Goleta City Council
July 25, 2023

From: Jeffrey Mandrell
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 625 Dara Rd. - Major Rezoning Concerns from a local Date: Saturday, July 22, 2023 4:58:00 PM
Good afternoon,
My name is Jeff and I am a concerned Goleta County tax paying homeowner in the Kellogg area right across the street from 625 Dara Rd. I am deeply concerned over the proposed rezoning of the subject property without first performing thorough assessments and community outreach to evaluate the impacts on the Goleta community, environment, traffic, property values, and quality of life. I am also disheartened that there has been little outreach by the owner to the local community to gain support and explain the rationale for the effort. A decision like this should not be made in a vacuum and should not be made without the involvement of the local community stakeholders such as myself and other residents in the Kellogg area.

I wholeheartedly agree in what Councilman Kyle Richards commented in a previous meeting in that, "I don’t think this is the appropriate land-use designation for this parcel". The current zoning designation is the appropriate land-use designation for this parcel. The current zoning designation - which was approved decades ago - should be utilized for development of single- family homes.

The following should be considered:

Single-family home neighborhoods - like the amazing Kellogg neighborhood - are typically characterized by low-density housing and a sense of community. Introducing large senior housing developments will drastically alter the character of the area and disrupt the existing residential fabric. What evidence is there that the addition of senior housing would assist local seniors and not seniors from out of town? How would the addition benefit the local community?
Senior housing developments will lead to increased traffic and congestion in what are quiet, residential streets. This will create safety concerns and inconvenience for current residents. Many of the children in this and adjacent neighborhoods play in these streets and the increased congestion from 24/7 service personnel and visitation would create safety concerns.

Adding a senior housing development will put additional strain on the local infrastructure, including water, sewer, and road systems, leading to costly upgrades and maintenance at the expense of taxpaying residents.

The introduction of senior housing complexes will negatively impact property values in the surrounding area due to potential perceptions of increased noise, traffic, and the changing demographic.

Does the Kellogg area have the necessary infrastructure, services, and amenities to support senior housing developments adequately? It does not, and pursuing this medium density development will lead to a diminished quality of life for both new residents and existing community members.

The addition of a medium density housing structure, such as a senior housing complex with frequent gatherings and activities, will not align with the quiet nature of the Kellogg neighborhood, potentially causing disruptions to residents' lifestyles.

There are significant concerns about a medium density zoning's impact on the environment, including potential habitat destruction, tree removal, and stormwater runoff issues.

What alternative locations in Goleta were evaluated for more appropriate higher-density housing, with better access to services and transportation? The medium density re-zoning proposal is inconsistent with Goleta's existing long-term planning and any changes should be made through comprehensive community engagement and zoning updates
In conclusion, a medium density re-zoning proposal is highly inconsistent with the existing long-term planning of the City and of its residents. A re-zoning would deteriorate the family- centric and community-centric character of the neighborhood. While there is a pressing need for senior housing, there is an even greater need for preserving the character of Goleta and the integrity of Goleta. It is time to leap forward and support the next generation of families in Goleta by building more single-family homes.

Best regards,
Jeffrey Mandrell
805-680-5441
648 Dara Rd.

Goleta, CA 93117
From: allison vang
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Concerns
Date: Sunday, July 23, 2023 11:03:00 AM
Dear the City of Goleta,
I am writing to express my concerns for the development project for 284 unit project on the 9.48 acres of Kenwood Village on Calle Real in Goleta.

The space is a special environment for wildlife in the area. I believe many of us who live in surrounding neighborhoods are very fond of the special characteristics of this area and would not like to see it disturbed.

Traffic and safety are a real and constant source of anxiety. This specific strip and of Calle Real is heavily travelled and is unfortunately the site of numerous pedestrian accidents. Adding another section of housing will increase the risk of such accidents. We must make sure this place is safe before any additions.

I’m sure many other concerns have been brought up and discussed about the several other candidates sites.

However, I want to add mine as I resident living in one of them.

Thank you,
Allison
From: Martha De Leon
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Concerns over 625 Dara Rd re-zoning
Date: Saturday, July 22, 2023 2:42:21 PM
Good afternoon,
My name is Martha and I am a homeowner in Goleta. I live across the street at 648 Dara Rd and someone had left a note in my mailbox about the lot across my house being re-zoned without local input. This is very unsettling news, especially since I just got back from a week long vacation out of town, and I come back to some major developments in my neighborhood unfolding seemingly overnight and without warning. I understand that there is a national housing crisis going on and that this is needed. However, when I have spoken to the owner of the lot, their intention is not to build affordable housing for working class citizens. From the outset and from my conversations with Hersel, he wants to maximize profits and build housing for the elderly (nursing homes). Now you tell me, how is that helping out the affordable housing crisis in Santa Barbara? We pay taxes to this county and we expect representative about what happens in our community. A decision like this, of this scope, is not in the best interest of the Kellogg community.

Best regards,
Martha De Leon
From: Irene Russo <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2023 9:24:45 AM
To: Peter Imhof <[email protected]>
Subject: 35 Ellwood Station
Can you please update me on 35 Ellwood
Station Road?
It is on the Housing List for possible housing.

This property was originally slated for a 250 space storage unit.

I told Winn last summer this was ridiculous but I and the neighborhood could possibly Support a housing project .

Here is the problem with any construction at 35 Ellwood Station Road.

1. We have 100 owner occupied homes on this little cul de sac with limited parking .

2. We have a quarter mile access road for all these families to travel.

3. The cement plant that existed previously has deposited years of cement on the property. 4 Cement
is a hazardous waste.

5. You will have a housing development on a hazardous waste site .

If the City can manage the issues I have stated then I believe the housing would work at 35 Ellwood Station Road.

I would gladly get a neighborhood
Meeting together so you could speak to us on this project. Perhaps we could provide some assistance on this project.

I personally can
support this project.

Irene Russo
Sent from my iPhone
From: nicole mckee
To: City Clerk Group; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Housing Element Special Meeting Input
Date: Saturday, July 22, 2023 2:53:33 PM
Hello Wonderful Goleta Mayor, City Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, I was/am so proud to be a Goleta resident when I read through your (Goleta City Council's) thoughtful proposal to the planning commission regarding the 8 year plan for housing. I love the way that you surgically addressed the needs of our community and found the right numbers in the right places. I am impressed with the thorough research and consideration you have provided.

I am so hopeful that you continue to fight to keep the land near the Glen Annie Golf Course (Cathedral Oaks) as agricultural/open space. I could not believe it when I saw what the land's owner proposed for housing, 1500 units!!! After reading all of the proposals/letters/paperwork it is looking like the Glen Annie owners are not thinking about the people who will actually live in these homes, but the money they could make. The letters of support for this property being developed are from people who will benefit financially (Property Managers & Lawyers) but not people in the community surrounding the land.

The land around the golf course has been commented on by countless experts (including firefighters, who have saved us & our homes dozens of times) and yet SB County still, wrongfully, believes it is a good investment. When the fires of 2017 began to come down toward the golf course the firefighters that lined Cathedral Oaks told us that it was a good thing that the golf course/agricultural land was there because it will likely be the thing that helps them stop the fire before it can get to our neighborhood. I emphasize this because they were using Cathedral Oaks as their line in the sand.

I am sure you all are aware, but there is a very concerning history of the Glen Annie Golf Course Area. At one point it served as a dumping ground, which I believe caused the flooding of homes across Cathedral Oaks. That flooding was more of a debris flow that damaged houses and potentially harmed the waters nearby (as the flow from above the golf course goes all the way to the ocean). It was so bad, in fact, that the city built a wall around the homes along that stretch to protect them from more debris flows. If the housing development is built we will have an overwhelmed, leaking, storm drain under our property that clogs fast and will likely ruin our homes.

I wonder, is the County of SB prepared to financially insure all of us that our homes will not be at risk due to the negligence of their decision making? I would like it in writing (from the County of SB) that they are prepared to rebuild all of our homes should anything happen after they make a rash decision to rezone agricultural space.

I hope and pray that they agree with you, the Goleta City Council and Mayor, that the Glen Annie Golf Course is NOT the solution to our needs/our communities needs. We are special, as a city, because we still take care of the plants/animals/people of our community.

Nicole Barr
(El Encanto Heights Resident)
--
From: Dena Hayes
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I vote no - Objection to 284 unit development (Kenwood Village 9 acre project) off Calle Real in Goleta Date: Saturday, July 22, 2023 1:15:11 PM
ATTN: Goleta City Council members, Goleta Mayor and Goleta City Clerk 130 Cremona Drive, Goleta, CA 93117
I just learned that the City of Goleta has tentatively approved a proposed 284 unit project on the 9.48 acres of Kenwood Village between 7-11 and Baker Lane off Calle Real. The developer says the project includes parking.

As a long-time homeowner/taxpayer of Goleta, we seriously object to the SIZE of this proposed project.
284 units is WAY too big for the area infrastructure and will put the surrounding residents in danger in case of evacuation, etc.

There are only a few ways in/out of the area and
increasing density endangers all involved.

There is NO WAY that Calle Real can support that many more cars with one lane each, and the Glen Annie offramp is already hazardous as the 101 north freeway already dangerously backs up at that exit during peak times. This, the Glen Annie exit on the 101 also cannot support this kind of concentrated density nearby.

284 units does not mean 284 people… but more like 500 plus. That means hundreds and hundreds of more cars. The neighborhood will bear the associated traffic problems and parking problems depending on how much parking is proposed onsite.

Such density is also a fire danger to the surrounding buildings, with no fire break as we now have…. And again an impediment to evacuations.

Foolishness…… and once done, can never be undone.

PLEASE DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT!!!!!! Can we force one? Respectfully,
Dena Hayes
159 Kalley Drive, Goleta, CA
93117
From: Denise Stevens
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I vote no - Objection to 284 unit development (Kenwood Village 9 acre project) off Calle Real in Goleta Date: Saturday, July 22, 2023 12:48:01 PM
ATTN: Goleta City Council members, Goleta Mayor and Goleta City Clerk 130 Cremona Drive, Goleta, CA 93117
I just learned that the City of Goleta has tentatively approved a proposed 284 unit project on the 9.48 acres of Kenwood Village between 7-11 and Baker Lane off Calle Real… The developer says the project includes parking.

As a long-time homeowner/taxpayer of Goleta, we seriously object to the SIZE of this proposed project.
284 units is WAY too big for the area infrastructure and will put the surrounding residents in danger in case of evacuation, etc.

There are only a few ways in/out of the area and
increasing density endangers all involved.

There is NO WAY that Calle Real can support that many more cars with one lane each.

And the Glen Annie offramp is already hazardous as the 101 north freeway north already dangerously backs up at that exit during peak times.

So the Glen Annie exit on the 101
also cannot support this kind of concentrated density nearby. 284 units does not mean 284 people… but more like 500 plus. That means hundreds and hundreds of more cars. The neighborhood will bear the associated traffic problems… and parking problems depending on how much parking is proposed onsite.

Such density is also a fire danger to the surrounding buildings, with no fire break as we now have…. And again an impediment to evacuations.

Foolishness…… and once done, can never be undone.

PLEASE DO AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT!!!!!! Can we force one? Respectfully,
Denise Stevens
7753 Jenna Drive, Goleta, CA
93117
From: Brad Paden
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village - Calle Real improvements
Date: Sunday, July 23, 2023 7:38:37 AM
Hello, There are already some visibility and speed issues on Calle Real in that area. I would be great if any needed improvements would be made with or without the Kenwood Village project.

Cheers,
Brad Paden
Goleta Resident
From: Sam Eriz
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Date: Saturday, July 22, 2023 6:28:58 PM
This is to express complete and total OPPOSITION to the proposed 284- unit project located between the 7-11 store and Baker Road; I am advised that the project is
known as Kenwood Village. Please let me know when
there will be a public hearing; I will be there to express opposition.

Respectfully,
Sam Eriz
805-294-3442 c/ph
[email protected]
From: April Reid
To: City Clerk Group
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Questions- Kenwood Village
Date: Sunday, July 23, 2023 3:52:43 PM
Dear City Council Group:

I am seeking any information you have regarding the Kenwood Village project at 7264 Calle Real, Goleta, CA.and the HCD review of the rezoning in Goleta.

I have looked for much of
this information, but I can not find it. My questions are as follows:

1. Can I get the contact information for the person/people that the Mayor stated at the July 20, 2023 meeting she was talking to at HCD about the State's rezoning requirements? I need to contact them to see if I can provide written or oral objections to rezoning Kenwood Village.

2. Where can I get the complete list of properties that the City previously submitted to the State for approval? Can you tell me expressly whether Kenwood Village was previously on a list that the City submitted to HCD? Otherwise, can you send it to me?

3. Where can I get any complete letter/letters/correspondence from HCD referencing any objections or agreements to any sites that the City suggested it wanted to rezone, especially any information on Kenwood Village?
Otherwise, can you send it to me?

4. Where can I find information of the specific sites that the City Council/Planning Commission/other employees of Goleta decided to take off the rezoning list after submission to the HCD, including the reasons the City was taking each property off the rezoning list? Otherwise, can you send it to me?

5. There was a disagreement at the last council meeting about whether the front part of the property was zoned agriculture or commercial. The City seems to call it agriculture, but the property owner calls it commercial. This is important, I think, since it is my understanding that the City Council may consider it generally harder to rezone agricultural property. Can you specifically clarify how the property is zoned? Otherwise, can you tell me where I can find that information.

6. Someone speaking at the meeting stated that there may be some historical railroad site at or near one of the proposed entrances to the property. I have no idea what he was talking about.

Do you know what he was talking about? Otherwise, do you know how I can find out if there are any historical sites on the property.

7. The City Council states on their website that the site would be “near major arteries in already urbanized areas” I have been trying to figure out what those phrases mean, but I can not find it anywhere. Does Kenwood Village qualify as near a major artery and/or already in an urbanized area. Please clarify or let me know where I can find a clarification.

Any information you could give me would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

April Reid
Nice letter.

On Wed, Jul 19, 2023 at 1:04 PM Amy Bankoff <[email protected]> wrote:

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
From: Mary Bankoff <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2023 1:03 PM
To: Amy Bankoff <[email protected]>
Cc: Peter Bankoff <[email protected]>; City Clerk Group
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: I oppose re-zoning 60 Colusa Dr. and 7264 Calle Real.

From: Tonia Shimin
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: VOTE NO ON KENWOOD
Date: Sunday, July 23, 2023 6:46:44 PM
Dear City Council,
As a long time resident of Goleta, since 1980, I have seen tremendous growth within our city.

With the creation of major shopping centers and new housing over these years it is clear that there is now a major traffic problem that would be hugely greater with yet another housing development such as Kenwood village. There are concerns about enough water to support the needs of the added population. Should there be an emergency situation and we would need to evacuate it could be near impossible to get out with yet more traffic.

Thus I strongly urge you to NOT go through with the proposal/plan to build Kenwood village.

Thank you so much for your attention in this urgent matter.

Tonia
Tonia Shimin, Goleta, CA
From: Melanie Rogers <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 1:08 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Comment on development at Kenwood Village between 7-11 and Baker Lane off Glen Annie Road Dear Goleta City Council,
I am writing to let you know that I oppose the 284 unit project on the 9.48 acres of Kenwood Village between 7-11 and Baker Lane off Glen Annie Road next to Calle Real. It will cause overcrowding of our neighborhood and add to the already existing traffic problems. There has been too much development in Goleta recently and we need to slow it way down. Each project needs to be examined very critically through the lens of existing infrastructure, traffic, availability of resources such as water and emergency services, and the impact on the surrounding community. In many cases, as with this one, the negative impacts outweigh any positive outcomes, the primary positive being money in the pocket of the developer without any concern or responsibility for the future wellbeing of the neighborhood and its residents after the project is completed and they've moved on to the next project.

Perhaps these projects should all include a 10-year or 15-year responsibility clause on the part of the developer for ensuring that traffic and other resources will not be negatively impacted, so that they at least try to take those things into consideration when planning their projects. If they are not required to be accountable, then they will not give it a second thought, i.e., "not my problem." Sincerely,
Melanie Rogers
Brandon School neighborhood resident
From: Carolyn Grenier <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments for July 25th, 2023 Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting (20
23-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning)
Date: July 21, 2023 at 4:38:44 PM PDT
To
: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Dear Ci
ty Council Members and Planning Commissioners,
I write to express my support for the rezoning of the three parcels identified as "7780 Hollister
” and “Viajero” and listed as alternative sites in the Housing Element 2023‐2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study and on the "Rezone Candidate Sites Map” included in the Study.  All three parcels are currently zoned as Commercial General .  I and other homeowners at The Bluffs neighborhood, directly across the street from these parcels, support rezoning these parcels to permit housing.

I strongly bel ieve  that commercial development of these parcels is very much inconsistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Commercial General is  an inappropriate designation for all the same reasons ci
ted by our neighborhood when we successfully opposed the CHP’s plans in 2015 to build a facility at 7780 Hollister.  We will al so  continue to oppose the building of Battery storage plants i n that area for these same reasons.  The three parcel s are located adjacent to or close to an elementary school, a senior care center, residential neighborhoods and the Ellwood preserve. Zoning for these parcels should only allow for housing, mixed use or other use that is compatible with a residential neighborhood.

Thank you!
Carolyn Grenier
291 Elderberry Drive Goleta, CA 93117 (650) 888.62761 (cell)(805) 845.8582 (home) From: Jim NuƩall <nuƩ[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2023 10:01 PM
To: Mary Chang <[email protected]>
Subject: Over development in Goleta
I am disgusted at the rampant over development in Goleta, why are all of you just accepƟng these mandates from the state?? Other ciƟes have the backbone to say no! Find your spine or at least tell me who in the state “machine” should we contact with our grievance?? You ask for all the residents to cut back on water usage and then give it away to development, I’m sickened by the lack of courage of our elected representaƟves, looking forward to the next elecƟon cycle, don’t get too comfortable.

James NuƩall
Sent from my iPhone

Agenda Item A.1 23-361 Continued Housing Element 2023-2031. Page - 1

DAVID GAUGHEN
7456 Evergreen Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
Telephone: (805) 985 – 7229
Email: [email protected]

July 24, 2023

To: The Mayor and Council Members
130 Cremona Drive, Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117

Subj: Concerns RE: Agenda Item A.1 23-361 C ontinued Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session

Dear Madam Mayor and Council Members:

Has Staff performed: 1) Cost Benefit Analysis of received/projected State Grant funding, and 2) Cost Benefit Analysis of State financial support of our local land use authority. If Goleta receives low to moderate levels of such State funding, I highly recommend that the City forego State Certification and please resubmit the City’s previously submitted Housing Element with no additional changes.

Development (HCD) that a Housing Element substantially complies with State law is referred to as “certification” of the Housing Element. Certification is important to enhance jurisdictions’ eligibility for grant funds and to support local land use authority.”

Regarding the Goleta Water District’s (GWD) participation in planning ahead for increased water usage to accommodate the proposed development. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no discussion regarding the investment and planning ahead for the development of: 1) New local reservoirs, 2) New storm water/rainwater capture facilities, 3) The rollout of onsite residential and commercial rainwater collection technologies, and 4) New desalination plants and other strategies to increase our water supply.

Additionally, I remotely listened to the Goleta Water Board’s public hearing on 6/23/20 with respect to increasing water rates for the City. The majority of public comments received detailed significant financial hardship (due in whole to the former health emergency) and others discussed the overly aggressive annual increases which far exceeded their planned savings for a fixed retirement income. Just two courageous Board members opposed the rate increase. As such, I have zero confidence in the voting majority of the Goleta Water Board to adequately secure the necessary increased water supply to satisfy the water demand for the previously submitted Housing Element let alone the revised Housing Element with 998 additional units.

Why is the City reversing its former stance to not convert land zoned for agriculture (AG) into rezoning for housing development. I was under the impression that this position was for all City land zoned for AG and not just, “Measure G-protected agricultural sites are excluded from the candidate sites for rezones.” Just yesterday, a neighbor stopped by and shared how wonderful it was to see corn growing in the AG lot at 7264 Calle Real (Kenwood Village) about 15 years ago.

Additionally, per the Staff Report, “Candidate sites for rezones, based on property owner interest, are located along or near major arterials in already urbanized areas of the City.” However, 284 additional

Agenda Item A.1 23-361 Continued Housing Element 2023-2031. Page - 2 new units at 7264 Calle Real (Kenwood Village) would be disastrous especially at 5:00 pm during the week when peak numbers of vehicles exit the Northbound 101 using the Glenn Annie/Storke Road off- ramp (see screenshots below & https://www.edhat.com/news/improvements-to-glen-anniestorke-road- offramp). Currently, this off-ramp becomes a parking lot with cars stopped well into the 101 freeway with our present weekday level of vehicular commuters.

In conclusion, if City acquired State grant funding and State financial support of our local land use authority is minimal, please forego State Certification and resubmit the City’s previously submitted Housing Element with no additional changes.

Respectfully,

David Gaughen
July 24, 2023
Letter to the City of Goleta City Council and Planning Commission Regarding: Housing Element 2023-2031 Site Inventory Rezoning My name is Scott Cooper and I am a long-time resident of Goleta (> 42 years) and a retired professor of ecology from UCSB. I thank the Goleta Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission for this opportunity to comment on Goleta rezoning requests and the Draft Revised Housing Element Site Inventory.

Like many Goletans, I have enjoyed living in Goleta because of its numerous environmental amenities, including the ocean, beaches, bluffs, open spaces, parks, and natural areas. During and after the formation of our City, City citizens and leaders expended tremendous amounts of time and effort on the City’s General Plan, including numerous elements that designate and protect environmentally sensitive habitats (ESHs), open spaces, sensitive species, and other environmental amenities. As a consequence, I think that I, and many other citizens, expect the City’s elected officials and staff to consider and honor these environmental provisions when making land use decisions.

An unfortunate but common pattern has been for developers or owners in Goleta to propose rezones or development projects, while questioning current ESH designations and, consequently, attendant General Plan policy. In all of these cases, the City has, at some point, determined that certain plots or areas qualified as ESH, but the developer now questions these designations, partly on economic and efficiency grounds and partly on the basis of an analysis by a consultant paid by them. To protect the integrity of past work and decisions, General Plan policy, and current ESH designations, the City should not accept the contentions of the developer or its paid consultant, because they have an obvious conflict-of-interest. As a first step, the City should first consider if a proposed rezone or development plan actually requires a change to ESHA designations, which were deemed appropriate up to the present time. It is quite possible that the developer could develop a plan that provides substantial housing, but avoids ESH. If removal of an ESH designation is requested by a developer, then I contend that the City should do its own, independent, objective analysis of challenges to current ESH designations, probably through the auspices of an independent, unbiased consultant, to evaluate the developer’s contentions and determine if they have any merit. I think that only through an objective process and analysis independent of the developer and their consultant can the City truly evaluate the housing potential, and environmental values and restrictions, pertinent to a given parcel and determine if ESH can be avoided and if ESH designations need to be changed.

A case in point is the requested rezone from commercial and medium density housing to high density housing at 7190 Hollister Avenue and easterly vacant parcels (hereafter called the 7190 project). This requested rezone is predicated on removing ESH designations from a large part of the middle 7190 parcel and small parts of the other parcels, removing current ESH designations from nearly all of this property. Given the importance of ESHs and environmental values to our City, I would contend that the first step is to determine if substantial housing can be provided on this property while avoiding mapped ESH. It does seem that substantial housing could be built at this site in areas that are not deemed ESH, such as in western areas of the property, providing housing while preserving environmental protections and policies.

Second, any modifications to ESH designations demand rigorous due diligence on the part of the City to ensure that the City’s previous ESH designations are justified and City General Plan policies are followed. Although the developer contends that they will submit an application for updating the General Plan asking that most of the ESH designations at this property be removed, this has not happened and it is unfortunate that this request is being tied to current rezoning requests. To safeguard the environmental amenities of our City, the City should allow the process to update ESH designations in the General Plan to unfold and do its own due diligence in collecting and analyzing its own, independent data in evaluating the appropriateness of challenged designations. Because of the conflict-of-interest issues outlined above, the City should not rely on assurances from the developer or its paid consultant that removal of ESH designations are justified. ESH considerations should hold considerable weight in evaluating requests for rezones and development projects, so the City needs objective, rigorous information to determine if proposed housing plans can respect currently mapped ESH and whether the removal of ESH designations are appropriate.

Until ESH considerations, General Plan, and housing design issues are resolved, associated rezone requests would be premature. If the developer decides that they can proceed with a housing plan that avoids ESH or if the City decides, based on its own process and independent analysis, that the removal of ESH designations is justified, then the developer can still proceed with its development project via a development agreement or other mechanism. Without consideration of these complexities, it would seem inappropriate for the City to consider this project as part of the current rezoning process. It would be a dangerous precedent to allow ESH designations to be ignored or removed purely on the basis of the developer’s contentions.

I support affordable housing development in our community. In the scramble to meet state housing mandates, however, I urge the City to observe its own policies, past decisions, and a rigorous, objective process in evaluating requests for changing ESH and zoning designations, to safeguard our community’s environmental resources and values while providing needed affordable housing.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Scott Cooper
From: April Reid
To: [email protected]; City Clerk Group
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Objection to Kenwood Village and response to 7/20/23 workshop Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 2:13:31 PM

THE FOLLOWING E-MAIL IS MEANT AS A COMMENT TO THE KENWOOD

VILLAGE REZONING, UNLIKE THE E-MAIL WITH QUESTIONS I SENT TO YOUR

OFFICE YESTERDAY WHICH WERE ONLY MEANT TO GET ANSWERS/RESPONSES BUT SOMEHOW ENDED UP BEING CLASSIFIED AS A COMMENT INSTEAD.

Dear City Council and City Clerk:

I am writing this after the Joint Study Session/Workshop that took place on July 20, 2023 and before the hearing/vote on the rezoning of Kenwood Village.

This e-mail is intended as a
response primarily to the statements/arguments made at the July 20, 2023 workshop after I spoke, as well as other arguments.

I am sorry I am so late objecting to the rezoning of
Kenwood Village. Some years ago, when I first saw Kenwood Village’s name on a list of properties that may be rezoned, I contacted the City of Goleta for an explanation. I came to understand from the conversation that the list was just something done to assure the State that Goleta had, in theory, a sufficient number of sites to build affordable housing; not something that would necessarily be considered/voted on to be rezoned. In the following years, while looking at the agenda for various rezoning meetings, I did not see any maps of Kenwood Village being mentioned for rezoning.

As a result, despite my due diligence, I did not see
anything/realize until a few days before the July 20, 2023 workshop that the City was actually considering rezoning Kenwood Village.

I also did not realize that the City had actually
submitted prospective sites to the State previously on possibly one or two occasions, but the City’s submissions were not accepted by the State.

If I had known that the City was in the
process of actually determining whether to rezone Kenwood Village previously, I would absolutely have written e-mail objections and I would have come to the meetings.

Keep in
mind, I am not an expert in rezoning or City Council meetings.

Most importantly, I am sorry if I’m not presenting my arguments in a proper or clear way.

I
do not have any experience with land use law, so I am trying to do my best to articulate my ideas, but I do not think I am doing a very good job at it.

I do not know the process of what
can occur both before and after the vote on the rezoning, including what is the best way to proceed both before and after a vote on rezoning; how to speak/write about issues to properly preserve them in the future if that is what I am supposed to do; how to communicate my objections to the State regarding both Kenwood Village and, if necessary, to all of the sites picked by Goleta and, no offense, but whether it is better for Goleta for the State to pick the sites, as well as the deadline to file any documents and many other things that I will probably need to know about.
(I think it is the California Department of Housing and Development that I may have to communicate with if that option is available to me.) Contrary to me, the owner of the property clearly has an idea of how things work. He talks to a lot of people, both government officials and Goleta guests who attend the hearings about the project, and I do not know how to counter that information.

For example, one Councilmember said he spoke to the
owner about certain issues with the property, but I have no idea what was discussed or how to argue against what the owner said, if necessary, especially about any modifications to the project to reflect the new 284 unit proposal because I do not know the details.

As such, I will
try to do extensive research and/or talk to an attorney who knows what they are talking about so they can help me. I am also trying to sign up with various different groups to help me and I am researching issues the best I can regarding many things. I will try to write clearer e-mails and make better oral arguments in the future.

In the meantime, I will do my best to cover all
the issues I can to make things as clear as possible.

I am sorry I am getting a late start in trying to figure out how the process works, but I honestly did not think it would be necessary.

I spoke to several people and everyone said that before I ever started going to City Council meetings, the City Council was filled with pro-development members.

However, I was told that the Goleta citizens generally did not want pro development and they voted off many of the pro-development City Councilmembers and most of the new members voted into office by the citizens of Goleta were more generally supportive of slowing the growth in Goleta, though I do realize that people should not be categorized as only voting a certain way on any particular issue.

The statements others made to me about the
City Council generally voting to slow growth in Goleta, CA only increased after Councilmember Roger Aceves, whom I was told was very pro-development, was voted off the City Council and, I was told, was replaced with someone who I was told believed in more slow growth.

As a result, though I did work very hard on my e-mails and statements to the City Council, I suppose I made the mistake of not understanding until now the long, hard fight that would come trying to stand up to a developer a city I thought was pro-slow growth.

After
the July 20, 2023 City Council meeting, I realized I must fight even harder.

I do realize that
California State is requiring that a certain number of housing units be built in Goleta, CA, but that does not mean that a significant number of those units has to be disproportionately built at Kenwood Village. I am sorry I was not more prepared a long time ago, but I will work hard to change that.

Both for your review and, if I am doing this correctly, to preserve my right to bring up these issues after the vote if necessary since I do not have any knowledge of the process, how to proceed or what I must do to be able to bring up any issues in the future, I am incorporating all my previous e-mails and statements in order to preserve any and all arguments, if that is even what I am supposed to be doing, though I am not sure. Further, I am objecting to the following:

1. The Kenwood Village site bears a disproportionate number of units compared to other sites. The properties to be rezoned should be allocated in a more equitable manner than they are currently.

Further, there should be more available properties in Goleta listed for rezoning.

A speaker at the workshop said Kenwood Village would bear 28% of the proposed number of units.

Regardless, the building sites should be more evenly distributed through out the City.

2. One Councilmemeber indicated the increased number of units at Kenwood Village was justified because there was one side of the property that had a one story 7-11 and three other small stores, along with a small apartment building.

One small corner of commercial/multi-
unit housing located in many miles of low density, suburban type housing should not be used to justify a 284 multi-unit monstrosity next door that invades the miles of suburban style housing since it does not fit in with the design of the vast miles of suburban, low density housing.

3. Further, one Councilmemmber indicated the proposed sites on Hollister between Storke and Winchester should not all be selected.

However, unlike Kenwood Village, which is more
suburban-style, that area on Hollister is filled with multi-unit apartments and Camino Real Shopping Center, which has many large and small commercial stores.

Camino Real Shopping
Center is also the hub for many of the bus routes in that part of Goleta, unlike Kenwood Village.

The Hollister sites would be an easy walk to the major stores at Camino Real. Plus, the residents in the Hollister area do not seem to have vocalized much, if any, opposition to building in that area as far as I know.

So, building multi units on Hollister would fit in much more with the design of that area than it would on Kenwood Village, where people live in a suburban style, low density neighborhood and are objecting to the Kenwood Village monstrosity. If people want housing on a specific lot, then that is where it should go. I understand there are many people who state they want more housing in Goleta, but that does not mean that has to be at Kenwood Village.

4. The State is looking for “{p]otential sites . . . located along or near major arteries in already urbanized areas.”

The Dos Pueblos area is generally MANY VAST MILES of suburban style, low density single family homes with a one story high school and a one story elementary school.

There is a very small corner of the entire area that has a 7-11 with about three other stores behind it and a small apartment building next to it.

This small section of one small
corner of miles of suburban style low density single family homes is being used to argue that the area is already a commercialized, high density area, which it is not!

It is also being used to
justify that the quiet suburban area should now be inflicted with 284 units of multi-family housing.

Adding a 284 unit monstrosity with parking in the middle of a suburban style, low density, quiet housing neighborhood does not comport with the design of the vast suburban style neighborhood in any way.

(Please be advised that I have not been able to determine the specific legal meaning of some of the terms used given the short amount of time I have had to work on this e-mail.

I will be able to write a clearer argument when I have had a chance to research these issues more completely and/or speak to a land use attorney.)

5. Further, according to the bus schedule provided by the City at the City Council meeting, the one local bus in the area has only a short route that only travels from A SMALL SECTION of the Does Pueblos/El Encanto area across the bridge to the El Camino Real Shopping Center.

It does not travel beyond Glen Annie and Storke Road, so anyone going down past the Glen Annie offramp to downtown Goleta and beyond or even to UCSB would need to inconveniently change buses, possibly more than once.

Further, Kenwood Village is on the
outskirts of Goleta and it is several miles to Old Town, Fairview and beyond for anyone who works that far out.

As a result, building multi unit homes in this area would generally require most people to have one car per working person to drive to work or even to attend college at UCSB.

6. It is my understanding that part of the property is categorized as agricultural.

I know that
pumpkins and tomatoes were successfully grown on the property.

Further, the City Council
documents show the property as part agricultural.

However, the owner claims the property is
zoned commercial.

The City Council documents indicate they have not listed agricultural property in the list of vacant property for units to be developed.

If possible, please clarify the
status of the property.

If it truly is agricultural, please do not allow the builder and his friends to label the property commercial simply so the owner can more easily have the property rezoned to multi family units.

Also, I will research this more, but I just learned that the Housing Element plan was declined by the State because it had too many commercial units on it, even though the properties were being rezoned, though I am unclear if this is the case.

I am
in the process of researching what that means.

But, if the State declined the Housing Element
because too many properties were labeled commercial, I am not sure if or how that may affect the approval of the Kenwood Village property.

(I will have a clearer idea of what this means
when I do more research and/or talk to a land use attorney.)

7. The Storke Road offramp is already too crowded as it is.

The Kenwood Village
Environmental Impact study states that the U.S. 101 southbound ramps at Storke Road “exceed the City’s acceptable operating standards.” in peak A.M. and P.M. hours.

This report
was done several years ago with less traffic than now.

Traffic will only get worse with a 284
unit monstrosity housing unit, not to mention all the additional multi-unit housing proposed in the area, such as 7020 Calle Real, as well as other locations.

Further, The Santa Barbara News
Press indicated there were already multiple accidents/fatalities at/near the the Calle Real/ Baker Lane intersection.

It is my understanding there was yet another fatality/injury at or near that intersection recently. This will only get worse with more traffic.

8. Many people at the work shop stated that the Kenwood Village Project should be approved because it is ready to go.

To be clear, the plan with 60 units may or may not be ready to go as soon as the property can get a water permit, but the plan with 284 units probably is not and won’t be ready to go for some years.

Further, one of the City Councilmembers said they
should not consider the parking figures in the Kenwood Village documents I brought up at the July 20, 2023 study session because the figures are based on old information, i.e. the information based on the idea that 60 units would be built.

(It is my understanding that an
employee of the City of Goleta asked the property owner to draft a plan/drawing showing how and if 284 units would fit on the 9.84 acres.

The property owner and at least one of the
Councilmemebers may have discussed the plans/drawing, but, as far as I am aware, the general public has not been able to see the plans.)

It is impossible to argue against a project
when I have not seen/heard about the drawings/information/data for the newly proposed 284 units, or whatever number of units the property owner plans to build, but apparently up from 60 units.

That is a massive change.

It is not fair to the citizens of Goleta to approve zoning for 284 units, including parking, when the property owner has not even presented any plan/drawing for the massively upgraded 284 units, or at least a different number of units than 60 to the public.

This is especially true if the property owner is only allowed to actually build on only a certain percentage of the property, though I will have to research this issue more completely.

9. As previously stated, when I tried to make an argument at the City Council meeting that there may not be enough parking spaces, one City Councilmember said the figures I used were old, so they should not be considered.

The idea that the property owner can build 284 units of single housing, duplexes and triplexes on 9.84 acres with sufficient parking and roadways and still keep all buildings only two stories is questionable.

It is my understanding that the
property owner can only build on a certain percentage of the property.

(It is not clear if the
property owner is planning on getting rid of the setback from the creak, the open yards, parking on the street and the public walking way/bike trail that he plans to let out onto Daffodil, one of the PRIVATE streets, which will clearly cause wear and tear on the PRIVATE sidewalks and streets.)

However, as I previously stated, it is hard to argue
effectively that the property will not fit all these buildings with parking and not be turned into a high rise if the property owner has only provided a plan/drawing to the City Council and not to the general public.

10. Further, it is my understanding the property does not have water yet and there is no guarantee they will get a permit for water anytime soon.

Even if Kenwood Village does get
water, Goleta just got through with a multi-year drought.

We should not waste water we may
not have on all the high density development that the City is rezoning for, especially since we do not even know the full effects of the water availability based on all the buildings that were already approved and are being built.

11. Several citizens of Goleta mentioned that there is flooding in the area.

I can attest to the
fact that there is significant flooding in the area.

I know several people in the area who have
used sandbags frequently and/or their houses have flooded after rain.

12. Whether the property owner wants to admit it or not, there are snakes, rabbits, opossums, raccoons, skunks, moles and squirrels, among other animals on the property at and near my house, which is on the opposite side from El Encanto Creek.

The Kenwood Village
Environmental Impact report states the garter snakes are listed by the California Department of Fish and Game as “sensitive”.

I live at Baker Lane and I have personally seen these snakes on my property and on the Kenwood Village property, regardless of what someone who only inspected the property for a short time may say.

I also have security cameras on my property,
so I am able to see just a fraction of the land animals on my property.

If Kenwood Village is
developed, many of those land animals, including the snakes deemed “sensitive”, as well as over 40 other land animals, NOT including the birds or the animals like fish and frogs that live in/near El Encanto Creek will likely DIE.

The best case scenario is that the multitude of land
animals will be forced to live in the very small area near El Encanto Creek and they will not have room to move around.

Further, the birds of prey will lose much of their land.

The
Kenwood Village Residential Project Scoping Document states that “[s]ite development would eliminate approximately 20 acres of native grassland that has some value as foraging habitat for birds of prey.”

13. In addition, the single family houses, duplexes and triplexes do not comport with the design of the area.

The monstrosity at Kenwood Village will have an extensive negative environmental impact on the entire area, including but not limited to air quality, noise, increased pollution, increased traffic, loss of personal privacy, loss of views of the mountains and oceans, and the lack of a scenic aesthetic involved in having high density two story single, duplexes and triplexes on a 9.84 acre property in a neighborhood with miles of suburban style low density housing.

14. In addition, the two story houses that are planned to be built behind Baker Lane will have views into my house and my tenants’ house, so I will never be able to open my curtains and let in any sunlight ever again.

It should be pointed out that the architect drew the houses so that there are two, maybe three, houses that would be build, at least partly, directly against my back yard, so there is no chance for any privacy.

The houses at Kenwood Village are smaller,
and the density is greatly increased from the rest of the area.

(I do realize that the plans have
probably changed drastically now that there are 284 units planned for the area, but I do not have access to the new drawings, so I do not know what the new housing pattern looks like.)

15. Someone at the July 20, 2023 work shop mentioned some sort of historical site/railroad track/original right of way of the railroad on the site near one of the entrances to the property.

I am not sure what that person was referring to.

If you are aware of what the citizen was
referencing, please let me know.

Otherwise, I am trying to research the issue.

If there is a
historical site on the property, then it should not be developed.

I was also told that there is a
sewer easement at one corner of the property, so I will need to research that also.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THE PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED.

HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED IN A WAY THAT IS

CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE SUBURBAN STYLE, LOW DENSITY HOUSES IN THE AREA, OR AT LEAST CONSISTENT WITH THE 60 UNITS THE

PROPERTY OWNER SEEMED FINE WITH BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY. THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN DESIGN HOUSING CONSISTENT

WITH THE AREA AND STILL SET THE PRICE TO SELL OR RENT IT AT A LOWER

COST SO HIS EMPLOYEES HE CLAIMS TO BE DOING ALL OF THIS FOR CAN THEN

AFFORD TO LIVE ON THE PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN STILL MAKE A PROFIT.

I reserve the right to utilize any and all issues, including issues I brought up in all my previous e-mails and oral statements to the City of Goleta, including the City Council and the Planning Commission.

Again, I do not pretend to know what my options are both before and after the City Council votes on the rezoning for Kenwood Village.

I will, hopefully, be able to prepare
a more complete, clearer response once I have spoken to an attorney and/or done significant research on what I need to do.

I am sorry if any previous e-mails/statement were confusing, not complete and/or not on point, etc.

Thank you for your time.

April Reid- owner
15 and 17 Baker Lane
Goleta, CA. 93117
From: Cheryl Rogers <[email protected]>
Date: July 24, 2023 at 1:08:40 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>
Subject: 625 Dara St. zone change approval
Hello Mayor:

I so appreciate your support for development of the above site which the owner plans as an affordable senior facility. As was noted at last week’s joint meeting with the Planning Commission, this 4.5 acre infill site checks all the boxes to provide affordable housing for seniors. Affordable housing is desperately needed in the City for houseless and other residents who cannot find affordable housing even if they are able to pay$2000/month for an apartment, as has just happened to a friend of mine. I am an 80 year old resident who is lucky to be able to live here and I feel blessed, but I am very concerned about those who are not as fortunate as I am.

Thank you for being responsive to our citizen’s needs for homes which are critical for survival in our beautiful city.

Cheryl Rogers
351 Moreton Bay Lane No. 1
Goleta, CA. 93117
From: Robert Hirsch <
[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 2:21 PM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>; Peter Imhof <[email protected]>; Andy Newkirk <[email protected]>; Anne Wells <[email protected]> Subject: Comments for July 25th, 2023 Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting (2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning)
Dear City Council Members and Planning Commissioners,
We are writing to express our support for the rezoning of the three parcels identified as "7780 Hollister” and “Viajero” and listed as alternative sites in the Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study and on the "Rezone Candidate Sites Map” included in the Study. All three parcels are currently zoned as Commercial General. We as homeowners in The Bluffs neighborhood, directly across the street from these parcels, support rezoning these parcels to permit housing which would be comparable with the present neighborhood.

We strongly believe that commercial development of these parcels is very much inconsistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Commercial General is an inappropriate designation for all the same reasons cited by our neighborhood when we successfully opposed the CHP’s plans in 2015 to build a facility at 7780 Hollister.

We will also continue to oppose the building of
Battery storage plants in that area for these same reasons. The three parcels are located adjacent to or close to an elementary school, a senior care center, residential neighborhoods and the Ellwood preserve.

Zoning for these parcels should only allow for housing, mixed use or other use that is compatible with a residential neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration and support in this matter.

Sincerely,
Robert and Shauna Hirsch
7702 Kestrel Lane,
Goleta,CA 93117
From: Vince Zaccone <[email protected]>
Date: July 24, 2023 at 2:09:53 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, James Kyriaco <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>, Kyle Richards <[email protected]>
Subject: Re-Zoning of parcel at 625 Dara Rd.

Attention: Council-members Stuart Kasdin, Kyle Richards, James Kyriaco and Mayor Paula Perotte
Dear Mayor Perotte,
Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I would like to recommend against the re-zoning of 625 Dara to high density housing.

The planned development would not fit with our neighborhood for several reasons.

A main concern is our local public school. Kellogg already serves the largest body of kids in Goleta, and it will be difficult to absorb another huge influx of new students. In recent years the Tree Farm development added many more students than they had projected and it placed a significant strain on Kellogg school. Where do we send all the kids who would come with dozens of new housing units? There are over 30 apartments coming to our neighborhood that haven’t been built yet, but the school is already beyond capacity. We have existing space issues and have had to wait for years to get even a couple of new portable classrooms. This year our 6th grade graduation ceremony had to be held outside, in the rain, because there is not enough space in our multipurpose room to accommodate the students and their families.

Adding a new cohort of students to an already overstuffed school should be a non-starter.

Another serious concern is traffic and parking. Putting a huge apartment complex on this Dara parcel simply doesn't work logistically. There is existing housing and small residential streets on all sides with no easy access to the main road (Cathedral Oaks). The streets will be flooded with overflow parking and I fear the traffic congestion will be very dangerous for everyone. The park that is adjacent to this parcel gets lots of use from the local community and Dara road will turn into a major thoroughfare, making access to the park much more dangerous for the kids who use it.

Using the Dara parcel for high density housing simply does not make sense. This will be roughly the same number of units as the Tree Farm development, but in a much smaller space and with no easy access to a main road. It just doesn't work.

We have lived in this neighborhood for many years and have seen several proposals to develop that particular parcel. Most have been much more sensible than this plan. I understand the need for more housing in Goleta, and would love to see this property developed, but a huge apartment complex is not a viable solution.

Sincerely,
Vince Zaccone

664 Andamar Way
Goleta, CA 93117
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 2:14 PM
To:

Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>; Peter Imhof <[email protected]>; Anne Wells <[email protected]>; Andy Newkirk <[email protected]> Cc: Carolyn Grenier <[email protected]>
Subject: Special Meeting July 25 Zoning Consideration on Hollister Avenue Staff: The current zoning of the three parcels opposite the Bluff s on Hollister is described as Commercial General. The city is facing housing shortages to the extreme for all its residents. There is little doubt that the area in question should be mixed residential with small business. That is what it is now a school , a new Fire Station 10 whenever that will happen, a senior living facility, 62 units of a gated community, and multiple housing complexes extending along the north side of Hollister for several blocks. Hollister, located on the western edge of Goleta is the Gateway to our city and deserves the most attention it currently is well deserving with open space, world class golf course awaiting a new club house, wide landscaped road center divider with excellent maintenance and historic Barnsdale Gas Station a Goleta landmark which I might add should deserve more attention like the ugly cyclone fence should be planted out or simply redesigned. This is the City I am proud to live in be cautious and do the right thing housing is the answer for the people of Goleta.

Local Resident Leonard Grabowski M.D.

From: Matthew Moran <[email protected]>
Date: July 24, 2023 at 8:29:40 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Kyle Richards <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>, James Kyriaco <[email protected]>, Luz Reyes-Martin <lreyes- [email protected]>
Subject: 625 Dara Road
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.

Dear Council Members and Mayor Perotte,
I want to strongly oppose the proposed high density residential zoning change of 625 Dara Road.

I agree that the 3 acres at 625 Dara Road is under developed, but approving a 127 unit development on such a small property is not the best use of that property nor appropriate for the surrounding neighborhood. This scale of development could add anywhere from 127 to 300 people or more and up to 250 cars on a daily basis. It would be a short term solution to housing needs that would create many more long term problems.

I have some questions that I would love to hear your answers to. Please respond.

Does the size, scope, and scale of the project make sense in the previously developed neighborhood of Dara Road and Stow Canyon?
Does the proposed development flow with the rest of the neighborhood? 127 units on such a small property would surely call for some three or four story buildings. What is your plan to make sure the development flows with the rest of the neighborhood?
Does a high density development with 127 units respect the privacy of neighbors? What is your plan to protect the privacy of surrounding neighbors?
How are you accounting for the additional traffic and spill over parking onto Stow Canyon, Dara Road and Andamar Way? What is your plan to manage streets inundated with traffic and nightly parking? How are you accounting for the impact on Kellogg Elementary after The Knoll and Tree Farm development have already impacted Kellogg? The potential for over enrollment and the challenges that would bring to Kellogg and the Goleta Unified District. What is your plan to make sure Kellogg Elementary isn’t over enrolled and impacted?
Can you please let me know your thought out solutions to these questions?
Listening to your previous meeting from July 20, I’m shocked at the change of tone and pace of your discussion at 10:00pm. Your thoughtfulness and diligence discussing other properties and locations ended once you began discussing the 625 Dara Road property. Your discussion and quick agreement about a High Density development comes off as hasty, seemingly pre-determined.

Lastly, you are making an incredibly rushed decision with zero process for discussion and neighborhood feedback. The rezoning process and high impact on the neighborhood should have adequate public notice, opportunities for public comments and workshops for public awareness.

You are making a decision that impacts hundreds of people in a matter of days with no public process.

Dara Road and the 625 property, along with the surrounding neighborhood are not an appropriate location for a high density development.

Matt Moran
Andamar Way resident
From: John Morgan <[email protected]>
Date: July 24, 2023 at 8:36:01 PM PDT
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>, Anne Wells <[email protected]>, Peter Imhof <[email protected]>, Andy Newkirk <[email protected]>, [email protected] Subject: Comments for July 25th, 2023 Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting (2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning) 
Good afternoon City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, We are writing to express our support for the rezoning of the three parcels identified as "7780 Hollister” and “Viajero” and listed as alternative sites in the Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study and on the "Rezone Candidate Sites Map” included in the Study. All three parcels are currently zoned as Commercial General. I am a homeowner at The Bluffs neighborhood, directly across the street from these parcels, support rezoning these parcels to permit housing.

We believe that commercial development of these parcels is inconsistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Commercial General is an inappropriate designation for all the same reasons cited by our neighborhood opposing the CHP’s plans in 2015 to build a facility at 7780 Hollister. We will also continue to strongly oppose the building of battery storage plants in that area for these same reasons.

The three parcels are located adjacent to or close to an elementary school, a senior care center, residential neighborhoods and the Ellwood preserve. Zoning for these parcels should only allow for housing or similar use that is compatible with a residential neighborhood.

Thank you very much.

John and Sherry Morgan
7756 Kestrel Lane Goleta, CA 93117
From: Martin Senn <[email protected]>
Date: July 24, 2023 at 11:51:12 AM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Kyle Richards <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>, James Kyriaco <[email protected]>, Luz Reyes-Martin <lreyes- [email protected]>
Subject: 625 Dara Goleta rezoning

Dear Mayor Perotte and council members,
I am a homeowner living at 634 Arundel Road
in Goleta and in very close proximity to the
property at 625 Dara Road.

My wife Evelyn
and I have lived here since 1998.

I understand that the City of Goleta is
considering a rezoning of this property from
SFR to possibly
RH meaning that there could
be 127 units built, up to three stories high, on
this property.

I have multiple concerns with this proposal:

1. A significant increase in traffic on the
entrance roads to the neighborhood
which would be Dara Road and Arundel
Road.

We already have multiple
accidents happening every year on the
Arundel Road/Cathedral Oaks
intersection. Increasing traffic with that
many trips means that a traffic light
would need to be installed at this location
and perhaps at Dara Road/Cathedral Oaks
intersection as well.

Arundel Road and
Dara Road are also a corridor for the kids
to get to Kellogg School safely and
the
increased traffic on the neighborhood
streets would impact the safety for the
kids.

2. The sewer network in our
neighborhood
is aging and was not built
to serve that many households. Digging
up all these streets to add capacity would
be a nightmare.

3. The view corridor would be
substantially
altered for many residents in
the area that paid high home prices to
enjoy these mountain views.

4. Having a high density project with that
many units in the middle of a SFR
neighborhood is very undesirable - in one
of the most desirable neighborhoods in
Goleta.

5. Parking for all these residents would be
an absolute nightmare. I can imagine that
127 units could easily amount to 100-150
cars that need a place to park every day
plus all the service people that need
to
access the complex every day. The
parking would undoubtedly spill onto
the
surrounding streets creating a very
undesirable outcome for the
neighborhood.

6. And lastly, my neighbors and I worry
about the property values being
negatively affected
long term with this
rezoning.

Please consider this information when making
your decision
on how to vote for this project.

Best regards,
Martin Senn
634 Arundel Road, Goleta
805-857-6376
Past President - The Rotary Club of Goleta
From: Caitlin Fairfield <[email protected]>
Date: July 24, 2023 at 2:56:10 PM PDT
To: Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns re: Re-Zoning of 625 Dara

Dear Stuart,
Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I am writing to you to strongly contest the re-zoning of 625 Dara to high density housing. In no way is this a fit for the neighborhood. I am listing my concerns below:

Impact on local public school: A primary concern is our local public school. Kellogg already serves the largest body of kids in Goleta, and is already relocating part of its autism program for space issues. Where do we send all the kids who would come with dozens of new housing units? There are already over 30 apartments coming to our neighborhood that haven’t been built yet, but it takes us years to get even a single new portable classroom. Our 6th grade graduation this year took place on the blacktop, in the pouring rain, because our MPR was not large enough to handle even our current 6th grade students and their families.

Impact on parking: We have seen this problem in various other high density housing communities in SB County. We have friends who live in the Winslowe neighborhood on S. Kellogg - the proposed density of Dara would be very similar to Winslowe.

Despite every unit in that complex having a 2 car garage, and having parking within the complex, the streets surrounding Winslowe are absolutely packed every night. At Winslowe this works because the surrounding area is industrial and so there is parking available at night. The Dara parcel is surrounded on all sides by existing residential housing, meaning their streets would be inundated with cars.

Impact on traffic: Logistically, the Dara parcel for high density housing simply does not make sense. Our neighborhood has already absorbed the impact of Tree Farm and The Knoll
developments. However, the fit there was better because the traffic can access the housing through a main thoroughfare, Patterson. Here you are proposing almost the same amount of units, into a much smaller space, and all the traffic would be funneled through small, pre-existing residential streets. It would fundamentally alter the character of the neighborhood for the worse.

I understand that the 625 Dara parcel is under-utilized, and with new state requirements I understand the need for more housing, but the proposed amount of units would be a short term solution that would cause multiple long term problems. Sincerely, Caitlin Fairfield 431 Albany Ct.

Goleta, CA 93117
From: Kathy Ormseth <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 1:26 PM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>; Peter Imhof <[email protected]>; Anne Wells <[email protected]>; Andy Newkirk <[email protected]> Subject: Comments for the July 25th, 2023 Special Joint City Council - Planning Commission Meeting Dear City Council Members and Planning Commissioners,
We support rezoning of the three parcels identified as "7780 Hollister” and “Viajero” and listed as alternative sites in the Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study and on the "Rezone Candidate Sites Map” as residential. All three parcels are currently zoned as Commercial General. We are homeowners in The Bluffs neighborhood, directly across the street from these parcels. We strongly support rezoning these parcels to permit housing.

We believe that commercial development of these parcels is very much inconsistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. We opposed the CHP’s plans in 2015 to build a facility at 7780 Hollister. We opposed and will continue to oppose the building of Battery storage plants in that area for these same reasons. The three parcels are located adjacent to or close to an elementary school, a senior care center, residential neighborhoods and the Ellwood preserve.

Appropriate zoning for these parcels should only allow for housing, mixed retail use or another use that is compatible with a residential neighborhood.

Thank you!
Sincerely,
Kathy and Tom Ormseth
7714 Kestrel Lane
Goleta, CA 93117
Sent from my iPad
From: Scott Heinz <[email protected]>
Date: July 24, 2023 at 4:15:22 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Kyle Richards <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>, James Kyriaco <[email protected]>, Luz Reyes-Martin <lreyes- [email protected]>
Cc: Jennifer Smith <[email protected]>, Katie Maynard <[email protected]>, Jennifer Fullerton
<[email protected]>, Anne Miller <[email protected]>, Jason Chapman <[email protected]>
Subject: Dara Road rezone
Honorable City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I strongly object to the rezoning of 625 Dara Road from RS to RH.

Adding 127 units on such a small site that is completely surrounded by single family homes makes no sense whatsoever.

A project of this density would likely require three to four story buildings that would look down into adjacent single-family homes, stealing our privacy and adversely impacting our property values.

Adding at least 250 vehicles to 625 Dara Road will forever change the character of our neighborhood streets due to excessive traffic and spill-over parking.

There is no adequate public transportation that
serves this area, while there are other candidate sites that have major transit lines right at their front door.

Speaking of other candidate sites, your council and commission spent a lot
of time discussing the appropriateness of placing medium density units adjacent to existing single-family development on other sites.

At 10:00PM when the Dara site came up, you hastily chose high density for this site, some of you expressing your decisions even prior to taking public comment.

Rezoning can cause a significant modification to the General Plan.

The General Plan process is arduous to say the least, and every stakeholder gets to have their say and input into the process. Very thorough public noticing and multiple workshops are the norm.

What took place this past Thursday evening flies in the face of good planning and inclusion of the general population. Staff claims to have sent out thousands of emails, yet I am not aware of a single neighbor who received one.

Luz Reyes-Martin, the councilmember representing the First District, where the Dara site is located, had to recuse herself, causing many of us living in the First District to feel unrepresented and disenfranchised when such an extremely important decision was
being made. As a point of order, when the General Plan is being altered by rezoning or other significant modification, every councilmember and commissioner should be allowed to be a part of the discussion.

Perhaps recusal during a vote might be appropriate,
but at least hear from the elected or appointed official to glean their first-hand knowledge of the immediate district.

Finally, your Design Review Board's (DRB) required findings will prohibit the approval of any high or medium density development on Dara Road... Please refer to the three excerpts below:

A.

The development will be compatible with the
neighborhood, and its size, bulk and scale will be
appropriate to the site and the neighborhood.

C.

The development demonstrates a harmonious
relationship with existing adjoining development.

J.

The project's architecture will respect the privacy of
neighbors, is considerate of private views, and is
protective of solar access off site.

These required findings beautifully demonstrate good planning practice and should be incorporated by your Council and Commission as you address the housing element and the impacts to adjacent constituents of the City.

Please choose a more appropriate site for high density development like 7190 Hollister Avenue and the two adjacent parcels to the East or reduce the density of the proposed site.

Respectfully submitted, Scott and Sue Heinz 5644 Stow Canyon Rd Goleta, CA

From: Evelyn Senn <[email protected]>
Date: July 24, 2023 at 6:57:54 PM PDT
To: Kyle Richards <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>, James Kyriaco <[email protected]>, Luz Reyes-Martin <[email protected]>, Jennifer Smith <[email protected]>, Katie Maynard <[email protected]>, Jennifer Fullerton <[email protected]>, Anne Miller <[email protected]>, Jason Chapman
<[email protected]>, Paula Perotte
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 625 Dara Rd HR density project
To: Our Goleta City elected Officials,
We are on an 8 month long trip and currently in Banff Canada and was alerted to the HR density re-zoning change in our neighborhood. This would have profound negative effects on our property in the 600 block of Arundel. Please consider this:

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9. Arundel Rd Currently takes traffic in and out of most of our neighborhood to and ftom Cathedral Oaks Rd to go to work and already has a high risk accident incidents and no traffic lights.

Residents from Mountainview neighborhood comes through to Calle Real for Shopping too to void traffic signals.

Residents in our neighborhood use our street to get to the Cathedral Oaks Club and go to work and drop off school kids.

It is a corridor for our kids accessing Kellogg elementary and the Junior High Schools, keeping them safely off of Cathedral Oaks rd.

Delivery and service trucks access our road too to get into the neighborhood.

People cut through there to get to the library to void traffic lights and the often speed part our house as it is now.

The entrance to Arundel rd from Cathedral Oaks Road has a long history of accident collisions already and no signal light.

It is one of the most thought after school districts.

We enjoy our single family neighborhood and are not opposed to units being build there but 127 units are outrageously excessive and monstrous.

Our Sewer System is from 1968 and not at all compatible with today's standards and I suspect not ready to take on such volume on such lage project. Our neighborhood is already known as plumbers Paradise due to the small piping system that clogs up easily
We purchased this kind of lot in 1998 as the firedanger is much less than how projects are being build today. I can't believe how close people are allowed to build to each other these days and the danger of it burning. and those unit would increase those odds right in our back yard. Very sad to see this happening. It will be a zoo to live here and that was supposed to be our retirement spot. Please don't vote for this kind of excessive uncompatable project to be built here, when you have more compatable properties to chose from.

Thank you for listening.

Martin and Evelyn Senn
Residents since 1998
634 Arundel Rd
Goleta Ca 93117
From: Amber Moran <[email protected]>
Date: July 24, 2023 at 5:56:29 PM PDT
To: Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re-zoning.

Dear Stuart Kasdin,
Regarding the city council workshop on 7/20/23. It is clear that the number of low income units slots you could generate through rezoning was the primary purpose of this "workshop". If I am understanding this correctly it seems like this is to keep local control (power) and getting your numbers appears really important. As soon as the property at 625 Dara road came up as generating 127 low income units, you were fully on board. Maybe that is your vision for Goleta, putting high density housing right in the middle of single family neighborhoods if the property owner desires. I will take that to be the case as you voted in favor of this re- zoning. If otherwise please explain.

I agree Goleta needs more lower income units but rushing over the impact of changing zoning with a cavalier attitude is really startling.

Speaking of other properties, your council and commission spent a lot of time discussing the appropriateness of placing medium density units adjacent to existing single-family development on other sites.

At
10:00PM when the Dara site came up, you hastily chose high density for this site, some of you expressing your decisions. I was surprised that there was not more consideration on the property, not even a discussion of dividing this up based on the topography of its rolling hills. No one even considered part of the property high density part medium density. There was no discussion of the large oak trees on the property yet you highlight the importance of planting two trees in a park back in March. The reason seems apparent, 127 units gets Goleta closer.

I do not feel represented in this conversation. Luz Reyes-Martin, the councilmember representing the First District, where the Dara site is located, had to recuse herself, causing many of us living in the First District to feel unrepresented and disenfranchised when such an extremely important decision was being made.

As a point of order, when
the General Plan is being altered by rezoning or other significant modification, every councilmember and commissioner should be allowed to be a part of the discussion.

Perhaps recusal during a vote might be
appropriate, but at least hear from the elected or appointed official to glean their first-hand knowledge of the immediate district.

Please take more consideration when discussing our neighborhoods.

Concerns:

1. My representation as a citizen/property owner in Goleta

2. Your vision for Goleta and your disregard for what is part of the Design Review Board for development. If you are unfamiliar please let me know so I can send excerpts.

3. Property owner that is already known by Goleta City Council. (Has previously listed his property for $20 million). This seems to benefit him drastically.

4. Traffic/Traffic patterns- This section of Cathedral Oaks that is close by had a traffic engineering study since the multiple fatalities in the area. I believe there have been 5 within a half mile stretch of this property.

5. Consistency of how you are considering/selecting properties.

6. Consideration of allocating all to high density with fairly little thought to the matter.

Amber Moran
--
Amber S. Moran
From: josie castagnola
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood village housing development- Calle Real. Near 7 eleven& Baker St.

Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 8:56:10 PM
Hello,
I am a home owner near this location. I would like to know about the outcome, as this will affect me with all the additional traffic on Calle real. I live at 52 Amador Ave.

Please send me information. I do not agree with the total number of proposed housing, very dense for the lot space.

Thank you,
Josie Castagnola

SANTA BARBARA URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL
www.sburbancreeks.org
P .O. Box 1467, Santa Barbara, CA 93102 | (805) 962-8260 | [email protected] Dear Mayor Perotte and City Council,
The Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council, a 501(c)3 organization dedicated to the preservation and restoration of the local streams, would like to let you know of our concerns regarding the proposed housing rezone site known as “Parcels to the East of 7190 Hollister.” The site contains mapped ESHAs, including riparian area along a tributary of Devereux Creek as well as coastal sage scrub habitat. We understand that the developer is recommending removal of the ESHA designation for most of these areas, claiming that the designation is inaccurate because protected species are not present. We disagree with this assessment, and urge the City to keep the ESHA designations in place.

The absence of protected species does not disqualify an area from ESHA designation.

According to section 4.4 of Goleta’s General Plan, CE 1.1, ESHA includes “Any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and that could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.” Furthermore, in CE 1.2, “creek and riparian areas” and “coastal sage scrub and chaparral” are listed as examples of habitats that are generally considered ESHA, regardless of the presence of sensitive species. Therefore, removing the ESHA designation from the riparian and coastal sage scrub habitat present on these parcels would be inconsistent with the General Plan.

Furthermore, the riparian area on this site is especially valuable because the stream feeds into Devereux Creek, a key feature of the recently restored North Campus Open Space and the water source of the Devereux Slough. While protected species may not be present on this site itself, the North Campus Open Space and Devereux Slough provide habitat for an increasing array of protected species. Adverse impacts to a stream reach of a tributary can cause both biological and physical disturbance cascades in other regions of the watershed. Therefore, protecting the riparian ESHA on the parcels east of 7190 Hollister is essential to ensuring the integrity of the biodiverse habitats downstream. This is consistent with the Guiding Principles and Goals of Goleta’s Conservation Element (General Plan chapter 4.2), which include preserving the “physical and biological integrity of Goleta’s creeks and natural drainages and their associated riparian and creekside habitats” and the “water quality and biological diversity” of Devereux Slough.

SANTA BARBARA URBAN CREEKS COUNCIL
www.sburbancreeks.org
P .O. Box 1467, Santa Barbara, CA 93102 | (805) 962-8260 | [email protected] In conclusion, the Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council strongly supports keeping the ESHA designations in place for the parcels east of 7190 Hollister, and we hope that the City will concur. Protecting Goleta’s riparian corridors will not only promote biodiversity, but also enhance the city’s sense of place and provide ecosystem services to the community for generations to come.

Thank you for considering the value of these important habitats and the need to protect them.

Sincerely,
Anne Burdette
President
Santa Barbara Urban Creeks Council

From: Robert Miller <[email protected]>
Date: July 20, 2023 at 10:18:26 AM PDT
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment for Council/Planning Commission Workshop, July 20, 2023 
Dear City Council Members and Planning Commissioners,
I write to express my support for rezoning of the three parcels identified identified as "7780 Hollister” and “Viajero” and listed as alternative sites in the Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study and on the "Rezone Candidate Sites Map” included in the Study. All three parcels are currently zoned as Commercial General. I and other home owners at the adjacent Hideaway neighborhood support rezoning these parcels to permit housing.

As I have pointed several times in communications with the Council, commercial development of these parcels is very much inconsistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Commercial General is an inappropriate designation for all the same reasons cited by the neighborhood when we successfully opposed the CHP’s plans in 2015 to build a facility at 7780 Hollister.

The three parcels are located adjacent to or close
to an elementary school, a senior care center, residential neighborhoods and the Ellwood preserve. Zoning for these parcels should only allow for housing, mixed use or other use that is compatible with a residential neighborhood.

Robert K. Miller
30 Sanderling Lane
Goleta, CA 93117
[email protected]
805.722.8415
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Zoning Workshop message
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 10:09:41 PM
Dear members of the City Council and Planning
Commissioner:

Due to some health complications last week, I was
unable to attend your first Zoning workshop. I wanted to express my appreciation to you and the Planning
Commissioners for being open to changing the zoning
designation on my property to RHD.

As you know, my parcel is one of the last opportunities to achieve housing in the northeast of the city as
this
property is adjacent to shopping (2 blocks down,
Fairview shopping center and Call Real Center), parks
(adjacent), schools (less down 1/2 block), and
transportation routes (100 yards from the property).

I
welcome working with City staff on finding viable options to finally develop this land, whether that is senior housing or high-density housing.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,
Hersel Mikaelian
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: kenwood village proposal
Date: Monday, July 24, 2023 10:48:39 PM
To whom it may concern:

I am notifying the city council and other pertinent city planners that I am opposed to the rezoning of the area proposed for the Kenwood village. It is very sad reflection that a city government that was created to give more voice to its residents would so wantonly reject their interests to satisfy an illegal mandate by the state. What happened to the UCSB lawsuit? Those units that their students and faculty are
occupying are supposed to be for our residents. Those units should be counted as housing and UCSB should be required to house 2/3 of their student and faculty populations on their own campus. As a city you should have made it easier to claim and legalize rental units in homes- currently the process is way too cumbersome and ridiculously expensive preventing many from legalizing their units.. The addition of these units would more than likely satisfy the current state housing requirements.

Room rentals are also affordable housing and should be counted in the mix as well.

County land should be utilized to develop camping and youth hostel opportunities to help address the car/van residents that are currently living on our streets. You need to think outside the box and stop pandering to developer interests. Shoving more people into a smaller area will increase crime; and
decrease living quality and will NOT
provide affordable housing. None of the units in the proposed kenwood village will be affordable- That is simply an impossibility when you are stick building homes in the most expensive construction
cost per square foot area in the country. A mobile home park would honestly be more affordable and provide far more lower cost housing and be less dense- The reason it has not been proposed- Less money for the developer.

Again- The city is pandering to developers. The title "City planning" is absurd since I can detect absolutely zero fore thought or planning in the way your department has proceeded to address housing issues. A clear mandate addressing the percentage of open space and amenities such as shopping; roads, schools, that are required per capita should have already been developed that reflects the core values of the residents of Goleta. This is currently not the case. Your department approves housing in a piece meal hodge podge fashion at the whims of developers and without real forethought or planning for the community as a whole. Goleta currently has very few
parks; only one small sporting/recreational facility without any indoor gym capability, no venue for concerts; no pool complex;
almost no shopping opportunities, and an
incredible lack of available/usable public transit. Los Carneros- the gemstone and only substantial city park has a bridge that you can't even figure out how to fix and have simply blocked off and ignored for the past several years. Your maintenance record is abysmal.. These are core necessities to develop and plan for a thriving and successful community.

The needed infrastructure and a plan to maintain that
infrastructure, should be developed prior to any rezoning; The following are my specific objections to the proposed rezoning:

1. The proposal is out of character and with too high a density for the surrounding neighborhood
2 . Calle Real is too narrow to safely support the additional traffic/ car trips that such a development would create

3. The freeway would need to be widened to accommodate the additional traffic through the Winchester exit . A third lane would need to be to added in both directions and restriping of on and off ramps to accommodate the additional traffic and prevent daily commuter traffic clogging of our freeways; added pollution, and accidents that that congestion creates.( this in fact is all ready needed but since Calle Real cannot support the added traffic you are suggesting this freeway widening would be imperative to reduce traffic at the Glenn Annie Calle Real intersection which is already overloaded- due to poor planning.)
4 . There is not enough room on the proposed site to provide all necessary amenities for quality of life- the most important- Parking. The over flow of parking into neighborhoods would unfairly tax the surrounding community and cause congestion; accidents; and traffic hazards.

5. The city cannot in good conscience rezone when the infrastructure needed to support a development is not in place: as an example- Calle Real is too narrow(one lane each direction and cannot be widened to support additional traffic- previously mentioned); pedestrian bridge- that was supposed to be built when the market place was created decades ago is still not built and therefore we do not have an alternative connection to the beach side of the freeway and the shopping centers there for non car users.

6. 10 acres is too small a lot for 284 homes and the over 500 people that would live there- density is too high- you will be lowering quality of life for all. Not enough room for parking, open space for recreation and wellness

7. Rezoning for anything but perhaps a mobile home park( 100% would be affordable housing) is a very bad idea and will not create the affordable housing that this community truly needs.

Thank you for your time
Sincerely Alison McCeney
From: Brian Larinan
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission 7/25/23 Meeting, Agenda Item A.1 Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 12:48:37 AM
Mayor Perotte and Members of the City Council and Planning Commission, I strongly oppose any rezoning of 625 Dara Road. The current RS zoning of this 4.23 acre site allows for 12 units to be built. Site improvements have already been done consistent with the current zoning. The current zoning complements and is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

Both proposed options to rezone 625 Dara Road are unacceptable. The proposed RM zoning would allow 84 units and the proposed RH zoning would allow 127 units. it is concerning that either option would be considered given the significant impacts to the neighborhood that would result from this huge increase in density.

I have lived in close proximity to the 625 Dara Road property for over 25 years. The 625 Dara Road property has been a focus of intense planning review multiple times over the years. The current zoning is a result of thoughtful dialogue between the property owner, government agencies and neighbors. It makes no sense to arbitrarily increase the number of allowed units by 7 to almost 11 times the current zoning.

Honor our neighborhood and past planning decisions. Deny any rezoning of 625 Dara Road.

Respectfully,
Brian Larinan
From: Deborah Lopez
To: City Clerk Group
Cc: Andy Newkirk
Subject: FW: Concerns regarding the construction of high-density housing near Kellogg School on Dara Road Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 8:16:39 AM
Deborah S. Lopez, CMC
City Clerk
City of Goleta | 130 Cremona Drive, Suite B | Goleta, CA 93117 | (805) 961-7505 voice | (805) 961-7504 fax | [email protected] www.cityofgoleta.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Sawyer Haig <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 7:43 AM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: Concerns regarding the construction of high-density housing near Kellogg School on Dara Road 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.

Dear Council Members,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed construction of high-density housing on Dara Road near Kellogg School in Goleta, CA. As a resident and healthcare professional in this community, I strongly believe it is crucial to consider the potential negative impacts this development may have on our neighborhood, especially in close proximity to our local school.

First and foremost, the construction of high-density housing in such close proximity to Kellogg School raises concerns about the impact on the safety and well-being of our children. Increased traffic congestion and the influx of additional residents could potentially create hazardous conditions around the school, posing risks for students and families during drop-off and pick-up times. This could compromise the safety of our children and lead to unnecessary accidents or incidents.

Furthermore, the proposed high-density housing may put a strain on the limited resources and infrastructure currently available to Kellogg School. With an influx of new residents, the school's capacity may be exceeded, resulting in overcrowded classrooms, limited resources, and potentially compromising the quality of education provided to our children. It is essential to prioritize the educational needs of our community and ensure that our schools are adequately equipped to meet the demands of a growing population.

Another important consideration is the potential impact on the character and charm of our neighborhood. Dana Road and its surrounding area are known for their peaceful residential atmosphere and cohesive community spirit. The construction of high-density housing may lead to the loss of this unique character, as increased population density could result in a decline in the quality of life for current residents. It is vital to preserve the essence and appeal of our neighborhood for the benefit of all community members.

Moreover, the increased population density may also strain our already limited water resources. California has been facing severe drought conditions for years, and it is essential that we prioritize responsible water usage. Adding more residents without adequate plans for water conservation and management could exacerbate the existing water scarcity problem and have detrimental long-term effects on the community.

I understand the importance of providing affordable housing options, but it is crucial that we strike a balance between meeting this demand and preserving the safety, quality of education, and overall well-being of our community. I urge you to reconsider the construction of high-density housing near Kellogg School on Dara Road, and instead explore alternative locations or more sustainable development options that align with the needs and values of our community.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I hope that together we can make a decision that will benefit the community as a whole, prioritizing the safety and well-being of our children and preserving the character of our neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Sawyer Haig, DO
577 Arundel Rd
Goleta, CA 93117
(415) 260-5269
From: malana willis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 8:25 AM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element - Please Reconsider!
Dear Planning Commission Members and Council Members,
I’m writing to ask that you reconsider the use of the property at Dara Road for high-density housing.

Goleta needs more high-density housing, but unfortunately the Dara property is not well-suited to meet this need:
1) Safety: Nearby Cathedral Oaks Road is already a dangerous, busy road, with numerous horrific accidents.

Currently children as young as 4-years-old walk and bike along Stow Canyon Road, Dara Road, and throughout the neighborhood to get to Kellogg School and the local preschool. A significant increase in traffic along this school route would be unsafe for children.

I wish that you
could all visit our neighborhood in the morning and afternoon on a school day to see all of the children trying to make their way safely to and from Kellogg School and the preschool. Further, there are many children biking to and from Goleta Valley Jr High.

If you could visit during the school year
you would immediately see how unsafe it would be to inject more cars into this already fraught scenario.
2) Education: Kellogg School is already so full that GUSD moved a portion of our Autism Program to an under-enrolled GUSD school in another part of the city.

That was a huge loss to our school
culture. Will more vulnerable students be displaced with a high density development being zoned next door?
3) Environmental Protection: Other sites, such as 7190 Hollister and nearby parcels are ready for high density housing! An active bus route, walking distance to commerce…if ecologically-minded development is a priority of the city, there is no contest. Dara Road does not fit the bill and other properties are much better suited for the eco-friendly Goleta of the future.

My family understands the many constraints that the city faces regarding this decision, including pressure from the state. We also know there is a housing shortage. Please consider that maintaining zoning for low density housing at the Dara property would further the ecological, educational, and safety goals of Goleta, whereas a high density property would be ecologically unwise and unsafe for children.

Thank you for your consideration and time and dedication to the future of Goleta.

Warmly,
Malana Willis Sawyer Haig
(Kellogg Bulldogs)
From: Russhmd <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 9:48 AM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: July 25th City Council Meeting at 5:30 P.M. (Dara Rd. Project Discussions) Dear Clerk Lopez:

I am writing this to have it submitted as input to tonight's city council meeting at 5:30 P.M.

Please submit this as input to the meeting on the Dara Rd. Project.

To the Goleta City Council: July 25,
2023
My wife and I are residents near the Dara Rd. Project and we and many other neighbors
will be severely affected by project's outcome. We are both severely opposed to a change of zoning at this location to allow high density building and residency.

Dropping a high density project into the middle of an established neighborhood with different zoning standards would be highly disruptive to the lives of those people in the neighborhood.

We met with 40-45 other neighbors last evening to
discuss this project. 100 % of the neighbors at this meeting were strongly opposed to this high density project.

These disruptions and negative impacts are:

1. Huge increase in automobiles for this small area (could be 200 or more autos).

Presently inadequate street design and parking for this many autos.

2. Huge increase in Greenhouse Gas emissions because of the location away from employment, shopping, and transportation which would require excessive driving for
200 more automobiles. This is an isolated location away from everything.

3. No room for children at nearby Kellogg Elementary School. Presently new students
are send away to other schools because of lack of room for new students. This would also increase Greenhouse Gas emissions.

4. Large auto accident risk and congestion at this area because of inadequate street design. There have already been 2 deaths on Dara Rd. where an entrance to this area will be. Dara Rd. presently funnels in to this project and the large increase in cars
will be a traffic hightmare which passes through a school zone. Also, the other entrance
on the Stow Cyn. Rd. side of this project is presently a blind curve, which will be a huge
additional driving hazard with this large increase of traffic to the area.

5. Destruction of existing public mountain views from this area and from adjacent neighborhoods. The bulk and scale of high density housing will forever block the present mountain views.

6. Huge potential decrease in home value for existing neighbors.

This project
because

of all the negative impacts will adversely affect the value of housing in this area.

Existing residents who bought their homes previously under different zoning

requirements could have a huge decrease in home value.

Please reconsider the adoption of this potential high density project, and consider 7190 Hollister or other possible site.

It is not the thing to do to an existing
neighborhood.

Please represent the residents, not the special interests of our area.

We are also writing a letter to the California State Housing and Community Development Office.

Thank you,
Russell & Karren Hagen, 5745 Stow Cyn. Rd. Goleta, Ca. 93117 e-mail:

[email protected] Phone: (805) 967-3925
From: Kaci Lynch
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Speaking Tonight RE: Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Workshop Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 10:44:28 AM
Hello,
I would like to speak tonight about the change proposed to the property on Dara Road. My name is Kaci Lynch. My email is [email protected] and my phone number is I am asking that the property not be rezoned for high density as it does not fit with the surrounding neighborhood, is not within walking distance of shopping and will result in a tremendous amount of traffic for the area and increase in greenhouse gases. Furthermore there is only a single bus line within walking distance that runs every hour. Additionally, the parking from this will very likely overflow into the surrounding neighborhood impacting the current residents. Aside from the daily commuting traffic. There has not been a traffic study for this larger development and it is not appropriate to be moving forward with such a large project in a residential neighborhood without one.

I am asking that other locations like the commercial area of Calle Real Marketplace be considered to be converted into housing as there are better transit options and it is walkable or that 7190 Hollister and its adjacent lots be reconsidered and considered as they offer exceptional transportation and are directly across from amenities.

Thank you for your time and I will be at the meeting tonight.

Kindest regards,
Kaci Lynch
--
Kaci L. W. Lynch

805.967.2500 | www.SBSCChamber.com
Mailing Address: 5662 Calle Real #204, Goleta, CA
Visitor Center: 120 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA

July 25, 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 reiterate our support for the rezoning of local sites to provide more housing supply for our community, as well as our support for the sites 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. As part of the Chamber’s The Road Home document 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 we support any vacant or underutilized sites being rezoned for housing as 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 for 7264 Calle Real and 7400 Cathedral Oaks.

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. Please support the rezoning of this site, as it has significant potential to meet our communities housing supply needs quickly.

We would like to again express our support for 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, or the previous, 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. 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.

805.967.2500 | www.SBSCChamber.com
Mailing Address: 5662 Calle Real #204, Goleta, CA
Visitor Center: 120 State Street, Santa Barbara, CA

We hope that both these sites can be included as rezones in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, as a failure to see them included would raise concerns within the community about our local commitment to addressing the housing supply crisis.

Thank you for your consideration of the proposed rezone sites before you.

Sincerely,

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

D EREK W ESTEN
1800 JELINDA DRIVE
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA 93108

EMAIL: [email protected]
TELEPHONE: (805) 708-4411

July 25, 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 write on behalf of myself and Daniel E. Hochman, the two representatives of the property owners of the captioned parcels.

We appreciate the careful thought you gave to the difficult rezoning questions discussed at the first Study Session hearing on July 20, 2023. You accomplished a lot! You have asked Staff to include 7190 Hollister Avenue on the list of sites recommended for high density housing.

For the reasons below, we strongly encourage you to add the vacant 7 acres to the recommended list.

Current Zoning
There is a critical consideration completely omitted from the discussion last Thursday: The vacant 7 acres are already zoned for a combination of commercial on Hollister and medium density residential on the north portions. The City uses a rough standard of converting potential commercial square footage to “units.” Using this standard, the existing zoning provides for development of the vacant 7 acres can now be developed for 55 commercial “units” plus 82 housing, for a total of 137 “units.” Because that development is already allowed by zoning, it only makes sense to consider the incremental difference in units if the properties are zoned for high density housing.

As shown on the attached analysis, if the vacant 7 acres are added to the recommended list for RH zoning, and the commercial zoning eliminated, the incremental increase in zoned units will only be 68 “units.” RH housing fills a critical need of the City for and addresses the State’s requirements. And the benefits of that change, discussed below, are significant ….

Master Planning All 10.6 Acres
We believe we articulated very sound arguments as to the great benefits from master planning the

10.6 acres as a whole. And we anticipate being able to provide additional testimony from an experienced architect on this point.

D EREK A. W ESTEN

-2- July 25, 2023

As is apparent from the attached rendering (Exhibit A), master planning the properties together, all under consistent zoning, will most realistically allow an extension of Pacific Oaks that will provide ideal access to the 10.6 acres, without requiring additional modifications of the frontage to the east along Hollister.

Master planning the entire site will offer the ideal opportunities for addressing and protecting all important resources—view corridors, and important habitats if any.

The critical piece of information not emphasized at Thursday’s hearing is that the difference between changing the zoning only on 7190 Hollister Avenue as opposed to changing the zoning for the entire 10.6 acres is only 68 units. We believe the potential impacts of that additional housing will be more than offset by the complete elimination of commercial.

The incremental potential impacts are small or even non-existent because of the offset of elimination of the commercial allowed under current zoning. Housing does generate traffic, but that traffic tends to be early and late in the day. Commercial traffic is spread throughout the day. The City should focus on vehicle miles travelled (VMTs). We believe the VMTs that would result from the development of potential workforce and maybe senior housing, both suitable with high density housing, may well be lower than traffic impacts from the current zoning. Placing the workforce residences near employers would reduce the VMTs significantly, and importantly, also reduce the congestion at the intersection of Storke and Hollister. Workers and residents would be able to walk to nearby retail, service, and recreational sites including the Camino Real Marketplace, Hollister Village, The Plaza, Hilton Garden, Target, and Girsh Park. Traffic at the impacted intersection would be further reduced as workforce for the Ritz Carlton and UCSB would also avoid the congestion to the East of our site and the Storke and Hollister intersection. On the other hand, leaving the parcels zoned for commercial use would necessarily increase VMTs from outside the neighborhood, further impacting the intersection and adding to congestion. The commercial development allowed by current zoning will draw traffic and merely add to the need for additional housing.

And the benefits of master planning the entire site are enormous. The only potential issues of concern discussed at Thursday’s hearing will be the very same issues faced with development under the existing zoning. But if the entire 10.6 acres can most readily be master planned, we can address all of those issues much more effectively.

Planning (Not Zoning) Considerations
You have identified potential areas of concern with utilization of these sites—potential impacts to ESH areas (if they exist), viewsheds, and possibly watercourses. These are planning issues, not zoning issues.

The sites are already zoned for a combination of commercial and housing. The City has sound policies to protect sensitive habitats, to create and protect open space, and to protect viewsheds. When developed per existing zoning, the identical issues will be raised and will need to be addressed. And if the 10.6 acres are master planned, under the same and consistent zoning, the opportunities to protect valuable habitat and to preserve views will be greater. Commercial zoning along Hollister Ave would

D EREK A. W ESTEN

-3- July 25, 2023

necessarily impact viewsheds, as it has in projects to our site’s East. Densities can be adjusted on portions of the property, and housing grouped to protect better protect views and environmental resources. That in turn helps make it possible to accommodate employer housing and senior housing.

Analysis of existing resources and of all potential impacts will be done at time a specific project is considered. These are planning, not zoning considerations.

In short, we believe Goleta can more readily achieve its objectives with the proposed zoning than with the existing zoning.

ESH
The current mapping, which we believe was designated not based on an in-the-field survey, but simply from aerial images, shows ESH on the property. We have prepared a thorough field study that concludes that almost all of the material on the site is non-native, non-sensitive material.

The City has not yet analyzed our information. It may be that the City’s preliminary designation is correct. If so, the ESH will have to be respected under applicable policies. But if the reality is that the designation needs to be updated because it simply is not accurate, then that will be important in planning the site.

Especially because the ESH designation has not been validated we believe this is a planning, not a zoning issue. At the time housing is proposed, a careful analysis of the actual resources on the site will guide the design. If the current commercial/medium density zoning is retained, the identical problems will still be faced when the site is developed, but the solutions will be constrained by the current split zoning which provides for commercial at the front 40%.

Watercourse Resource?
In discussions of the proposed zoning we have heard some mention that there is an important tributary or watercourse on the property. We believe that is simply incorrect.

As shown on the attached official City of Goleta Creek and Watershed Management Plan map of existing creek corridors,, Exhibit B, there are no significant watercourses near the property. The map attached as Exhibit C, which is part of our study of environmental constraints on the vacant 7 acres, does show, with a row of blue dots, a course of water. But this is neither a significant nor historic water course. As shown on Exhibit C, the two drainage culverts that feed the property are only feeding water runoff from the southbound lanes of the highway onto the vacant 7 acres. The residential properties to the north of the freeway do not feed these culverts. The “watercourse” on the vacant 7 acres is not natural or historic, just freeway overflow, and does not, we believe, represent a “resource” that requires protection.

Although we are commenting briefly on views, environmental resources, and the watercourse issue, we believe that these are all issues that should be addressed as planning matters, when a project

D EREK A. W ESTEN

-4- July 25, 2023

is proposed, not as a basis for adoption or rejection of proposed zoning that otherwise benefits the community.

State of California
We think a failure to include the vacant 7 acres, an obvious in-fill site located on a major transportation corridor, already zoned for some housing and with commercial development, may well affect the credibility of the City when presenting the plan to the State.

We all know that the State will review the proposed plan with a critical, perhaps “suspicious” eyes.

If outlying properties are designated for higher density housing, but not obvious infill properties, the City will be inviting the State to compel addition of the properties, rather than acceptance of the plan.

We suspect that the State is not likely to focus not on potential ESH or viewsheds, but on the necessity for additional affordable housing and vehicle miles travelled (VMTs). We suspect that the State will question why the vacant 7 acres is not to be used for housing. And, with 40% of the vacant 7 acr es retained as zoned for commercial use, the State will correctly conclude that the new development will generate still greater need for housing, and that vehicle trips will be generated by residents travelling from outside to those destination. Creation of additional commercial development will only exacerbate the City’s challenges.

Conclusion
We look forward to speaking with you again on Tuesday and thank you for your careful consideration of the issues we all face.

Sincerely,

Derek Westen

cc. Daniel E. Hochman
City Planning Staff

EXHIBIT A

GENERAL PLAN STREAMS AND CREEKS
Analysis of Existing vs. Proposed
Zoning for Vacant 7 Acres
Parcel Acreage Commercial
"Units"
Residential Units
(Medium Density)
Total Units
Zoned Now
Proposed
(Workforce)
"Unit" Increase Notes
7190 Hollister 3.66 29 39 68 100 32 Recommended
073-030-006 & -009 6.91 55 82 137 205 68 Vacant 7 acres Totals 10.57 84 121 205 305 100

EXHIBIT B

GENERAL PLAN CREEK CORRIDORS

EXHIBIT C
“WATERCOURSES ON VACANT 7 ACRES”

From: Scott Vahey <[email protected]>
Date: July 24, 2023 at 8:56:22 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Kyle
Richards <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin
<[email protected]>, James Kyriaco
<[email protected]>, Luz Reyes-Martin <lreyes-
[email protected]>
Cc: Jennifer Smith <[email protected]>, Katie Maynard <[email protected]>, Jennifer Fullerton
<[email protected]>, Anne Miller
<[email protected]>, Jason Chapman
<[email protected]>
Subject: Dara Road Rezone
Hello,
I am strongly against rezoning 625 Dara Road from single family
residential to high density residential.

Main reason is the values of Goleta City would not be
followed and the
environment impact of the additional traffic. Where the property is
located will encourage people to drive to shopping and
work.

Living
next door to the property I know first hand there is no public transit
that make since when trying to go shopping or to work.

I
cannot imagine
having another 127+ cars in the neighborhoods residential streets.

The
bus stop at Wells Fargo Bank is a 20 min walk and then 2 different buses
to get to the shopping mall. When shopping in old town I find the 40 min
walk one way is faster than taking the bus.

Other properties such as 7190 Holster are next to the transit corridor,
shopping, and next to one of the largest employers in town, Raytheon
would be a better choice.

Also the large agriculture property, Bishop Ranch, between Glen Annie
and Los Carneros would would be a large property to
develop.

It size
would allow new residential and commercial properties to be built.

I
would recommend getting Bishop property on the ballot to consider being
rezoned.

If the plan to rezone Dara to RH is approved I will be writing to the
California State about why it is not a reasonable plan and point out
better alternatives that were not proposed.

I found out about this change though a neighbor. Something this major
the residents in the area should be notified by mail or email.

Thanks,
Scott Vahey
From: Lauren VanVeelen
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village- Opposed
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 12:13:09 PM
July 25, 2023
Dear Council Members,
We viewed the last meeting relating to the rezoning of multiple housing projects, including the proposed building at Kenwood Village, and we feel that decisions were rushed, and not enough research was done on the area.

The meeting had been going on for 3 hours and many council members who seemed to be on the fence, followed along with others just to move on to the next item.

This is a PERMANENT decision, and it severely affects the El Encanto Heights community, as well as the families that you intend to put in that space!

There are many other street, transportation
& freeway issues that need to be resolved prior to endangering the wildlife that live there as well as the surrounding community.

This open space is a much-needed balance to an already busy street, and I can’t imagine what will happen to the wildlife there.

We have a protected species of Frogs that come in from the nearby creeks, there are beautiful, harmless snakes everywhere (including our yards), bees, rodents, possums, coyotes… the list goes on!

They are going to either be killed or spread out into the surrounding neighborhoods, where they won’t survive!
There are less-dense options with plenty of space, closer to surrounding business, grocery stores, transportation, etc.

The only thing close to “Kenwood Village” are gas stations and liquor stores.

This is NOT ideal for a low-income community.

7190 Hollister along with the adjacent lots is a
perfect spot for a community like this.

7780 Hollister and Viajero are at the edge of town, closer to a less utilized freeway on/off ramp at Elwood.

This will help to redirect traffic from Glenn Annie,
where there have been constant accidents both getting on and off the freeway.

6470 Hollister off,
closer to Los Carneros Road is another great location that will utilize a less congested freeway ramp.

490 South Fairview is another great location for low-income housing (not above moderate).

There
are grocery stores, banks, churches, Dollar Stores and less-expensive restaurants nearby that would be ideal to serve the low-income housing community.

469 and 449 Kellogg is another great location
with easy freeway access, small local businesses within walking distance and an area that is ideal for more housing.

There are plenty of other options and this decision should be more thought out.

The only people
that seemed to be in favor of the project at Kenwood Village were friends of the landowner who were doing it as a favor to him and not as residents of the neighborhood.

We live in El Encanto
Heights and we know what it will do to our neighborhood.

We need to keep the open space and add
a bike path route so that people can get through to the upper neighborhoods without traveling on busy Calle Real! Put a community garden or an open space with a park bench and a beautiful path for people to walk their dogs and have children bike to school (Evergreen, Brandon, Montessori and Dos Pueblos) safely!
We agree that there is a need for housing in the city and we understand that the State is putting pressure on all of you, so we are sensitive to that.

We simply ask that you consider ALL locations and
make decisions that will help support the families living in the new housing as well as the surrounding neighborhoods in a positive way.

Kenwood Village just doesn’t make sense, any way
that you look at it.

Best,

Lauren and Jebediah VanVeelen
3 Baker Lane, Goleta
From: Taj Chesluk
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 12:37:27 PM
Kenwood Village is the perfect property to address Goleta's housing demands due to its prime location surrounded by dense housing and Calle Real. Developing housing here would offer convenience, community integration, and access to essential services, making it an ideal choice to meet the growing demand for housing in our city.

Thank you for your consideration.

From: Miller, Hans
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 12:37:41 PM
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.

This message was sent securely using Zix®
I am sending this email in support of the Kenwood Village as a great infill opportunity for Goleta.

Goleta and SB County as a whole need more housing and seems like this make a lot of sense.

Hans Miller

NOTICE: The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, you are hereby notified to: (i) delete the message and all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This message was secured by Zix®.

From: Spencer Barr
To: City Clerk Group; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Housing Element Special Meeting Input
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 1:44:03 PM
Dear City of Goleta Mayor, City Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners, I am a resident of the El Encanto Heights neighborhood of Goleta, directly across Cathedral Oaks from Glen Annie Golf Course. I am writing in hopes you will continue to keep the land on the north side of Cathedral Oaks for Agricultural use, Open Space, and current golf course space.

I have read about proposed plans for developing this space for housing and I strongly urge you to prevent this from happening. I know we need more housing in the Goleta area, but this is not the place to develop.

A few years back during the Whittier Fire in 2017, I remember Cathedral Oaks being lined with fire truck after fire truck in preparation for the possibility of the fire

moving over and
down the hill toward the El Encanto Heights neighborhood. I had just moved to the neighborhood and while that fire was happening, I stopped by the fire truck line and talked with

quite a few firefighters, thanking them for their service and asking about the possibility the fire would reach the neighborhood. Many of them mentioned how Cathedral Oaks was an excellent defensible position, especially since the land north was all agricultural and the golf course. At least a few mentioned that if the space ever got developed in the future, they didn't know how they could possibly defend it from fire.

In addition, the soil in the neighborhood is the dreaded Diablo Clay, which is a type of soil that expands and contracts to a great degree with either too much water or not enough. My house is built on this clay and has sunk on one side and we have visible cracks all over our house. The soil movement causes this instability. If that area is developed, the Diablo Clay soil will cause the same stability issues. Extra costs will have to be incurred to include helical piers under all the future houses/units/apartments.

The Golf Course area specifically is built on a natural drainage valley that

drains into a creek
that

then

merges into a storm drain system under Cathedral Oaks and under the El Encanto Heights homes of Savona Ave and Placer Dr. Seeing how much of a flow came down the creek during the recent severe rain storms last winter, I am sure that will cause all sorts of issues with a development in that area. The previous owner of our house told us of a severe storm cycle that caused the storm drain system to clog and back up, creating flooding in many of the houses that back up to Cathedral Oaks. In fact, the cinder block walls bordering Cathedral Oaks were built to help prevent any future flooding or debris flows.

It also seems that the proposed plans call for an extremely dense plan of units and people. The Glen Annie offramp is already extremely impacted in the mornings and afternoons. Adding thousands more people to the area will create even more massive infrastructure

clogging to the
area.

Thank you for considering these points and looking elsewhere for development options.

Spencer Barr
El Encanto Heights Resident
(805) 895-8510
[email protected]
From: Dawnielle Burich
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Calle real in goleta proposed new build
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 1:49:40 PM
To Whom it May Concern,
Please do not build the proposed building plans! Instead please consider a bike path there and throughout goleta so that Brandon children can bicycle safely to school, parks and the beach!!! Dawnielle R. S. Burich
Dawnielle R. S. Burich
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Written Comments for Rezoning Meeting 7/25/23
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 1:56:52 PM
July 25, 2023
Honorable City Council Members and Planning Commission, We write with deep concerns and strong objections regarding the proposed rezoning of 625 Dara Road from RS to RH.

Please
reconsider your decision to include 625 Dara Road in your rezoning plans.

*We, the people who live in this residential neighborhood, were not notified in any way of the meetings to discuss this rezoning.

People
directly impacted by the decision were not informed or given enough time to submit input prior to a decision being made. Many people are on vacation at this time and are not even able to hear about it from neighbors and have the opportunity to be heard.
*In researching all of the other proposed sites for development, it is clear the Dara site is an outlier.

There is a simple reason for this.

It is
not a site that is suitable for high-density housing.

The number of units
proposed on such a small site, set in the middle of residential neighborhoods of single-family homes, does not make sense.

Just
because a land owner is willing to sell/develop for a larger profit, does not make it the right decision for the community.

Easy does not equal
right.
*We recognize the need for housing in our community.

We benefitted
from affordable housing when we first moved to the area years ago.

That housing project (96 units of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom condos, one and two-story) was decided upon correctly, with the surrounding neighborhood and the benefits to the new residents at the forefront.

The development included market value as well as affordable housing.

Reliable public transit was just outside the common driveway, the units did not look down into any existing homes or block any views, and the main street outside the complex was designed for community traffic (not residential). The location was walkable to services and bicycle friendly.

As to not impact one elementary school, the families were given the option of two schools nearby. Most importantly, it became its own quiet neighborhood.

The people who lived there felt a sense of community.
* The impact of high-density traffic is significant. The site is not public transit-friendly and has a low walkability score. As this is a residential neighborhood, it is quite a walking distance to services and shopping, therefore additional traffic will be substantial. Inevitable overflow parking onto residential streets will also severely impact current residents. In addition, the site is near an elementary school. Many young children walk or ride bikes and scooters each day. Significantly increased traffic increases safety concerns for our youngest community members. In addition, the safety concerns of turning onto Cathedral Oaks from Dara Rd. or Arundel are real. It is difficult to see oncoming cars and the traffic moves fast. There have already been enough fatalities.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We are trusting you to listen to the genuine concern of the people in your community. There are other viable sites, such as 7190 Hollister and the two adjacent parcels that would create ample space for new housing and not have negative impacts on existing neighborhoods. To truly preserve Goleta, respect its current residents, build new neighborhoods, and see it grow in a responsible way, please consider other options than Dara Rd. We respectfully request you NOT rezone 625 Dara Rd. from RS to RH.

Sincerely,
Bradley and Tracy Bowen

From: Tom Miller
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 1:56:55 PM
Hello,
I wanted to chime in. Kenwood Village is the perfect project, currently surrounded on three sides by houses and condominiums and it fronts Calle Real.

Goleta is suffering from a lack of housing for our adult children and our workers and Kenwood Village is a no brainer to meet the current housing demand.

Thanks,
Tom
From: Heather Jeno Silva <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 12:42 PM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: Re-zoning of 625 Dara Road
Dear Goleta City Council Members,
I'm writing to express my concern about the pending re-zoning of the 625 Dara Road property from Residential Single Family (R-SF) to Residential High Density (R-HD) as well as the possible inclusion of this property in Goleta's proposed plan to the State HCD to fulfill Housing Element requirements.

I am fundamentally supportive of creating new housing projects that include low-income housing opportunities, especially

for the essential workers upon who we rely, like grocery store workers, teachers, police officers, and others. I also believe that we have an obligation to create more affordable housing in our own neighborhoods

so that we can have a more diverse and inclusive
community. But these goals are achieved

by careful city planning that considers the sustainability of a neighborhood, including walkability to core services and

accessible

transportation.

The property

at 625 Dara Road is not on a main corridor with frequent

public transportation, is not
easily walkable to core services,

and

does not have direct access to dedicated bike lanes, which prevents the city of Goleta's sustainability goals from being reached, particularly in its efforts to reduce emissions. It is not a sustainable site on which to develop high-density housing and instead, will put a strain on the already limited transportation resources while also creating more traffic problems and more emissions.

Now that the Goleta water moratorium is likely to be lifted, I strongly urge Goleta City Council Members to reconsider the available nonvacant underutilized sites for inclusion in this proposal as alternatives to 625 Dara Road. There are many other options that can easily fulfill Goleta's sustainability goals and housing requirements as part of this plan.

I realize that the development of 625 Dara Road is inevitable one day and know that higher-density housing will most likely occur. I believe there may be a version of moderate-density housing development that could benefit this neighborhood in Goleta, but this mandate and the immediacy of response are forcing a decision that needs more consideration and more time for careful planning.

Once this R-HD re-zoning is approved, there's no going back.

Successful city planning should be based on a careful assessment of proposed changes over time, considering the long-term effects on its community, and not based on a hurried reaction to fulfilling a state mandate that was years in the making.

If the City of Goleta is truly committed to being a "green and sustainable community," then I urge you to vote no on this property rezoning and yes to including alternative sites in the HCD plan with built-in infrastructure in its place.

Heather Silva
624 Andamar Way
Goleta, CA

From: Mark Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 11:30 AM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: 625 Dara Road proposal
Two whom it may concern:

We would like to strongly oppose the proposed high density residential zoning change of 625 Dara Road.

Approving a large scale development on such a small property in the middle of a neighborhood is wildly inappropriate.

It would not be compatible with the
neighborhood, and its size, bulk and scale would not be appropriate to the site and the neighborhood, it could not be more different than the existing adjoining development.

The architecture could not respect the privacy of neighbors, considerate of private views, or protective of solar access off site.

This scale of development would add significantly more cars to the neighborhood and to Goleta as a whole on a daily basis, as there is no public transportation near it, nor are there any jobs or shopping.

Everything would be driving distance away, the
carbon footprint of the neighborhood and of Goleta would soar.

For the amount of units being proposed I assume that there would be multi story buildings involved.

The property is on a hill over the rest of the neighborhood, you would be creating a highly visible Goleta landmark

The development would be highly
intrusive on the already existing neighborhood.

Kellogg School has already been adversely impacted by new development, adding a large number of new residences would only make it worse.

We had a neighborhood meeting last night to discuss this, two of the attendees said that they had received notice from the City about this, no one else had. Most of us that became aware of the proposed zoning change found out either the day of or during your July 20 meeting, at which it turned out that we had no representation.

This and the speed of the agreement about a high density development on the property leads us to believe that this was intentional.

Please choose a more appropriate site for high density development like 7190 Hollister Avenue and the two adjacent parcels to the east, where a populous island in the middle of single family homes would not be created.

Best regards,

Mark and Cristi Smith
5671 Stow Canyon Road
----Original Message-----
From: Cheryl Rogers <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 11:16 AM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: City Council and Planning Commission vote on 7/20 on 625 Dara St. zone change 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.

To: Mayor, City Councillors, and City Planning Commission Re: zone change for 625 Dara St.

Dear Elected Officials:

It was my impression that your vote to assign the RH zone to this property was final last Thursday.

This vote was based on the rationale considering the many state laws on affordable housing, infill development, and RHNA fulfillment of State HCD requirements. It was said that it ‘checked all the boxes’ such as close to transportation and shopping.

It is my understanding that misinformation has been given to the neighbors in this area about the technicalities of zone changes and potential development. I feel that it would be embarrassing for the elected City Councillors and Planning Commissioners to change their minds; if not even illegal.

I am writing because I am 80 years old and me and many of my elderly friends and neighbors are in desperate need of senior (nursing) housing in our old age and I beg you not to change the zone designation that you have approved already. The younger owners in the neighborhood near 625 Dara do not understand what it is like to be old and homeless.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Cordially,
Cheryl Rogers
Goleta
From: Ryan
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:02:29 PM

Hello,
Kenwood Village is an infill project with all sides surrounded by homes now. This is the perfect location for this type of project. Our state of California is in a housing shortage and desperately needs projects like this to house our young adults and workers. Please mark me down in support of this project Thank you,
Ryan Phelan
From: Kate Burgner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 1:26 PM
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; Kyle Richards <[email protected]>; Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>; James Kyriaco <[email protected]>; Luz Reyes-Martin <[email protected]>
Cc: Jennifer Smith <[email protected]>; Katie Maynard <[email protected]>; Jennifer Fullerton <[email protected]>; Anne Miller <[email protected]>; Jason Chapman <[email protected]>
Subject: Dara Road proposal
Honorable Council Members and Planning Commissioners,
My name is Kate Deutsch-Burgner, I am a resident of the Kellogg neighborhood and own a home slightly down Stow Canyon Road from the proposed rezoning at 625 Dara Road.

I am a transportation consultant

having received my PhD in the Geography Department at
UCSB ten years ago, with an emphasis in Transportation Models, Methods and Computation. I served on the board of what was formerly known as the Coalition for Sustainable Transportation from

2013- 2020. I also have four children, three of which are of age to attend schools in the neighborhood, and one will be there in a few short years. I am highly invested in this neighborhood, as well as the entirety of the urban development and transportation planning in Goleta, the County, State and Country. I am knowledgeable, at a professional level, of the considerations and implications of decisions that are made to meet the state mandated requirements. I see these discussions as someone who works to provide the tools to give evidence based decision support
. I am not opposed to well thought out growth oriented
decisions, and in fact have largely remained silent in the past regarding proposed developments on this site, but the rezoning currently proposed on Dara simply is not a well thought out

justifiable decision and needs to be rethought.

I know, through listening to community discussion, that you have

received a lot of feedback
regarding the implications on school enrollments, traffic patterns and parking, aesthetics and the overall well being of the neighborhood with such a high density development to name a few concerns. I agree with these concerns for the negative impacts a high density development
would have on the community. I myself, being in the professional position of helping planners create the computational tools to plan for development and transportation policies, would like to

point out the recklessness that a rezoning like this is in light of other state mandated targets that the city and county must achieve. Namely greenhouse gas emissions and the targeted reductions. Planning a high density or medium density development, where there is little space or intention to integrate mixed use development or high service of public transportation, is a way to meet the housing mandate by shoving the problem into someone else's

corner. I'm
pleading with you to consider what your decisions will actually look like when the development happens. Zone high density where amenities are offered that allow people to walk or bike. Research what you are proposing. Where are examples of a housing development where there are 30 units per acre? You will not find it in a suburban residential neighborhood with very low public transportation service, mediocre walkability to amenities, and a neighborhood school that is already filled to the brim with nowhere to develop a new one. This is just purely not smart planning. It is a mismatch of land uses. It will not promote new residents to use alternative transport modes and the increase in traffic will likely discourage current residents from allowing their children to walk or bike to school who currently do. The surrounding main arterials of Cathedral Oaks and Fairview already pose serious risk to pedestrians and bicyclists from collisions, adding at least 250 additional vehicles will make them all the more dangerous. There is no connection to the current bicycle routes without going through dangerous intersections. We as professionals are trying to reduce movements by auto, and this proposed rezone will exacerbate the problem. Please don't work against the rest of your team.

You as the elected
decision makers are charged with making decisions that speak for themselves in showing that you have the best interest of the city and its residents in mind.

What this quick decision on the 20th says to me is that this decision hasn't been researched adequately. It is not a low hanging fruit that will get the city to the HCD target in a quick and dirty manner. It is leading residents to a feeling of discouragement and disenfranchisement.

Thank you for reading through the entirety of this email and spending time listening to our
concerns and making decisions that reflect that.

Best,
Kate Deutsch-Burgner

To: City Council Members and Planning Commissioners
From: Heather Abed resident at the Bluffs in Goletas

Re; Parcels 7780 Hollister and Viajero

Please note my 100% support for
rezoning the alternative sites in the Housing
Element 2023-2031 ( Sites Inventory Rezoning Study ) to RESIDENTIAL.

This section of Hollister with single family / townhomes includes the Elmwood School, the golf course and Bacara Ritz Carleton all set the stage for a family residential neighborhood, not Commercial. Commercial zoning is outdated for this neighborhood and I hope the Planning Commissioners can recognize this fact.

I would also like to call your attention to the necessity for Owner Occupied housing. Owners paying property taxes take a far deeper concern and pride for what is happening in their city vs. a tenant renting for a year and moving on.

Rentals create a very transient population. Goleta already has their share of these properties. I encourage you to take a look at the various rentals just in the Storke/Hollister area….almost 100% stud ents. UCSB should be the entity providing housing for these students not the town of Goleta. It might interest you to know furthermore that a large majority of these students renting outside of campus are actually pushing the rental prices up bidding for these properties to rent. If you are genuinely interested in creating a stable, diversified town environment, these are all the issues that need to be taken into account.

Contractors bidding for these projects must be required to include expansion and upgrading of the schools that service the particular area of each project.

That would include The Elmwood School in reference to this 7780 & Viajero Project.

As a resident of Goleta and the Bluffs I take pride in our community and encourage decisions based on your vision into the next 50 years for this town.

Heather Abed 925-324-6720
7720 Kestrel Lane
Goleta Ca. 93117

To: City Council Members and Planning Commissioners
From: Heather Abed resident at the Bluffs in Goletas

Re; Parcels 7780 Hollister and Viajero

Please note my 100% support for
rezoning the alternative sites in the Housing
Element 2023-2031 ( Sites Inventory Rezoning Study ) to RESIDENTIAL.

This section of Hollister with single family / townhomes includes the Elmwood School, the golf course and Bacara Ritz Carleton all set the stage for a family residential neighborhood, not Commercial. Commercial zoning is outdated for this neighborhood and I hope the Planning Commissioners can recognize this fact.

I would also like to call your attention to the necessity for Owner Occupied housing. Owners paying property taxes take a far deeper concern and pride for what is happening in their city vs. a tenant renting for a year and moving on.

Rentals create a very transient population. Goleta already has their share of these properties. I encourage you to take a look at the various rentals just in the Storke/Hollister area….almost 100% stud ents. UCSB should be the entity providing housing for these students not the town of Goleta. It might interest you to know furthermore that a large majority of these students renting outside of campus are actually pushing the rental prices up bidding for these properties to rent. If you are genuinely interested in creating a stable, diversified town environment, these are all the issues that need to be taken into account.

Contractors bidding for these projects must be required to include expansion and upgrading of the schools that service the particular area of each project.

That would include The Elmwood School in reference to this 7780 & Viajero Project.

As a resident of Goleta and the Bluffs I take pride in our community and encourage decisions based on your vision into the next 50 years for this town.

Heather Abed 925-324-6720
7720 Kestrel Lane
Goleta Ca. 93117

From: Jon Cummings
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:53:35 PM
Hi Team,
I am writing

in support of the Kenwood Village project. We need more housing in this area.

Most of our residents can't afford housing as it is, so we need to increase

the supply.

Thank you,
Jon Cummings
From: Paul Kleine
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: As I stated earlier, I support the Kenwood Village project or local housing, less crowded freeways. Thank you, Paul Kleine.

Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:13:41 PM
Sent from my iPhone
From: Michael Paskin
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Email supporting high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:06:50 PM
City of Goleta:

My name is Michael Paskin and I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site.

Kenwood Village is the perfect infill property, surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side.

Our area desperately needs workforce housing, especially in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units.

Please support the approval of high density housing at the Kenwood Village location.

Regards,
Michael J. Paskin
Founder & CEO,

The Paskin Group
A

735 State Street, Suite 416, Santa Barbara, CA 93101
D

(805) 284-9144
O (805) 962-1011
E [email protected]
W

thepaskingroup.com

INVEST WITH US
This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e- mail from your system. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender therefore does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message, which arise as a result of e-mail transmission. If verification is required please request a hard-copy version. The Paskin Group, 735 State Street, Suite 416, Santa Barbara, CA 93101,
www.thepaskingroup.com
From: Ryan Siemens
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: High-Density Housing in Goleta
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:22:47 PM
Dear Sir or Madam:

I’d like to show my support for high density housing at Kenwood Village in Goleta.

I feel that under the circumstances that this site would be highly desirable for high-density housing to help with the housing shortage in the south county. The site is surrounded on three sides by other dense housing and has access to both the freeway nearby and to Calle Real. We appreciate your support for this high-density housing property.

Warm regards,

Ryan Siemens
[email protected]
From: Bell, Colin
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I density housing at Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:20:13 PM
Attachments: image001.wmz
image003.png
image004.png
Dear Goleta City Council,
As we face the state mandates to provide housing on the central coast Kenwood Village is a logical choice for high density housing.

It is currently surrounded by dense housing, fronts Calle Real and has easy access to the freeway and schools.

I support the high density housing at Kenwood Village
and hope you will too.

Regards,
Colin Bell
Vice President of Strategic Accounts
D: (805) 586-2327 C: (805) 708-0217
[email protected]
www.sagent.net
From: Ken Jacobsen
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I support high density housing at Kenwood Village...

Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:18:48 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Site is ideal for a density housing project with it’s location off of 101 highway frontage road and close proximity to Camino Real Center.

Best,
Ken
www.SBC.Fund
Ken Jacobsen Owner|Manager of KJCapital, Manager of SBCFund 401 Chapala, Suite 106
Santa Barbara, California 93101
Office: 805-265-1011

Fax: 805-517-4095
Cell: 805-698-6058

From: A H
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I support high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:01:46 PM
To whom this may concern,
I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site.

It’s
the perfect infill property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side.

We need workforce housing in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units.

Please support the approval of housing at the
Kenwood Village location.

Thanks,
Alma Hernandez

From: Jeremy Jewell
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: In Support of Kenwood Village Site
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:14:48 PM
Hi,

I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site.

It’s the perfect infill property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side.

As a person involved with
running several businesses in town that employs 150-200 people, I'm intimately familiar with how important a project of this scope is for our community. We desperately need more housing to support these families and this serves as an ideal location to make that happen.

Please support the approval of this project at the Kenwood Village location.

Thank you,
Jeremy
From: Matt Power
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:49:17 PM
To Whom it May Concern,
I’m writing to you regarding the Kenwood Village site in Goleta.

I’m a longtime renter here in the
Santa Barbara area and want to express my sincere support for the high density housing applicating that is currently in front of the City.

I support this project and support high density housing.

This is a
prime location for housing and since it is an infill location it is a prime location for additional housing.

Additional housing will ultimately lead to more affordability in the area.

Our hope is to
purchase a home soon in the area and this site along with others and desperately needed.

Please approve this application for more housing at this location.

Thanks,
Matt Power
805-722-0813
Sent from Mail for Windows
From: David Cutaia
To: David Cutaia
Subject: RE: 625 Dara
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:23:55 PM
Hi James,

Just want to thank you for the great presentation you made to the residents that live in proximity to 625 Dara, explaining the challenges placed on the City of Goleta by the State. It gave everyone an idea of what we all are up against, including the City.

As you mentioned, a number of years ago, the owner of 625 Dara applied to have the parcel rezoned for medium density housing with a plan to develop a senior retirement home. Not sure why it did not go through. At the time, I thought this would be a good use of the property, especially it the development is similar to Wood Glen Hall in Santa Barbara. This would have the least impact on the surrounding residential area, with regard to traffic and possible impact to the nearby school. I would support the rezoning of the property to Medium Density with the hope that any future development would, indeed, be senior housing.

However, if the property were rezoned for High Density housing, the impact to the surrounding community would be substantial, resulting in:
a. Much more traffic flow resulting in the associated carbon emissions, potential accidents, etc. b. The need for another school to accommodate the additional students. (Maybe reopen Fairview School?)
c. I'm sure that there are other additional resources that would be required. Is the city willing to do that?

It seems to me that much of the unused property on Hollister, starting at 7190, ending at the property adjacent to where the new firehouse is to be built, can be zoned High Density possibly satisfy the State requirements.

I respectively submit the above for your consideration in your deliberations.

Mansfield (Jack) and Christa Turney

From: miklos hubay
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Support for high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 2:43:19 PM
I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site.

It’s
the perfect infill property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side.

We need workforce housing in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units.

Please support the approval of housing at the
Kenwood Village location.

From: Brent Johnson
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Support for Kenwood
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:21:28 PM
Hello
My name is Brent Johnson , I am a Westmont graduate of 93. Having lived locally I understand the need for more housing in Goleta . The Kenwood project is a great idea for increasing the affordability of housing in Goleta and Santa Barbara . There is a demand for well thought out growth and Kenwood has down their homework to make this happen.

Sincerely

Brent Johnson

Brent Johnson CFP, ChFC
Financial Planner
Investment Advisor

VISION WEALTH
1297 Flynn Road, Suite 280
,
Camarillo, CA 93010
P:

(805) 383-1118 | F: (805) 383-1119
Website: VisionWealth.org
Investment advisory services offered through Mutual Advisors, LLC DBA Vision Wealth, a SEC registered investment adviser. Securities offered through Mutual Securities, Inc. member FINRA/SIPC. Mutual Securities, Inc. and Mutual Advisors, LLC are affiliated companies.

CFP®, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ and CFP® (with flame logo) are certification marks owned by the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. These marks are awarded to individuals who successfully complete the CFP Board’s initial and ongoing certification requirements.

From: Sachi Thompson
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Supportive of high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:02:42 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my support for the high-density housing project at the Kenwood village site.

It is perfect infill property as it is supported by 3 sides of dense housing on Calle Real and the freeway is on the other side.

We need workforce housing in Goleta, as a business leader in the community for over 20 years this is the main reason that prevents our company the ability to grow and hire the required talent we need to stay in Goleta.

Please support approval of housing at the Kenwood Village Location.

If you need to reach out for more information, please do so anytime.

Thank you.

Sachi
Sachi Thompson • General Manager, Global Hardware Division O

805.690.3134 M 805.452.5658

www.curvature.com
Optimize space and energy with our pre-owned Cisco UCS Blade Server 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: Jeremy Ellis
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Supportive of high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:04:42 PM
To whom this may concern,
I am writing to voice my support of the high density housing proposed at the Kenwood Village site.

Our community needs housing options and this location is already surrounded by dense housing and is in close proximity to the freeway.

As an employer in Goleta we need more
local

options for our workforce. I ask that you please support the approval of housing at the Kenwood Village location.

Thank you!
Jeremy Ellis

From: Shane Mahan
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Yes on Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 1:09:25 PM
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.

To Whom it May Concern,
Goleta is suffering from a lack of housing for our adults and children and Kenwood Village is a no brainer to help meet the current demand.

Shane Mahan
805-689-1423
From: lloyd SUZUKI
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: high density housing site
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:04:15 PM
to whom it may concern at the Goleta city council,

I am in support of consideration of the Kenwood Village site for high density housing.

We
need workforce housing and it fronts Calle Real and the freeway. Please support the approval of housing at Kenwood Village. Regards, Lloyd Suzuki

From: Stone Stone
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I support high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:33:34 PM
To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site. It’s the perfect infill property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side. We need workforce housing in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units. Not to mention, housing is extremely expensive and we need more supply.

Please support the approval of housing at the Kenwood Village location.

Best Regards,
Chris Stone
Stone Christopher • Director of Product, Hardware
O

805.690.3728 M 805.602.0385

www.curvature.com
Bundle your hardware with Entuity Software
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: Nicole Staska
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I support high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:49:13 PM
To whom this may concern:

I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site.

It’s the perfect infill property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side.

We need workforce housing in
Goleta and this site would be a great space to accommodate some of these units. Please support the approval of housing at the Kenwood Village location.

Thank you!!!
Matt and Nicole Staska
Goleta Residents
From: Theo Kracke
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village - In support of high-density housing Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:04:54 PM
Dear Goleta City Council:

I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site.

It’s the perfect infill property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side.

We need workforce housing in Goleta, and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units.

Please support the approval of housing at the Kenwood Village location.

Sincerely,
Theo Kracke
From: Chris Clark <[email protected]>
Date: July 25, 2023 at 3:47:37 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Kyle Richards <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]> Subject: 625 Dara Road Rezoning

7/25/2023
Re: General Plan Rezoning 625 Dara Road
Goleta City Council members, and Planning Commissioners, My family has lived on our property on Arundel Road close since 1975 and have come to love and appreciate our safe, quiet single family residential area. We strongly oppose the proposed zoning change to high density residential for the referenced property. It is not compatible with our community in size or scale. The privacy of the immediate neighbors would be violated by any multi story building as the location is on the highest site in the area. The surrounding road system does not have adequate ingress and egress for a large increase in vehicle activity. It is not located on a main road and has only one stop sign on the corner of Cathedral Oaks and Dara Road.

The increased traffic and pollution from over 200-250
additional automobiles would be an impact to safety and our environment. In the event of an emergency, the location has only two exit points and those are onto local streets which is not sufficient for that site and the local residents if it is rezoned.

The lack of parking on site will certainly overflow into the surrounding residential streets. This clutters our streets with vehicles and eliminates our much-appreciated street sweeping.

The impact of this development on home values in this area, while unknown is most likely to be a reduction in value for all who live here. Something that no one who has invested in their home would want to have happen.

Christian and Janelle Clark
609 Arundel Rd
Goleta, CA 93117

From: Marret Krebs <[email protected]>
Date: July 25, 2023 at 3:22:50 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Kyle Richards <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>, James Kyriaco <[email protected]>, Luz Reyes-Martin <[email protected]>, Jennifer Smith <[email protected]>, Jennifer Smith <[email protected]>, Katie Maynard <[email protected]>, Jennifer Fullerton <[email protected]>, Anne Miller <[email protected]>, Jason Chapman <[email protected]>
Subject: Dara Road Rezoning

To: Our City Council Members and the Planning Commissioners My husband and I are in strong opposition to the rezoning of Dara Rd. from RS to RH.

Adding 127 units on such a small site that is surrounded by single family homes does not make any sense to us. We understand that a project of this magnitude would require at least three or even four story buildings. These units would look down into adjacent single-family homes, robbing our privacy and adversely impacting our property values.
127 units would increase parking astronomically in our neighborhood! There could be upward of 250 vehicles! Where on earth would they park? Our street on Arundel is already inundated with cars from people now visiting the new park which we were told won’t be a problem after a couple of months. This is still a problem.

We have not been notified about these changes to the Dara Rd. rezoning. Thorough public notification needs to be given to our community in a timely manner. This has NOT been done. We have not received written notification via flyers nor emails or texts.

Our understanding is that your Design Review Board’s required findings will prohibit the approval of any high or medium density development on Dara Road:

1. The development will be compatible with the neighborhood, and its size, bulk and scale will be appropriate to the site and the neighborhood.

2. The development demonstrates a harmonious relationship with existing adjoining development.

3. The project’s architecture will respect the privacy of neighbors, is considerate of private views, and is protective of solar access off site.

These findings demonstrate good planning practice and should be incorporated by your Council and Commission as you address housing and impacts to adjacent constituents of our city.

Please choose a more appropriate site for high density development. 625 Dara Road is NOT an appropriate site!
Sincerely,
Mrs. Marret Krebs & William Krebs
From: Amy Chesluk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 3:02 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Subject: I support high density housing at Kenwood Village I am writing to express my strong support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site. It's the perfect infill property as it surrounded on three sides by dense housing, and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side. We need workforce housing in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units. Please support the approval of housing at the Kenwood Village location.

Thank you,
Amy Chesluk
From: Timothy Figueroa
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:26:14 PM
Dear Goleta Council and Planning Committee,
I am writing in opposition of the proposed Kenwood Village project. I have lived here my entire life and driven to neighboring friends in the El Encanto Heights community. It has always been admired for its custom homes, beautiful parks, open spaces and family-friendly communities. I often play Frisbee golf with friends and Calle Real is the main route up and over by Brandon School.

Calle Real is an extremely busy road with minimal room for bikes and pedestrian access and fast moving cars that pose a danger as it is. If you bring a High-Density community onto this road, you are asking for additional crime, traffic, accidents, noise, etc.

A better option for this land would be an open space with a bike path to re-direct bikes to the upper neighborhoods and off of Calle Real. Something that would allow the children in the homes along Calle Real to bike/walk to school safely and for people to walk their dogs. Maybe put in a farm stand or a community garden there instead.

There are plenty of other sites, including the 7780 Hollister location that would allow better transportation, neighboring business, walking distance to a school, grocery stores, etc. as well as the larger, 7190 Hollister location & surrounding parcels. Why would this parcel only have a proposed 59 units when it's greater than 10 acres? A community of this size needs to REALLY be considered for an area better suited for it.

Best,
Tim Figueroa
From: Sven Klein
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I support high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:33:01 PM
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.

Dear Goleta City Council:

I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site.

It’s the perfect infill
property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side.

We
need workforce housing in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units.

Please support the
approval of housing at the Kenwood Village location.

Sincerely,
Sven H. Klein
805-284-9930 - Office
805-455-1816 - Mobile
From: Gabriela Ponce
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I support high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:17:39 PM
Hi,
I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site. It’s the perfect infill property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side. We need workforce housing in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units. Please support the approval of housing at the Kenwood Village location.

Thank you!!!
Gabriela

From: Aby Garibay
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I support high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:20:17 PM
My name is Aby Garibay. I’m writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site. It’s the perfect infill property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side. We need workforce housing in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units. Please support the approval of housing at the Kenwood Village location. I’ve been a long time Goleta residence and this is what our community needs and wants. Thank you for considering your residence’s needs in this matter.

Best Regards,
Aby Garibay

From: Will Hall
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:28:42 PM
To whom it may concern,
I support high density housing at Kenwood Village. I believe there is a shortage of affordable housing here in our community.

I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site. It’s the perfect infill property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side. We need workforce housing in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units. Please support the approval of housing at the Kenwood Village location.

Thank you!!!
William Hall
Hall Contracting Corp
805.896.0874
From: julie gibson
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Proposed development on Pacific Oaks
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:31:05 PM
Attachments: IMG_1522.PNG
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.

Sent from my iPhone
I have lived in the II UVA HOA neighborhood for 37 years…I cannot attend the Goleta City Council meeting tonight so I am submitting the above reasons why this is a HORRIBLE idea in general and will have a HARMFUL, NEGATIVELY impact on our residents.

NO TO MORE DEVELOPMENTS IN GOLETA !!!!!
From: Kipp Young
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Support for Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:19:54 PM
[email protected]
As a Goleta resident, I am writing in support of high density housing at Kenwood Village site.

It seems like a good spot for higher density urban infill being that it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side.

We do need
workforce housing in Goleta and it should be accommodated somewhere. I urge you to support and approve housing at the Kenwood Village location.

Sincerely,
Kipp Young
361 Ravenscroft Drive
Goleta, CA
--
Best,
Kipp Alan Young, MD, FACEP
From: Brian Sperling
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Supporting Housing at Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:13:28 PM
Hello,
I am writing to share my support of housing at the Kenwood Village site. I believe that it is an ideal location to provide additional housing for a growing workforce in Goleta. It is also a valuable investment in our growing Goleta economy.

Thank you,
Brian
--
Brian C. Sperling
From: Jared Ingram
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I support high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:57:24 PM
I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site.

It’s
the perfect infill property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side.

We need workforce housing in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units.

Please support the approval of housing at the
Kenwood Village location.

Thank you!!!
JARED
::::::mobile::::::
805.455.7967
Comment Letter: July 25, 2023

Special City Council\Planning Commission Workshop
Goleta City Council
Goleta Planning Commission

RE: Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session

Dear Council Members and Planning Commissioners,
I am in agreement with the 50 plus neighbors in the Andamar Park area that attended a “meeting in the park” last evening that upzoning 625 Dara Road to High Density Residential, or even Medium Density Residential, would have impacts inconsistent with city and state goals. For example, it would increase automobile Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). No employment centers are adjacent to 625 Dara and bus routes to employment centers on the South Coast from this residential neighborhood are limited. So travel would be by automobile.

Access to retail centers which are close but not immediately adjacent would also be by automobile.

Consequently, the project would increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions and be inconsistent with the State’s Climate Action Plan for Transportation Infrastructure.

I’m also in agreement with the Andamar Park neighbors who would welcome development of the property under the current zoning of 625 Dara Road as Single Family Residential. This would be context sensitive to the neighborhood’s character and transportation infrastructure while still providing much needed additional housing in Goleta. The total number of new units that could be constructed if accessory dwellings are considered would be (I believe) between 12 and 38. Considering the distance between 625 Dara and employment centers and retail, it would seem that some development, but not too much to exacerbate VMT, would strike the right balance.

I’m concerned that so long as the Andamar Park neighbors are not on the same page as the City Council, Planning Commission and City Staff with regard to 625 Dara, the City’s entire effort to get a Housing Element accepted by the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) will be sunk. I can foresee this coalition of neighbors taking its concerns directly to the State’s Department of Housing and Community Development, by letter, phone and even meetings in Sacramento. I can foresee the neighbors asking HCD directly to reject the City’s revised Housing Element because 625 Dara is not a “buildable” location for high- density housing in the next 8 years due to neighborhood opposition and inconsistency with local and state goals. In the interim, as HCD considers the neighborhood’s concerns and evaluates the revised Housing Element, the neighbors will use the time to become more organized and perhaps even hire legal representation in anticipation of the City having to prepare a new iteration of the Housing Element later this year.

To avoid this conflict, I would ask that you leave 625 Dara “as-is” at this time and explore the neighborhood’s tolerance for higher than currently approved housing densities through outreach and meetings for the next go- round of the Regional Housing Needs and Housing Element cycle. Perhaps with a “visioning” process, some compromise might be able to be reached with the neighbors, City, and property owner. At the meeting in the park, Councilmember Kyriaco mentioned the Valle Verde senior housing complex in the Hidden Valley area of Santa Barbara as high density but not having impacts like a high density project. Let’s take the time to have more discussions about developments of this sort, perhaps including a tour of Valle Verde, and see if we can’t all get on the same page for the next RHNA and Housing Element update cycle.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,

Steve VanDenburgh
5731 Cathedral Oaks Rd.

From: Kenneth Crisenberry
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 5:09:27 PM
Sent from my iPad
Dear City Council Members,
First of all, thank you all for your time and efforts to support the community with this need for additional housing.

Although I am in support for additional housing in Goleta, I am writing in opposition of the proposed Kenwood Village project.

I have lived in Santa Barbara and
Goleta my entire life and my daughter and her family, including my grandchildren live on Baker Lane.

Calle Real is a very busy road with minimal lighting, minimal room for bikes and unsafe pedestrian routes with gaps in the sidewalks.

I fear for my family as it is because there have
been numerous accidents there and it isn’t safe for the kids to play in their own front yard.

A High-Density residential area on this road in my opinion, is a bad idea.

I implore you as a
Mother and Grandmother to please look at an alternate location off the Hollister/Fairview/Los Carneros and away from the Glenn Annie Freeway ramps.

This project will bring crime,
additional vehicles on the neighboring streets with minimal parking as it is, the accidents, and noise.

It will also remove some of the limited remaining open space and agricultural land that we have in this area!
There are so many families with pets and children in this area that would love a path that connects to the parks and streets behind and parallel to Calle Real.

Many of these streets are
dead-ends and it would be great for the children to be able to safely travel to school or the park without having to ride on a very busy Calle Real.

Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Respectfully submitted,
Rachel P. CRISENBERRY
July 25, 2023 Study Session Continuation on Rezoning for the Housing Element

Members of Goleta City Council:

The State of California’s Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook dated June 2020, has an example on page 13, for City X.

It reads in part:

Provide Adequate Sites for Lower Income Households on Non-vacant and Vacant Sites Previously Identified….

Objective: Create opportunity for at least X units of rental housing for lower income households
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeline: Sites rezoned by (a specific date, no more than three years from the beginning of the planning period)

Goleta Planning Staff’s schedule of events implied that there would be a need for immediate rezoning of identified parcels.

The City Council has three years from the time our Housing Plan was adopted to rezone parcels. There is one year left.

The council and planning department need only recommend zoning changes, not rezone right away. This action would allow staff to go throughout our city and seek other sites that are smaller, or zoned commercial and ready to change.

This would also allow staff time to evaluate the degree to which a site meets the state’s HCD standards for low income housing.

There is no point in making rezones which may not be needed. Reckless haste will only stir anger in our community. Goleta has never built a high density / low income project, so why not make every effort to get this right?

Council should direct staff to list all of the proposed sites. There are more than enough units to get the Housing Element passed. You have another year to refine site selections without making panic-driven zoning changes.

Or you could panic, tear Goleta apart, and stir up so much animosity that the community reacts by sending protests and challenges to Tristan Lanza of Housing and Community Development, thus driving you past the February deadline.

Karen Lovelace
Goleta resident

From: Maryam Salafian
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I support high Density housing at Kenwood village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 6:15:00 PM
Hi ,
I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site. It’s the perfect infill property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side. We need workforce housing in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units. Please support the approval of housing at the Kenwood Village location.

Thank you!!!
Sent from my iPhone
From: Max Tyler
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: I support high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 6:09:05 PM
To Goleta City Council,
I am writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site.

It’s
the perfect infill property as it is surrounded on 3 sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side.

We need workforce housing in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units.

Please support the approval of housing at the
Kenwood Village location.

Thank you,
Max Tyler
From: Susan Clayton
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village Prosed Housing Project
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 5:42:20 PM
To City of Goleta
The proposal to build 280 units is way to high a density for 9.48 acres! I can understand the need for more affordable housing, especially low income housing. This is a good site for maybe 60 units with available parking.

But 280 is
way too high.

I hope you will reconsider this proposal.

Thank you,
Susan Clayton
230 Salisbury Ave, Goleta, CA 93117
From: dan lord
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 8:53:48 PM
City of Goleta,
I am writing in

support of the proposed workforce housing at Kenwood

Village .

This seems an ideal site for dense housing. It is bordered by other high density housing and is near shopping. The housing is badly needed if we are going to

have a strong local workforce. As a long time business owner , I can tell you that

the difficult

rental market affects the availability

of workers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Dan Lord