoning of Candidate Sites and Kenwood Village Site Date: Thursday, July 20, 2023 12:21:05 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Importance: High
Re: Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session Dear Mayor and City Council Members and Planning Commissioners:

I am writing in support of the rezoning of all the vacant and underutilized candidate sites listed in the staff report for residential use. Rezoning of these properties will enable the creation of higher density and infill workforce and affordable housing that is desperately needed for our community.

The rezonings will also create a sufficient inventory of land needed to address the City of Goleta’s 6 th
Cycle RHNA obligation to provide adequate sites to produce 1,837 new housing units within our community.

I especially wish to express my support for the rezoning of the Kenwood Village site located at 7264 Calle Real. I live at the Santa Barbara West Mobile Home Park on Winchester Canyon Rd and used to rent an apartment in a home on Baker Lane, so I am familiar with the property, as it is part of my extended neighborhood.

I believe that the Kenwood site is an excellent location for infill housing. It is also a positive model of how the City of Goleta can facilitate the efforts of owners of local business to develop needed workforce housing.

As you know, the City of Goleta and entire South Coast region has a chronic shortage of workforce and affordable housing. Your Housing Element contains ample documentation of our community’s critical housing needs. According to SBCAG, there are approximately 98,700 jobs located in the South Coast region, with over 19,000 of these workers commuting from outside Santa Barbara County and 7,850 workers commuting from North County and the Santa Ynez Valley. This means about 27% of all South Coast employees live outside the region. High local housing costs have been consistently identified in employee surveys as a major reason that local workers commute from less expensive housing markets. Lack of workforce and affordable housing affects the ability of our local businesses to hire and retain qualified employees and has a dampening effect on our local economy.

The property owner of the 10-acre Kenwood Village site is the co-owner of Impulse Advanced Communications and purchased the property years ago with the intention of addressing the shortage of workforce housing by increasing our local housing stock. However, until this point he has been stalled in the effort to develop the property for residential use due to City land use and zoning policies.

The rezoning of the Kenwood Village site would enable this project to finally proceed and create needed homes and condominiums for our local working families and individuals. The land is ideal as an infill property because it is located next to existing houses to the north, condominiums to the east, a small neighborhood shopping site and borders on Calle Real with easy access to the Glenn Annie freeway on-ramp.

I strongly urge you to approve the rezoning of all the candidate sites, including the Kenwood Village site located at 7264 Calle Real, Goleta.

Best Regards,
Jennifer
Jennifer McGovern
President and CEO
Housing Trust Fund of Santa Barbara County
P. O. Box 60909
Santa Barbara, CA 93160-0909
[email protected]
(805) 685-1949
Beth A. Collins
Attorney at Law
805.882.1419 direct
[email protected]
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
805.963.7000 main
1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101
July 20, 2023
VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected]
City Council and Planning Commission
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
RE:  Housing Element 2023‐2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session Dear Mayor, City Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

Our firm represents numerous clients throughout the City of Goleta (“City”) on commercial, mixed use and multi‐family development projects. I have been cl
osely monitoring the City’s process to develop
and obtain certification of its 2023‐2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”).  As your Council and Commission are aware, the City’s Housing Element update is a crucial opportunity to implement policies and programs that affirmatively further fair housing and support families an d businesses within the City in a manner the complies with state law.  On behalf of Glynne and Gillian Couvillion and their family, this letter supports the City’s identification of potential sites to rezone to accommodate additional housing with the City and encourages the City to take me aningful steps toward rezoning additional land suitable for affordable housing development.  This additional housing will help the City address key challenges, including high housing costs, inadequate affordable rental housing, and homelessness.

I. IDENTIFYING SUFFICIENT REZONE SITES THROUGH A ROBUST PUBLIC PROCESS IS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY CAN ACHIEVE ITS REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCAT ION The City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) identifies the projected housing needs within the City and assigns the City a need to plan for a total of 1,837 units during the Housing Element’s eight year planning period.  This allocation is divided based on income ca tegory  with the City needing to plan for 682 very low, 324 low, 370 moderate, and 461 above moderate income housing units.1 The City must plan for these units in its Housing Element and enact ordinances, policies and standards to promote the construction of affordable housing.
1 See Draft Housing Element, Table 10‐1.

City of Goleta
City Council and Planning Commission
July 20, 2023

In response to findings from California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) on the draft Housing Element,2 staff revised the site inventory and now identifies a shortfall of 554 lower income units that can be accommodated on existing sites.3  This increased shortfall is a monumental change from the City’s most recent draft Housing Element which found a surplus capacity of 558 lower income units on vacant and underutilized sites under existing zoning.  The Staff Report further explains that HCD recommends a reasonable buffer of 15 percent, bringing the currently estimated total shortfall to 637 lower income units.4  Thus, since the last draft Housing Element, the City has revised its capacity to provide lower income housing units by 1,112 lower income units (or 1,195 units with the buffer).

The basis for this dramatic change must be clearly explained.  The Staff Report, however, only provides a general overview of the revisions to the underutilized site inventory to shift the income categories of units and to remove some underutilized sites due to site constraints.5  Although the Attachment 2 to the Staff Report contains a Rezone Candidate Sites Map identifying the existing inventory, it is difficult for the public to understand the vacant and underutilized sites that were removed from the prior draft Housing Element or the basis for the removal of some sites but not others
.  Further, the Staff Report does not explain why a 15 percent buffer is adequate given the uncertainties associated with the development of affordable housing and that the State has often required local agencies rezone with a more conservative buffer.

Public participation in preparation of the Housing Element is a corn erstone  of Housing Element Law.6 One joint session of the City Council and Planning Commission with an abbreviated staff report and one week’s notice is not enough to ensure adequate public review of the site inventory and potential rezones.  The public must have the opportunity to review and understand the identified sites, the basis for the site inventory and the calculate d shortfall.  This public review is critical to ensure that the existing site inventory appropriately identifies the shortfall of lower income units.  For example, if public review of the existing site inventory identifies further sites that do not have the realistic possibility for housing development during the planning period or the bu ffer is not supported, the City may be required to rezone additional sites to have HCD certify its Housing Element. 2 HCD found that the Housing Element, among other things, does not (1) identify sufficient sites that have the realistic potential for redevelopment with housing under existing zoning; (2) adequately analyze the development potential of nonvacant sites with lower income housing; (3) evaluate the extent the City’s land use controls constrain housing; an d (4) assess the City’s permit processing and procedures to improve the certainty, timing and feasibility of residential projects. Based on the above, the HCD concluded that the City has not established the “adequacy” of existing sites and zoning to accommodate housing and “the City may need to add or revise programs to a ddress a shortfall of site or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.” (See Staff Report, Attachment 1.) 3 Staff Report, p. 4; see HCD Letter, p. 2; Gov. Code, § 65583.2(g)(2). 4 Staff Report, p. 4.
5 Staff Report, p. 4.
6 Gov. Code, §§ 65583(c)(9), 65585(b)(1).

City of Goleta
City Council and Planning Commission
July 20, 2023

Absent more information on the reasoning that supports the changes made to the existing site inventory, the City Council and Planning Commission cannot make informed decisions about the extent of the potential rezone sites needed to meet the City’s RHNA demand.  Until th is information is presented, the City Council and Planning Commission should take a conservative approach and identify more than sufficient potential rezone sites to accommodate its lower income housing needs with a robust buffer.  Otherwise, the City risks not receiving certification of its Housing Element and, more importantly, will be less likely to provide enough afford able housing for working families.

II. THE STAFF PROPOSAL IS A STEP FORWARD, BUT MORE IS NEEDED TO ENSURE THE CITY HAS A REALISTIC POSSIBILITY OF ACHIEVING ITS RHNA.

The Staff Report identifies ten candidate sites for rezones in Table 1 and an additional seven alternative s
ites for rezones in Table 2.7  As noted in the Staff Report, the Table 1 sites only provide a maximum potential of 583 lower income units, which is insufficient to meet the City’s lower income units shortfall with a fairly low buffer of 15 percent.  Even with the inclusion of all the alternative sites, the City only would have the potential to develop 911 lower income affordable housing units based on the City’s cu
rrent zoning proposal.8  Providing the capacity to develop 911 lower income units may seem sufficient to meet the City’s RHNA; however, in light of the significant uncertainty associated with the City’s existing site inventory along with the challenges facing affordable housing development, including permitting requirements, existing uses, local opposition, increased construction costs, and financing chal lenges, development of these units is uncertain at best.

First, the tables propose to rezone eight underutilized sites for residential uses for a total of 643 units and an unclear number of lower income units.9  As noted above, HCD remains skeptical of the redevelopment of underutilized sites during the planning period given the high costs to convert existing commercial square footage into housing.  This is evidenced by the fact that only one significant redevelopment of existing commercial square footage into housing has recently been permitted or constructed in the City.10  One of the underutilized sites includes a potential redevelopment project by Yardi for primarily employee housing, but this one project—which  has not been applied for, let alone approved—does  not provide sufficient evidence that these underutilized sites will realistically be developed with lower income housing in the next eight years. 7 Staff Report, pp. 5‐6.
8 This 911 lower income unit estimate is based on the sum of the 583 lower income units associated with Table 1 and the 328 lower income units associated with Table 2. (Staff Report, pp. 5‐6.) 9 Staff Report, pp. 5‐6.
10 See Old Town Village (Winslowe) Project in Table 10A‐29 of the Draft Housing Element. The Winslowe Project, however, was highly controversial and approved at lower densities (17.8 units/acre) than proposed under the rezones.

City of Goleta
City Council and Planning Commission
July 20, 2023

Second, the tables propose to rezone 15 of the 17 sites for RH Residential – High Density (RH) for projects developing at 15 to 30 units per acre.11  The prior draft Housing Element, however, indicates that the City did not develop any RH zoned properties during the prior 2015‐2023 Housing Element planning period.12  Also, only two of the recent projects (Heritage Ridge and Cortona Apartments) were developed at more than 20 units per acre, well below the maximum density allowed under RH zoning.13  The City thus does not have a proven track record of approving high density projects under the City’s RH zoning.  As a result, the Planning Commission and City Council should support considering additional candidate sites for potential rezones, at a variety of residential densities, to ensure there are a realistic number of sites for the City to achieve its RHNA for lower income units.

Thus, we urge the City Council and Planning Commission to take a conservative approach toward moving forward with the rezones and select all the proposed sites.  Selecting all the proposed sites for potential rezones will allow staff and the public to review the adequacy of these sites to support affordable housing, to identify potential constraints or opportunities to promote affordable housing development on these sites, and to understand how staff arrived at the proposed unit counts, including those identified for the lower income category.  More information is needed to understand whether these rezone sites at the densities proposed in the Staff Report have a realistic possibility for affordable housing development within the planning period.  This information can be developed and publicly presented by moving forward with all the potential rezone sites and will help the City show whether it can meet its lower income RHNA obligations consistent with Housing Element Law.

Moreover, the Staff Report expressly notes that “[e]xceeding the shortfall has value if HCD does not support particular sites as counting toward the lower income need.”14  As such, including all the sites in Tables 1 and 2 for potential rezones—as  well as identifying additional sites—will  further support certification of the Housing Element and reduce the housing challenges facing the City’s residents.

III. THE SHELBY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT SITE IS ANOTHER VACANT SITE—EXEMPT  FROM MEASURE G—THAT  COULD ASSIST THE CITY WITH MEETING ITS LOWER INCOME HOUSING NEEDS.

The Shelby Residential Project Site (“Shelby Site”) is a vacant site that is noticeably absent from the Staff Report. The Staff Report identifies three key criteria for its process to select candidate sites:
(1) property owner interest; (2) located along or near major arterials in the City’s urban area; and (3) are not Measure G‐protected agricultural sites.15  The Shelby Site meets all three of these criteria.

11 See Goleta Municipal Code, § 17.07.020.
12 See City, Draft Housing Element, Tables 10A‐27 & 10A‐29. 13 See City, Draft Housing Element, Table 10A‐29.
14 Staff Report, p. 6.
15 Staff Report, p. 5.

City of Goleta
City Council and Planning Commission
July 20, 2023

First, the Shelby Site, located at 7400 Cathedral Oaks Road, is a vacant 14.38 acres (gross) property that has had a pending application for the Shelby Residential Project with the City for the development of a market rate 56 single‐family residential subdivision project since 2005.  (See Exhibit – Property Aerial.)  The Shelby Residential Project has already undergone significant planning and environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.  Th e pending project applications have been before the City for over 18 years and demonstrate a firm commitment to residential development and should streamline the City’s process to review and approve a housing project on the Shelby Site.  The Couvillion family, the long‐time owner, recognizes the significant unmet affordable housing needs within the City and has interest in revi sing the project to provide more dense, multi‐family housing and a significant number of lower income units.  The Couvillion family welcomes the opportunity to coordinate with the City to rezone the Shelby Site for higher density affordable housing.

Second, the Shelby Sit e is located along Cathedral Oaks Road, a two and four lane arterial roadway in the City’s urban area connecting it to key job centers along Calle Real and Hollister Avenue. It also has existing water and wastewater main facilities.  Two bus stops with two different service lines are within a half mile of the Shelby Site as well.  The majority of the site has limited eco logical  value and is within walking distance of Dos Pueblos High School and two elementary schools—making  it an ideal housing site for teachers and families.

Third, the Shelby Residential Project is exempt from Measure G.  The Shelby Residential Project has a vested tentative map that exempts the project from Measure G; and should the project proceed under the Builder’s Remedy it would not need a General Plan Amendment or a rezone, and thus Measure G would not be triggered.16  Although the Shelby Site is currently zoned for agriculture and has an agriculture general plan land use designation, the site is not in agriculture use, and has not been for decades. In fact, when Dr. Couvillion acquired the property, it was zoned for residential development.17  Including the Shelby Site in the potential rezone list would simply return the property to its original residential zoning.  Accordingly, the Shelby Site is not an agricultural site subject to Measure G and the City should elect to rezone the site to meet its RHNA obligations. 16 The Shelby Residential Project’s application for a vesting tentative map was deemed complete in 2011, vesting it with then applicable general plan, zoning and development standards. Measure G did not pass until 2012; therefore the Shelby Residential Project is exempt from Measure G.
17 The parcel was originally zoned residential from the 1950s through 1982. The County rezoned the property to agriculture in 1982 in response to no‐growth movements in 1982. However, the original 30 acre parcel was subdivided in connection with the extension of Cathedral Oaks Road after which the County rezoned the south parcel for residential and it wa s developed with single family homes. The subdivision of the parcel, development of Cathedral Oaks, the golf course, and adjacent residential developments, however, has extremely limited the Shelby Site’s viability for agriculture use and the site has not been in use as productive agriculture for de cades.

City of Goleta
City Council and Planning Commission
July 20, 2023

In summary, we urge the City Council and Planning Commission to recommend the Shelby Site for inclusion in the list of potential rezone sites since it meets each of the City’s three criteria for potential rezone sites, in addition to other positive aspects.  The site could be rezoned with RM Residential – Medium Density and RS Single Family Residential to allow for a more dense, affordable housing project that still aligns with the overall character of the surrounding neighborhood.  The City Council and Planning Commission can and should consider all potential options to prepare a revised Housing Element that complies with state law and prom otes  realistic affordable residential development to house essential workers and low income residents.  We are confident that if included in the City’s rezone proposal, the Shelby Site can be developed with significant affordable housing for lower income local families within the planning period.

We do not wish to delay the City mo ving  forward with much needed efforts to promote affordable housing development through certification of its Housing Element and the related rezones.  Thus, we respectfully request that the City Council and Planning Commission move forward with all the potential rezone sites—and  add the Shelby Site—through  a transparent public process that allows for thorough review of the City’s existing site inventory and potential rezone sites.  We firmly believe that this public process is necessary to comply with state Housing Element Law and promote sustainable, affordable housing development within the City.

Thank you for your careful consideration of these comments as you deliberate on the potential re zone sites and future actions to support the development of affordable housing in the City of Goleta.

Sincerely,
Beth A. Collins
Cc:  Anne Wells, Advance Planning Manager
Andy Newkirk, Senior Planner
25849130.7
E
XHIBIT – SHELBY SITE PROPERTY AERIAL
P.N.3 WEST CARRILLO STREETSUITE 205SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101(805) 962-4611 SHELBY PROPERTY7400 CATHEDRAL OAKS RD.APN 077-530-019CITY OF GOLETA, CA 877 Cedar Street #150 | Santa Cruz, CA 95060
July 20, 2023
via email
The City Council and Planning Commission of Goleta ([email protected]) Re: Housing Element Sites Inventory Rezoning (Study Session today) Dear Councilmembers:

YIMBY Law’s mission is to end the housing shortage and achieve affordable, sustainable, and equitable housing for all.

We agree with staff that more rezoning is necessary for the City to attain a compliant Housing Element and meet its RHNA demand in the next planning cycle. The Department of Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) March 20, 2023 letter clearly identified that rezones are necessary to meet the City’s regional housing needs and adopt a compliant Housing Element. We encourage you to designate more properties for rezoning, and allow greater density on the properties you designate.

As the Council and Planning Commission is aware, California is in the midst of an enormous housing crisis. Decades of insufficient new housing construction have caught up with us. There simply is not enough housing to meet demand in California, including Goleta. That has resulted in significant damage to the environment and people’s quality of life. Some people work two and three jobs to pay the rent just so that they can live in Goleta. Others commute hours each day so they can pay less for housing – losing critical time with their families and spewing emissions unnecessarily. This harms your City economically, as your workforce’s hard-earned dollars are more likely to be spent where they live, not in Goleta. This can be avoided with sufficient housing stock here in Goleta.

New housing bills are raising the stakes for local government, and increasingly reducing local control. My organization and others are tracking the progress of local jurisdictions like yours, watching the Housing Element process, and when necessary litigating inadequate Housing Elements. We continue to monitor Goleta’s progress to draft a substantially compliant Housing Element. Goleta can help themselves retain more local control if it shows leadership now and rezones these properties – and more properties – for the development of housing immediately.

We recommend the following as you move forward with your Housing Element process. 2 (1) Build in more buffer into your estimated shortfall of units – 15 percent is insufficient. (2) Seek more public outreach and comment. For example, a single joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Council with just a week’s notice on the proposed rezoning of these properties (after over a year of messaging that the City would not rezone any properties) is not sufficient.
(3) Provide more explanation to the public about the reasoning behind estimates of the number of units projected for each of the sites on the inventory. (4) Rezone more sites, especially larger sites that will glean more units, including affordable units.
(5) Given the significant barriers to redevelopment of existing developed sites, do not overly rely on non-vacant sites.
(6) Blocking housing on properties close to schools, jobs, and other services that lie inside your City-limits and are surrounded by urban uses simply because that property is agriculturally zoned is what landed California (and Goleta) into this crisis. (7) We see there are vacant sites being left off the rezone list. Continuing to ignore these sites will simply exacerbate the housing crisis. As well, not dealing with them now will leave their development for a future time where local control has been further weakened by state law.

As the City Council and Planning Commission is surely aware, the deadline to have an HCD certified Housing Element was February 15, 2023. The City’s revised timeline now anticipates adopting a revised Housing Element by February 2024 – over a year late. During this period of noncompliance, the City is ineligible for certain state grants and remains subject to the so-called Builder’s Remedy under the Housing Accountability Act. To avoid litigation challenging the City’s noncompliance with Housing Element Law and Builder’s Remedy projects on parcels throughout the City, we urge the City Council and Planning Commission to be proactive with pro-housing rezones and other programs to support housing development and affirmatively further fair housing.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please let us know if you would like to discuss.

Sincerely,
Keith Diggs ([email protected])
Attorney, YIMBY Law

From: Sergio Ricardo <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 2:41 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: City Council/Planning Commission Workshop
Hello,
My name is Sergio and I would like to offer the following comment about the meeting tonight. If any additional rezoning and housing is planned for western Goleta area, you HAVE to include a proposal to add an additional highway 101 access (on/off ramps) between Glen Anie and Winchester Canyon. The traffic situation at Glen Anie/Storke & Hollister is unbearable as it is and cannot take any more traffic.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sergio
Goleta Resident
(iLa Calera Way)
From: Karen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 3:32 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Fwd: July 20 workshop/ City Council meeting
RE: State of California using cities as dumping grounds Mayor and Councilmembers of the city of Goleta
I have reviewed the proposal to upzone many parcels, throughout our city, to higher densities of 20‐30 units per acre in order to comply with the state's threat over failure to satisfy RHNA mandates. Obviously planning staff and city council understand the implications, but do city residents?
Prominent recent developments rated medium density at 20 units per acre include "Cortona Apartments", built just below the southbound Storke/Glen Annie 101 onramp. At 176 apartments on 8.86 acres, it's 20.4 units per acre.

Hollister Village, behind Smart & Final, is 265 units of 3 story apartments on 13.08 acres and medium density at 20.25 units per acre. Goletans ought to take a drive through the canyons of Hollister Village to get a sense for 20 units per acre and then imagine what 30 units per acre developments look and feel like.

Contrast those medium density projects with Goleta planning staff's proposal to upzone the "Kenwood Village" project on the sloping land just east of the Padre Shopping Center on Calle Real in El Encanto Heights. Staff is proposing to allow 284 units of high density residential on 9.8 acres. That's 30 units per acre.

Where is all the workforce housing developers advocate for in promoting their projects? 2 bedroom units in Cortona Apartments run $4,900 monthly. I'll say it. It's all a big LIE. Staff knows it. Council should know it by now. Not going to happen without insisting on all affordable. And that's what this council should require. Period.

Once upon a time, in a document known as the Goleta General Plan, higher densities were considered only in locations proximate to public transportation, employment and shopping.

Not anymore, apparently.

Keeping Los Angeles‐style constipation 100 miles away is no longer the objective. City staff is facilitating the PLANNING for intense urbanization.

Are our elected council members in favor of these changes for Goleta the Good Land? It seems we are about to find out.

Should council and staff decide to indiscriminately assign high density zoning here, there and everywhere, with so little regard, in such inappropriate locations, then we might as well abandon cityhood.

At least the County (arm of the state) will budget for better maintenance of our roads and parks.

Karen Lovelace
Goleta resident
From: Bryce Cosio <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 3:54 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop Oppose 625 Dara Rd Rezone To whom it may concern,
Regarding: Study Session 23‐349
I am wriƟng to strongly oppose the rezoning of the property at 625 Dara Road, which is directly adjacent to my backyard on Andamar Way. We recently purchased this property in April and did not know about any of this proposed development prior to purchasing. I have not received anything from the City of Goleta in the mail regarding this meeƟng tonight and had to find out about it on the Nextdoor app. I would like to ask that the City of Goleta confirm they sent noƟce of this meeƟng to all the neighbors whom this would affect? This proposed development is not suitable for the family driven neighborhood full of only single family residenƟal homes. I ask the city council members with voƟng power to vote NO on including 625 Dara Rd. as a potenƟal building site for these low income units or for anything other than single family residenƟal.

Thank you,
Bryce Cosio
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 11:51 AM
To: Kim Dominguez <[email protected]>
Subject: Growth
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

GreeƟngs
My name is Richard Worth. I have been a resident and homeowner in Goleta for about 23 years now..

Goleta is my home. I have a wife, and a son who was born in our area.  I was married in Santa Barbara and my son was born in Santa Barbara.  Santa Barbara and Goleta have since been considered home.  As we all know the weather here is wonderful and the open space is precious.

It disturbs me to no small the degree to see the density being pushed primarily by the influence of the universiƟes presence, and probably equally by the pressures mandated by state I assume.  I sit under the path of one of the many flight paths to our airport, and I see these choppers perusing our hillsides. I can only assume they are scouƟng for rich developers, looking to buy off the prisƟne foothills to develop upon.  These hills, undeveloped are some of the most glorious mountains in California.  They, like the Pacific are the jewel of the area.  I also know this panel likely has pressures from the state to grow.  What I do see because I’m here every day and I’m now reƟred, is the selling off of what liƩle open space there is to gaze out upon for both residents and tourists.  I also know that you can only put so many potatoes in a bag for it bursts at the seams.  We need to fight back when it comes to growth and density.   We need to know that there is only so much income that this small area is going to have before it becomes subject to pressures by big money such as the University.

For the sake of our town, it’s kids and future residence, we need to do our best to preserve what is leŌ of this jewel of California.  All one needs to do is go up to other vacaƟon spots such as Morro Bay, Cayucos, San Simeon, and see the absolute horror that overdevelopment has brought upon the once treasures areas, these jewels of California, and indeed, the United States.

I urge you to restrain and fight back when it comes to allowing more dense development and the dense populaƟons they invite in the name of bolstering city coffers.  As homes become available here, then sure, the free market should take precedence. But to allow the free space upon which our area is known for and defined by to be sold with no regard to the horrible transforma on and resul ng loss that is taking place, leaves our ci zens nowhere to look upon to take their minds off of the already overcrowded landscape. To allow the county and city to be bought and sold to big money is a direct result of the city rolling over with spineless decisions. It is appalling.

Rick Worth
Goleta resident of 24 years.

Sent from my iPhone
20 July 2023
Planning Commission
Goleta City Council
Goleta, CA

C/O  [email protected]
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This past July 8, we celebrated living in our home at 5739 Stow Canyon Road for 50 years!  As you may assume, we have a vested interest in our neighborhood.

Historically, we have opposed the developments labeled “625 Dara Road”  for a number of reasons, primarily size/height, drainage.  It is interesƟng to note that while we banter 625 Dara Road as the primary address, the main gate is on Stow Canyon Road.

Our quesƟon is, what happened to Mr. Mikalian’s second proposed development in 2016?  He had quite a bit of support from neighbors so we expected our objecƟons to be duly noted but approval of development granted by Goleta’s Planning/Design Review Board.

Please email me as we would like to understand/get insight as to why the Goleta City Council Planning Commission is now a considering high density zoning change for this property.

Jan & Larry Scheffler
805‐964‐4909
Jan.mscheffl[email protected]
From: Ken Alker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 5:08 PM
To: City Clerk Group; Housing Element; Kim Dominguez
Cc: Anne Wells; Andy Newkirk; Peter Imhof
Subject: Kenwood Village letter TWO 7/20/23
Attachments: Kenwood Village 7-20-2023.pdf
My name is Ken Alker, owner of the Kenwood Village project located on Calle Real near 7‐11.  This property was zoned as 100% residenƟal for 43 years ‐ from 1958 unƟl 2001.  In 2001, approximately three acres were rezoned to commercial before Goleta became a city.  That small porƟon was rezoned once again.  When I purchased the property I asked City Council what they wanted to see on the property and was told Ɵme and Ɵme again that the best use is 100% housing because Goleta needs homes and we don't need more commercial strip malls, bars, gas staƟons, laundromats, dog kennels or convenience stores along Calle Real.  So, by popular demand, I applied to make the enƟre property residenƟally zoned like it was for the first 43 years.

The property is what is referred to as infill property; it is bordered on the north and east by single family residenƟal units and on the west by a higher density condominium project called the Brookside Condominiums.  It is bordered on the south by Calle Real.  Kenwood Village is close to commercial amenƟƟes and schools and it has been slated and zoned for housing since 1958.

I went to UCSB and graduated with a degree in Electrical and Computer Engineering in 1989.  I bought a house in Goleta and raised my kids in Goleta.  I've lived my enƟre adult life in Goleta.  Goleta is my home.  I am not a developer ‐ I am simply a local business owner who needs employee housing.  I own two businesses in Goleta and I employ many people.

We have always struggled with hiring local talent and retaining employees due to housing issues.  I've brought people in from out of town only to have them last a few months before quiƫng because they simply can't find housing in town at all, or they can't afford the rent or the mortgage payments.  These days it is geƫng harder and harder to find a local workforce due to the shortage of housing.  AddiƟonally, it bothers me that our adult children are unable to afford to live in the town where they grew up.

I bought the Kenwood Village property nearly SIXTEEN years ago in order to create housing that my employees and children can afford.  I've been working with the City of Goleta all that Ɵme to create a project that works for the community at large.  I'm very excited and appreciaƟve that my land was selected for a rezone to help Goleta meet its housing numbers set by the state and I'm just as ready today to get a project off the ground as I was 16 years ago.

As menƟoned, this land is already surrounded by housing and is the perfect infill project to create the homes Goleta needs for workers and families so they can live where they work and not commute from Lompoc or Ventura.  I know the City is looking to quickly address the housing deficit and I'm excited that developing the Kenwood Village property is back on the table.

I'm ready to work with the City to quickly revise the Kenwood Village project descripƟon to make a great project come to light as fast as possible.

Sincerely,
Ken Alker
From: Kim Dominguez
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 5:15 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: FW: Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Stury From: Katherine Parker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 5:07 PM
To: Kim Dominguez <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element 2023‐2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Stury I am a neighbor who lives at 663 Wakefield Rd. and want the record to show I am vehemently against the rezoning of this property to RMD or RHD housing. At a minimum 3 stories is ridiculous. Councilmembers please, please take the Ɵme to visit the property and see for yourselves what a nuisance adding 127 units would do to this otherwise desirable and peaceful neighborhood. Thank you.

Katherine Parker
From: Kim Dominguez
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 5:16 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: FW: Rezoning of Dara property
From: CrisƟ Smith <crisƟ[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 4:35 PM
To: Kim Dominguez <[email protected]>
Subject: Rezoning of Dara property
I am a neighbor who lives at 5671 Stow Canyon and want the record to show I am vehemently against the rezoning of this property to RMD or RHD housing. At a minimum 3 stories is ridiculous. Councilmembers please, please take the Ɵme to visit the property and see for yourselves what a nuisance adding 127 units would do to this otherwise desirable and peaceful neighborhood. Thank you.

CrisƟ Smith
Sent from my iPhone
Attn.: City Council & City Clerk
130 Cremona Dr., Goleta, CA 93117

RE: Proposed development between Baker Lane & the 7‐11 off Glen Annie in Goleta

Dear City Council Members:

I am a native Santa Barbara resident and I would like to say I strongly opposed the rezoning of the proposed parcel from Agricultural land/Single family to multifamily homes. We have very little land zoned as agricultural and protected as such left. We need to protect the little land we have left.

This development would have irreversible effects on the wildlife, traffic, parking and an overpopulation of the area involved.

We respectfully request that you take all of this into consideration when making your decision on the matter.

Concerned resident.

From: Jason Cruse <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 1:09 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Fwd: A.1 23-349 Housing Element
I live adjacent to 625 Dara Rd., one of the properƟes being considered for rezoning. I would like to register my objecƟon to this proposed rezoning. While I support the development of this property, this proposal is far too excessive. The units that would be required to support this proposal would be inconsistent with the exisƟng neighborhood and the increased traffic would disrupt safe routs to school.  It is just too dense for this area. I would appreciate it if you would please read my comment into the record.

Thank you,
Jason Cruse
640 Dara Rd.
805.708.1178
From: Kim Dominguez
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 8:05 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Cc: Anne Wells; Peter Imhof
Subject: FW: Rezoning Study
From: Katherine Parker <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 5:52 PM
To: Kim Dominguez <[email protected]>
Subject: Rezoning Study
The change in zoning you are proposing for 625 Dara is clearly inconsistent with the neighborhood.  The impacts of 3 story buildings on the immediate neighbors as well as traffic impacts make this inconceivable. As homeowners and voters why should we have to compromise property values in order to meet state requirements? Please consider your consƟtuents, neighbors and friends in deciding the future of our neighborhoods. Thank you.

Bill Parker
Sent from my iPa
From: Richard Foster <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2023 9:43 AM
To: Anne Wells <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; Luz Reyes‐Martin <lreyes‐ [email protected]>; Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; Robert Nisbet <[email protected]> Subject: inequitable distribution of the pain
Members of the Goleta City Council
Robert Nisbet, City Manager
Anne Wells, Planning Manager
Guidance to the Planning Staff at last night's meeting was a knee jerk reaction to the city’s failure in planning.

As approved it is reckless and inequitable.

32.86 % of the High Density rezones proposed are within a quarter mile radius. All are in El Encanto Heights.

If you move forward with this distribution we will have to consider using the nuclear option.

Please find more sites across the city while you have time.

Richard Foster