Public Comment Received — Goleta City Council, July 31, 2023

From: Drew Pearson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 5:12 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on City Council/Planning Commission Workshop for 7/31 I would ask the City Council to consider the value of leaving some spaces alone.

It is challenging to argue for the intrinsic value of non-development when weighed against tax revenue and potential praise for addressing housing challenges.

Using Douglas Preserve as an example, it seems that unless a community action group or wealthy benefactor puts an even higher dollar amount on conservation and out-bids a developer, then the default state is to develop every time. Regardless of the ethics, the money determines the winner.

I realize that, aesthetically, this little 10 acre vacant lot is not going to galvanize public support, it would be tough to make a t-shirt or postcard out of the views, but it's home to some of the limited wildlife suburban Goleta offers and there is nothing on it, which is a minor miracle.

I propose that this parcel be a candidate for community conservation purchase (a la Douglas Preserve) so there can be an opportunity to vote through dollars for its use.

Thank you for your time!
From: Michelle Wiesen <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 3:18 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Subject: High density housing on Calle Real!
Dear City of Goleta,
Having lived in the North West part of Goleta for the past 45 years, we’re alarmed by the consideration of high density housing on Calle Real between the 7-11 and Barker Rd! The Glenn Annie off ramp and Calle Real frontage roads can not handle the traffic brought on by a development such as this!
Nearly 300 units are far too many for this small 9acre site! I remember years ago when this property was considered for development. The housing density was low single family units and townhomes, much much less than proposed now! There is a significant drainage problem with this property also, which may have caused reconsideration of the project. It was never developed.

Please stop forcing
high density housing on a neighborhood that can’t handle the influx of traffic and the over population of our schools, Brandon Elementary and Dos Pueblo High School.

Please say no to this horrible high density project!
Regards,
Michelle Wiesen
Sent from my iPhone
From: Gigi Lyons <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 12:56 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Peter Imhof <[email protected]>; Andy Newkirk <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Comments for July 25, 2023 Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting (2023- 2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning
Dear City 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 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!
Gladys Lyons
7761 Sora Court
Goleta, CA 93117
(805)562-3586
Phone Comment Received 7/27/2023 at 8:32 a.m.

Felicia Saunders, Local Resident
Vehemently opposed for so many reasons including traffic concerns, housing density, changing the character of Goleta, impact on the environment and there is not enough water to support the housing.

F
rom: Paula Bagalio <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 8:10 AM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Cc: Paula Bagalio <[email protected]>
Subject: 625 Dara Rd housing plan
Hi All;
Thank you for your service to our community.

I am writing to express my concern for the proposed high density housing (RM) that is being seriously discussed for this Dara Rd property. I live at 680 Dara Rd and have since 1988. I was present at the entire city council meeting last night and I now have a good understanding of the difficulties facing our community to meet the requirements for certification for the State.

That said I must state some of my objections to this project

1. Medium or high density is just too many people on too small of a property.

2. The roads in and out of the plot of land will not handle the traffic load of another 2-3 hundred potential cars. Also Cathedral Oaks Rd which is the closest main artery currently carries dense traffic at certain times, it has curves that makes a left turn from Dara quite dangerous and indeed there have been accidents here. Drivers tend to drive over the speed limit on Cathedral Oaks Rd.

3. Our Kellog school will have a really difficult time handling the additional students

4. The land is not close to public transportation nor is it walking distance to grocery stores or pharmacies. The bus line that used to run about every hour on Cathedral Oaks is currently not active. 5 Lastly and least important for the overall idea of the need for housing but still a huge impact for people who live in the area, is that the parcel of land is surrounded by single family homes and this project will change the character of this neighborhood irrevocably. This parcel is elevated and any structures built on it will block views of mountains as well.

My preference would be to keep the parcel as single family homes, I realize that may not happen but high density would be a big mistake in my opinion. Medium density would be a compromise Respectfully
Paula Bagalio
From: Frank DiMarco
To: Housing Element
Cc: Paula Perotte; Stuart Kasdin
Subject: Revised Comment on Goleta Housing Element east of 7190 Hollister Avenue Date: Thursday, July 27, 2023 8:09:49 AM

Re: Opposition to Possible Development at Hollister Avenue and Pacific Oaks Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members,
We would like to express our emphatic opposition to any housing development in the delicate Endangered Species Habitat and
fragile creek area located on the North side of Hollister Avenue at the intersection of Pacific Oaks Avenue, east of 7190 Hollister Avenue.

This particular parcel should become a City of Goleta Public Park with a cleanup of the creek area and the planting of shade trees.

Alternatively, it could become a Community Garden.

This Endangered Species Habitat Area (ESHA) should not be the site of housing and and City of Goleta should apply rigorous Environmental Impact
requirements that would discourage development thereon. This area should be removed from the Goleta Housing Element matrix.

We request that this comment be part of the Public Comments on the Housing Element.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Frank DiMarco and Lucinda Anderson
7115 Georgetown Road
Goleta CA 93117
Tel. 503.358.8119
Email:
[email protected]
July 27, 2023
Dear City of Goleta,
We are writing this letter in opposition to the proposed zoning change at 625 Dara Rd in Goleta to medium/high density residential. We are well aware of the ongoing housing crisis and can appreciate the challenges associated with providing a remedy. However, I hope we can all agree that the key to making good and rational decisions is to be adequately informed about the potential implications of these decisions. At this stage, we have serious reservations about whether our community can support this change. The following outline a few of concerns:
- Traffic: The parcel under consideration is embedded within a quiet residential community. The two main streets feeding this parcel (Dara and Arundel) do not even have lights at Cathedral Oaks.

Further, the intersection of Arundel and Stow Canyon does not even have a stop sign. I do not see how this neighborhood can withstand such an influx of housing units without significantly increasing traffic and major infrastructural changes.
- Schools: The addition of the tree farm community 5 years ago severely impacted our local schools as Kellogg Elementary School saw a surge in growth due to the new families moving into the area.

Can our local schools handle this new influx of families? - Safety: This is a single family residential neighborhood and a great deal of elementary school kids walking/riding their bikes to school every day , passing this parcel. These additional unit s undoubtedly pose a safety risk to our children due to the increase in traffic. - Geography: The parcel under consideration sits much higher than the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. Can you imagine what a multi-story building would look like in this community? It would tower over the rest of the neighborhood, take away people ’s privac y, and just be inconsistent with the feel of our neighborhood.

Where are the formal studies outlining how such a development will impact our community? What reassurances can you provide that this new development will not negatively impact our community? Just because the parcel is available for rezoning does not mean it is the right location to do this. I urge all of you to pause this decision so that ade quate studies can be performed to understand the potential implications on our community before moving forward. This is definitely the option you would pursue if this parcel was in your own neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jason and Nancy Marden
632 Dara Rd
From: Gerald Mielcarek <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 7:48 AM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: Development on 625 Dara Rd.

I Gerald Mielcarek a 30+ year resident of 5654 Stow Cyn. Rd. Request the noted development be refused in total . It does NOT FIT THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD ! Sent from my iPad
From: Frank DiMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 4:11 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on Goleta Housing Element
Re: Opposition to Possible Development at Hollister Avenue and Pacific Oaks Dear City Council and Planning Commission Members,
We would like to express our emphatic opposition to any housing development in the delicate Endangered Species Habitat and
fragile creek area located on the North side of Hollister Avenue at the intersection of Pacific Oaks Avenue.

This particular parcel should become a City of Goleta Public Park with a cleanup of the creek area and the planting of shade trees.

This Endangered Species Habitat Area (ESHA) should not be the site of housing the City of Goleta should apply rigorous Environmental Impact
requirements that would discourage development thereon. This area should be removed from the Goleta Housing Element matrix.

We request that this comment be part of the Public Comments on the Housing Element.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Frank DiMarco and Lucinda Anderson
7115 Georgetown Road
Goleta CA 93117
Tel. 503.358.8119
Email: [email protected]
F
rom: Ilana Goldflam <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 2:39 PM
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>; Luz Reyes-Martin <[email protected]>; City Clerk Group <[email protected]>; Deborah Lopez <[email protected]> Subject: Comment on Dara Housing Project
Please pass this on to other council and planning commission members before the next meeting. Thank you.

Dear Council Members,
We are writing to you after viewing the planning commission’s discussion of the proposed high density housing at 625 Dara Road. We live nearby on Andamar Way.

Although some council members felt that the area around this project is full of privileged people only concerned for ourselves, I feel that some of the council members’ comments about the proposal’s shortcomings show their own privileges. The Calle Real shopping center (which was characterized as a “downtown” that sounds like much more than it is) contains the nearest grocery store and is a ~0.9 mile walk for those without a car. Sprouts, the only other grocery store in the neighborhood, is a ~1.1 mile walk each way. This is a pleasant enough walk for a healthy person with no mobility limitations going to dinner, but not to walk with heavy bags of groceries every time you need food, let alone for anyone who can’t easily walk 2 miles round trip on a regular basis. There’s nothing closer, not even a gas station convenience store.

It also seems as though the inconvenience of public transport in this area is being underestimated or ignored. The airport is less than 10 minutes drive away but requires a 15 minute walk plus 2 buses by public transport. UCSB similarly requires a 15 minute walk plus 2 buses to get somewhere that is only 10 minutes away by car. Even the bus that goes to the transit center downtown is a 15 minute walk away plus 50 minutes by bus. We realize it’s not the city of Goleta’s fault that the state is pushing for housing without also pushing for necessary improvements to public transportation, but it feels extremely shortsighted to build so much housing in an area that is not very accessible without a car.

If a large number of new residents move into this area with cars, parking and driving will become an absolute disaster. There is already often poor visibility on the streets due to parked cars and curving roads, and increased traffic would undoubtedly result in accidents, including among children walking to
Kellogg School. This is not even taking into account traffic on Cathedral Oaks and at the freeway entrances on Patterson Ave, which has already been affected by the large amount of housing built on or around Patterson. On the other hand, if residents don’t have cars, they will struggle to get where they want to go while waiting for improved availability of public transport that may or may not materialize at some point in the future, and will be inconvenienced by the lack of nearby shopping.

W
hile we understand the urgent need for more housing, placing high density housing in this location would be a detriment not only to current residents but to new residents of the proposed project. There must be better options.

S
incerely,
Ilana, Rudolf and Tamar Goldflam
From: Lynn Darnton
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Comments Re: Housing Element Update, 7190 Hollister Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 10:15:53 AM
Hello,
My name is Lynn Darnton and I am the President of the Second University Village HOA located 1 block west of Pacific Oaks and Hollister. I am acutely aware of the housing shorting in Goleta, particularly low income housing. I understand that we need to respond to that need with additional housing!
On the other hand, as HOA President, I feel an obligation to represent the interests of our 269 homeowners who will be impacted by your decision regarding the zoning of the property at 7190 Hollister. I alerted the HOA homeowners about the July 25 meeting on Monday afternoon and posted about it on NextDoor.

In the first 24 hours,
I heard back from 8 people, 6 against rezoning 7190 Hollister for development and 2 supporting.

Those who objected were primarily concerned about traffic.

The freeway on and off
ramps at Glen Annie/Storke Road are already extremely busy. Huge lines of cars wait to turn left onto Storke from Hollister, and also to turn left to exit the freeway.

Additional housing could require additional freeway access lanes and suddenly I’ll be back in my experience of living in Los Angeles, which I was so happy to leave.

One of the delights of my daily life is turning left onto Pacific Oaks from my neighborhood. Each and every time, the view of the mountain brings a surge of gratefulness and appreciation, and the thought “I’m so glad I live here”. A multi-story housing complex would eliminate that view corridor.

I’m wondering what else we can do to more creatively address the low income housing need. I attended a lecture recently by Charles Montgomery about Happy Cities. He pointed out that the suburbs are not conducive to human well-being.

Humans do better with more human interaction. Perhaps we could find ways to incentivize ADU’s or multi-generational housing instead of conventional apartments. I understand that your need to comply with the state regulations is immediate, but perhaps we can slow down and find some deeper, more creative solutions.

I learned from Stuart Kasdin that you have reached the required minimum additional housing units required by the state, with margin.

I request that you not include 7190
Hollister in your rezoning plans at this time.

Thank you,
Lynn Darnton
310-462-8003
From: Mike Ferrone
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Housing at the Kenwood Village site (Goleta)
Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 10:43:21 AM
To whom it may concern:

I’m writing to express my support for high density housing at the Kenwood Village site. It seems to be the ideal infill property since it’s surrounded on three sides by dense housing and fronts Calle Real and the freeway on the other side. Our community needs real workforce housing in Goleta and this is a perfect site to accommodate some of these units. I ask that you please support the approval of housing at the Kenwood Village location.
-Mike
Mike Ferrone • Senior Account Executive
O 805.690.3731 M 805.895.2062
www.curvature.com
Curvature Overstock - access industry-leading products at remarkable prices 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: Marge Mielcarek <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 7:33 AM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed development on 625 Dara Rd.

As a nearby resident on Stow Canyon Rd.

I want the city to know I totally oppose the planned development of some 127 units on said property. The traffic and noice from such a large development in our neighborhood is so inappropriate.

Mrs. Margaret Mielcarek
Sent from my iPhone
From: kevin zoltan
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Date: Wednesday, July 26, 2023 6:33:20 AM
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 kenwood vilage
Kevin Zoltan
Sent from my iPhone
From: Gordon Smythe
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Subject example - I support high density housing at Kenwood Village Date: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 5:36:57 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 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,
Gordon Smythe

From: Linda Barnhart
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 4:45 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Rezoning of 625 Dara Road in Kellogg Neighborhood TO: Deborah Lopez, City Clerk: [email protected] RE: City of Goleta Rezoning Request or 625 Dara Road Parcel July 25, 2023, Goleta City Council Meeting - Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session
FROM: Linda Plambek Barnhart & Birthe Plambek: [email protected] Stow Canyon Road Residence since 1993
PURPOSE: WE OBJECT TO THIS REZONING REQUEST
We have substantial concerns regarding the proposed rezoning and believe the decision should not be passed for the following reasons:

1. Is there a planning proposal available for public review?

2. This residential high density rezoning request contradicts the existing neighborhood plan.

3. Excessive traffic congestion and safety on roads not build or designed for a large influx of cars.

4. Further overcrowding of Kellogg Elementary School is likely. Has an educational impact study has been conducted?

5. Has an Environmental impact of the planned development been assessed? The issues above, and more, are vitally important to the residents of the neighborhood.

Additionally, 625 Dara Drive it not a realistic site for affordable housing needs, the likelihood of being truly affordable upon completion is very unrealistic. This property is better suited to the original Residential Single Family zoning designation vs. the proposed High Density Residential zoning, helping the existing residence of the area maintain their home/property values .

We, along with most of the neighborhood, respectfully insist that this rezoning request be denied.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

From: Andrea Speciale <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 10:12 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Building on land on Calle Real
Dear City Council Members,
I do not support building any housing on this property, let alone multiple housing units. This area already experiences many dangers for people walking or biking in the area, as well as wildlife (this small patch of land is home to wildlife and is a much needed home for them. Multiple times cars turning on to Calle Real are getting hit because of traffic not allowing them to turn for several minutes.

The traffic has become ridiculous at the signal for
Calle Real and Storke/Glen Annie. It sometimes takes me 5 minutes or more to get through this intersection. People are being pushed to their limit with all the changes we are experiencing in our society. Another contributing factor is multiple people having to share housing in order to afford living here. I have lived in this neighborhood for 22 years and already experience more traffic, more crime and a lack of social decency Also, there will be a much higher impact on our infrastructure, which as you know is already stretched to capacity.

Please do not pass this!
Andrea Speciale
From: April Reid <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 6:35 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Objection to rezoning Kenwood Village
Attachments: KenwoodVillageobjections1.pdf
Dear City Council and City Clerk:

This paragraph is to everyone in the public reading my e‐mail. I e‐mailed Tristan Lanza at the State Housing and Community Development. He stated, “[Y]ou may send your prepared comment to the housing element inbox, [email protected] The inbox will record your comment and it will also be shared with the City.” I was told it is best to send your comments in early so the State has a chance to consider it.

It is my understanding that I need to include all arguments in my written or oral statements to the City Council. Otherwise, I will not be able to use those arguments in the future for whatever I may need to do. Therefore, I am trying to include as much as I can, though I am not an expert on what issues need to be stated or how to express those issues.

As I stated in my last e‐mail, it is hard to make objections to the Kenwood Village Project when the owner has shared drawings/plans with at least one member of the City Council, but those drawings/plans have not been shared with the general public.

Some people have stated that the Kenwood Village Project should be rezoned because they allege the project is ready to go and can be built soon. However, the current plans for the Kenwood Village Project only had 60 housing units. It is my understanding that new plans would have to be developed and approved for 284 housing units. Thus, it will take time for the new Kenwood Village Project to be competed. Further, after that, it may not even be approved.

I also think the high density housing should be spread out throughout the City. West Goleta should not have to bear the brunt of the majority of new high density housing and rezoning.

In addition, I was told by someone that if a project will not be approved at a later date by the City, it should not be included in the list of housing units to be sent to the State.

Further, I was told that once a certain number of units is approved for a particular project, it is very difficult to then reduce the number of units at a future date. So, it is important to stop the 284 housing units now, before the property is rezoned.

Also, regarding the properties discussed at the last meeting, if there is a housing project submitted by developers/owners that the City Council believes are reputable and the people of Goleta do not object, then the property should be rezoned to high density housing. For example, there were certain properties on Hollister that the owners wanted to convert to high density housing. This housing would be consistent with the design of the Hollister area, which is primarily commercial property and multi‐unit housing. Further, I have been to that area multiple times, and I have never had a problem with traffic that would prevent the properties in question from being developed. The City Council should consider all sites that are being proposed. If a reputable owner/developer wants to build high density housing in a certain area and the public does not object, the property should be included in the list of properties to be sent to the State. At the very least, it would decrease the number of housing units needed in other areas.

Further, the Kenwood Village land is partially zoned agricultural land. It is my understanding that the City Council has indicted they were not going to use agricultural land as part of their housing unit count, though I could be mistaken. Previous owners successfully grew pumpkins and tomatoes on the property. There is no reason the land can not be used for agricultural purposes.

Also, developing on the land will likely kill many of the land animals on the vacant property. For example, ever since I was little, I have seen garter snakes on the vacant property and on my property at 15 Baker Lane. The Kenwood Village Document states that these garter snakes are liste d by the California Department of Fish and Game as “sensitive.” I have also seen many birds of prey in the area over the years. The Kenwood Village Residential Project Scoping Document states that, “[s]ite development would eliminate approximately 10 aces of non‐native grassland that has some value as foraging ha bitat for birds of prey.” There are also additional animals in the field, such as mice, skunks, rabbits, chipmunks, raccoons and opossums. I have also seen evidence of moles. Building houses with paved streets would essentially destroy the habitat for the garter snakes. It would also prevent the birds of prey from fi nding much needed food. In addition, it would most likely kill many of the other land animals that currently live in the vacant property since there are no other places for them to easily escape to in the area. I have learned that, throughout the years, over 30 skunks wer e caught on or near the field and re‐homed to a different site. Despite this, I can tell from my security camera located on my property at the opposite end of the Kenwood Village property from El Encanto Creek by the different markings on the skunks that there are still well over 40 additional skunks s till living in the field. There are also well over 30 opossums, 15 different raccoons, 10 different chipmunks, multiple moles and a rabbit living in the field. This is well up from the number of animals I counted in 2019. I am sure there are also many more a nimals that I do not see because they do not come onto my property.

There are also rare plants and shrubs that would be destroyed by removing them to make way for large duplexes and triplexes.

In addition, the traffic on Calle Real near Baker Lane is terrible and dan gerous.  It is my understanding it is already considered one of the most dangerous intersections in Goleta.  There is only one lane of traffic in each direction on Calle Real at Baker Lane.  I noticed that the road curves to the right after Baker Lane going toward the 7‐11 and ther e is no view of the edge of the street going toward 7‐11 on Calle Real at the intersection of Baker Lane. I spent several days standing on Calle Real at Baker Lane.  As I watched the cars drive on Calle Real and next to Calle Real on the US 101 Highway, I no
ticed that the cars on the Highway were not passing the cars on Calle Real.  Thus, it appears the cars on Calle Real were driving as fast as the cars on the US 101 Highway, which means they were driving at least 65 miles per hour, despite what the actual speed limit on Calle Re
al is.  Though I am not an expert, I would submit that the cars coming around the curve at 65 miles per hour plus may not all have the time/feet to stop before hitting any cars that have stopped/slowed down to turn right into any roa d that goes into Kenwood Village.  As a result, there would be even more accidents/injuries/fatalities on Calle Real near Baker Lane.

As it is, the intersection of Calle Real and Baker Lane is already listed as dangerous, with many accidents/fatalities. Documentation of the newspaper articles is attached. The following is ju st a short list of accidents at or near that intersection:
‐ On October, 28, 2008, the Santa Barbara News Press printed an article stating, “[A]uthorities said Monday that” a man “was traveling east on Calle Real near Baker Lane when his vehicle went off the right shoulder, hit a tree an d rolled onto its roof.”. . . “[H]e was pronounced dead at the scene.” . . . “[T]he area near the crash scene has been the site of several fatal incidents including two people killed in a car crash.” ‐On or about April 26, 2020, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Of fice reported that they responded to the “area of Calle Real at Violet Lane on a report of a bicyclist that had been hit by a vehicle. The victim and the suspect were both traveling eastbound on Calle Real when the suspect’s vehicle struck the victim.” . . . “[T]he victim was conf irmed deceased prior to the deputies’ arrival.”
‐Meanwhile, at the accident scene (listed above), a sheriff’s patrol vehicle, blocking the road at Baker Lane was struck by another vehicle, whose driver is suspected if being DUI.

In addition, at the last meeting, the City Council me ntioned that certain developers/owners had a good reputation in the community for the projects they built.  If that is something that is important to the City Council, then the property owner of Kenwood Village should be seriously scrutinized for his lack of attention to the Kenwood Village property.  To the best of my re
collection, all the previous property owners were very diligent about mowing the entire vacant property.  However, ever since 2009, there is documentation that the property owner has not taken care of the property.  He has consistently allowed the weeds to grow extremely tall, and rarely mowed the field, eve n after he had been repeatedly asked to mow the field.  There have been brush fires that started on the property and the property owner has even received a warning for not mowing the field.  Affordable housing should not mean substandard housing.  If the property owner can not even take care of an empty field, then how can he be truste d to build quality housing on the property.  If he can not take care of a vacant field, he should not be rewarded by being allowed to build housing on the property.  Even worse, the last I checked, the property owner wants to charge an HOA fee to the homeowners/renters to take care of the exterior portions of the property.  Can the City really make sure the exterior of the property is taken care of after the property owner receiving th e HOA fees, especially since he is not taking care of the property now?  The issues with mowing the vacant property are detailed in the attached documents.  They are as follows:
‐My mom lived at 15 Baker Lane, Goleta, CA. 93117 since 1966 until her death on February 2, 2012.  It is my understan
ding my mom went to at least one City Council hearing regarding Kenwood Village, if not more. She wrote notes for her presentation at the hearing, most likely for the June 22, 2009 hearing, though your records should have the exact date.  The note my mom wrote regar ding weed abatement is as follows:  Number 4 on the list states, “[I]t is past the deadline for weed abatement and this property hasn’t been cleared as the Bishop ranch has been.  As we all know about the fires I don’t want this area to burn”.
‐On November 14, 2013, KEYT News Team wrote an article about a br ush fire behind my home.  The picture that was published shows the weeds were grown taller than the firefighter fighting the fire.  The article states, “[I]nvestigator’s believe someone smoking marijuana in an open field may have stated a brush fire in Goleta T hursday afternoon”.  The blaze was “behind homes along Tuolumne Drive and Baker Lane near Calle Real.”. . . “[O]ne acre burned.  A power pole was damaged.”  “[S]ome homes along Baker and Tuolumne were evacuated as a precaution.”  I was one of the resident that was evacuated.  Further, the power pole that was damaged was right next to my re ntal property at 17 Baker Lane. ‐On June 20, 2016, I e‐mailed the property owner regarding mowing the weeds on his property.  I wrote, “[F]urther, you can’t even bother to take care of the property as it is.  When there was a fire on your proper ty at the back of 17 Baker Lane in November 2013, and my rental house almost burnt down, the news took pictures of the site of the fire.  The pictures showed that the weeds were over a feet taller than the firemen.  Then, a few days ago, one of my nei ghbors had to complain about the weeds again just so you would mow part of the property.  If you can’t take care of the property before anything is built, why should anyone believe you would take care of the property when you are building on it?”
‐In or about June 2016, I contac ted the Fire Department to complain about the weeds on the Kenwood Village property.  I was told that the Fire Department issued the property owner a warning the prior year because the weeds were too tall.
‐On August 29, 2016, I e‐mailed to the prop erty owner a Complaint of garage and weeds on his property behind my house at 17 Baker Lane.  The e‐mail stated in part “[T]here is a lot of weeds, trash and garbage gathering up.  One of the neighbors even mentioned it.  If you own it, please clean it up.” . . .  “I am talki ng about the property between the fence on 17 Baker Lane after the property slopes down, where the property becomes level the the(sic) rest of your field.”  The property owner did not mow the field until my next door neighbor stated at a City Council meeting when the owner was present that the weeds were overgrown gain.
‐On Septemb
er 4, 2019 and December 8, 2019, I wrote a comment to the City Council, in part, to object to the weeds still being tall.  By that time, I had learned there had been TWO FIRES in the field, one on th e other side of the field near the creek in addition to the one right behind my rental property at 17 Baker Lane, Goleta, CA.  I also stated “the vast majority of the Kenwood Village property is once again overgrown and taller than most human beings.” ‐To this day, the weeds on the vast majority of the pr operty are taller than most human beings.  I took pictures of the field with my camera and I am in the process of having them developed, which will take about two weeks.

Please do not change the zoning to allow the proper ty owner to build a housing monstrosity on the property.

Thank you.

April Reid‐ owner
15 and 17 Baker Lane
Goleta, CA. 93117
From: Cathy Foy <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 3:17 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: No on Baker Lane Project
Hello,
As a long Ɵme resident of El Encanto Heights, I must oppose the building of the proposed 284 unit project.

Not only would it bring mulƟtudes of addiƟonal vehicles and traﬃc, it would change the character of the surrounding neighborhoods.

The congesƟon in the area has already increased; imagine what the movement of 500‐1000 addiƟonal people would mean to the traﬃc ﬂow of an already very busy area.

Consider the allocated resources of an already stressed area, as you ponder this project, and please vote “no.” Thank you.

Catherine Foy
El Encanto Heights

Recommendations RE: Agenda Item A.1 23-366 Continued Housing Element 2023-2031. Page - 1

DAVID GAUGHEN
7456 Evergreen Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
Telephone: (805) 985 – 7229
Email: [email protected]
July 30, 2023

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

Subj: Recommendations RE: Age nda Item A.1 23-366 Continued Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session, and No to Rezoning Kenwood Village & 625 Dara Road

Dear Madam Mayor, Council Members and Planning Commissioners:

Per the Staff Report, “Based on staff’s analysis and Housing Element revisions to address the HCD comment letter, the City has a shortfall in the lower income category of 554 units,” and “Staff suggests that the City Council and Planning Commission consider the candidate and alternative sites for rezoning.

These sites would exceed the RHNA lower income shortfall and best position the City to meet HCD requirements for Housing Element certification.”

Discussion

On or about March 09, 2023, the City agreed to spend future Measure B funding on the priorities presented below. These priorities were identified from public comments received and agreed upon by the City Council. As such, more than 81.7 % of all future Measure B funding will go to priorities other than an Affordable Housing Program. It is clear, Measure B priorities represent the future direction of Goleta as desired by its residents and agreed upon by the City Council. The State’s minimum certification requirement of requiring the City to add an additional 554 affordable housing units represents an extremely low City priority of approximately just 4.57 % of Measure B funds. It most certainly appears that the City has concluded that State certification is the only way forward instead of simply generating a Housing Element (without State certification) that is acceptable to the majority of Goleta residents.

Measure B Spending Plan

Recommendations RE: Agenda Item A.1 23-366 Continued Housing Element 2023-2031. Page - 2 Personally, in order of preference, I am strongly opposed to rezoning Kenwood Village (7264 Calle Real) and 625 Dara Road into Residential – High Density (RH) zoning with a projected combined total of 368 new units. If approved, as compared to housing developed under their current zoning status of Single Family Residential (RS)/Agricultural (AG) (Kenwood Village) and RS (625 Dara Road), rezoned housing development impacts on traffic, public facilities and services, biological resources, air and water quality, visual resources, or other environmental resources would be considerable and potentially disastrous for the City and its residents (see Goleta Municipal Code Section 17.07.030 Development Regulations, subsection A. 1 which states, “1. Required Finding. The impacts on traffic, public facilities and services, biological resources, air and water quality, visual resources, or other environmental resources would not be greater than the impacts associated with development at the base density.” This GMC section should be employed in the rezoning evaluations for the above two properties). Additionally, the City voted to pass Measure B primarily due to the condition of our streets/roads and the City’s backlog of unfunded capital improvement projects due to a lack of City funding. Obviously, if the City doesn’t have the funding to maintain what it currently owns, how can the City afford to maintain and support a much larger infrastructure in an attempt to accommodate State certification requirements. Regarding the traffic condition on Calle Real since I live on Evergreen Dr., at present I have completely given up on the Glenn Annie/Storke Road 101 off-ramp and on-ramp and prefer to drive further to enter the 101 freeway near the Sand Piper golf course and exit the 101 at the Winchester Canyon off-ramp. If 625 Dara Road is rezoned for RH development, these adjacent sections of Cathedral Oaks would also become a traffic nightmare and another City road to avoid. Additionally, I remember the level of importance that the City placed on preserving the integrity of neighborhoods, communities of interest, demographics, etc. during the work and considerations of draft maps for Voting Districts (see Public Hearing, Agenda Item C.1 “City Council Consideration of Draft Maps for City Council Voting Districts Boundaries and Sequencing for District Elections,” February 01, 2022). Why were those considerations important then but appear to be completely absent now? Furthermore, regarding Kenwood Village and as stated by numerous residents, this location is terrible for the lower income category consisting of high density housing. The two closest grocery stores are Target and Smart and Final, which, if families do not own a vehicle, will require bus stops to be placed in both directions, including a cross walk, on this narrow and extremely busy section of Callie Real. Plus, how many bags of groceries can one person transport on a bus and how many bus trips per week will be required just to buy groceries especially for the elderly and those with health issues that are unable to travel by bicycle. Walking to work or bicycling to work where? in relationship to Kenwood Village. Nevertheless, the current AG zoning classification of Kenwood Village could be used to generate local employment per GMC Section17.72.060 “Agricultural Uses” which consist of Agricultural Processing, Agricultural-Support Services, Animal Raising, Crop Cultivation, and Greenhouse. Last, does rezoning Kenwood Village and 625 Dara Road get the City closer to its Strategic Energy Plan goals of 100 % renewable power by 2030 or will the City allow something similar to the Heritage Ridge project with energy provided by existing non-renewable suppliers or grant an exemption.

As previously stated in my response on July 24, 2023 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. As such, I fear that Goleta will once again be faced with water shortages and use limitation sooner than later if multiple areas are rezoned for RH.

As previously stated in my response on July 24, 2023 regarding 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), this off-ramp becomes a parking lot with cars stopped well into the 101 freeway with our present weekday level of vehicular commuters. The rezoning of Kenwood Village

Recommendations RE: Agenda Item A.1 23-366 Continued Housing Element 2023-2031. Page - 3 would greatly exacerbate this problem and in the below screenshot Mayor Paula Perotte said, “We appreciate Caltrans working with Goleta to assure the safety of people using this key off ramp. We are glad that additional solutions are being considered for implementation in the near future.”

Recommendations

In an attempt to satisfy the realistic concerns presented by an overabundance of Goleta residents (i.e., comments not from associates of the developers using buzzwords like “workforce housing”), please forgo State certification (or find “new” alternate sites) and allow Goleta residents to decide what’s best for Goleta and Not the State or the Developers. As such, please Deny rezoning Kenwood Village and 625 Dara Road, and, if State certification is desired, please direct Staff to identify alternate sites to make up the deficit.

Respectfully,

David Gaughen
From: David Liu <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 8:04 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Housing Element 2023-2031
The Honorable Council Members,
I oppose the proposal of adding 284 housing units in the area near Calle Real between Baker Lane and 7‐11.

In this neighborhood, it takes two jobs for a middle‐class family to afford housing. That means adding over 500 commuters within a few street blocks. The area around Glen Annie and Stoke between Calle Real and Hollister is already one of the most congested areas in the county. Such a surge in additional traffic will have a severely negative impact to environment and public safety.

Therefore, I urge you to vote NO.

Respectfully,
David J. Liu
5635 Cielo Ave
805‐252‐6836
From: D.L. Shafritz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 6:46 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Opposition to Kenwood Village Project
Hello,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Kenwood Village Project. This project is much too large for the area. Calle Real is a 2‐lane frontage road, which could not sustain the additional traffic caused by that many new homes.

In addition, all the large shopping areas in this part of Goleta are on Hollister, which means that the roads leading to them would be even more congested than they are already.

I would also like to add that in an emergency situation, it would be a big problem for residents of El Encanto Heights to evacuate on 2‐lane roads, if the housing density is raised to the proposed levels, not to mention that first responders would not be able to get through the narrow streets to provide aid.

While I know that the State is pushing for more housing here, I believe that the City can find ways to do this that will have less impact on the current residents, keeping as much open space and ag space as possible. I grew up in the San Fernando Valley, which was once very rural, but development has turned it into a concrete jungle. Please do not let that happen to Goleta.

Thank you for listening,
Deborah Shafritz
[email protected]
From: Elena Copus <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2023 11:42 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: rezoning in Goleta
Dear Goleta city council members and commissioners,
I am writing to you about the proposed re‐zoning of the property 625 Dara rd. I sat through the council meeting earlier in the week and listened with outrage and disappointment and left feeling like the topic evaluating the possibility of up‐ zoning to high density was dismissed due to the urgency your decision requires. Buzzwords were misused to villainize the residents living near the property and hijacked the actual topic.

The idea that our neighborhood is not integrated is offensive and untrue. Kellogg School has long been one of the most diverse elementary schools in Goleta and parts of SB. check our percentages, it is not just white children and Hispanic children. Most other schools don't have enough of a population to warrant another classification of students. but we have for at least a decade. Then check how many children at Kellogg are socio‐economically impoverished. the quick answer is 2/3 of its population before the pandemic.

Driving by Stow Canyon and Dara rd does not give you the information to make such haphazard statements like calling out racism and saying schools North of the freeway are not integrated.

Historically building in certain areas may have been done in careless ways but not here and not now. It is why many of us have chosen to live in Goleta. The idea that our neighborhood is privileged and has not had to experience new high‐ density developments is also false.

We have had the Christmas tree farm and the Knoll both on Patterson Ave. Those have all been in the 5‐10 years High density works best in areas that are larger and gives each resident space like the developments I just mentioned, We are not asking you to never build on this lot we know something will go there. we are asking you to make choices that honor the existing charm of the neighborhood. build something that adds value do not take our open space and put it in a towering concrete development.

I heard many of you have simply driven by the property. I plead with you to get out and walk the property. It is not as large as it looks on the map it is also not a level or inconspicuous lot. It sits at the top of a hill in the middle of a neighborhood whose major two driveways dump out directly across into other driveways on none‐through streets which are the major biking arteries for the school.

The flattest portion of the property meets my 2nd story ceiling. So the chance that my privacy and view will be eviscerated is 100% as will every neighboring house that is adjacent to the property.

Building 127 units or 84 is careless and will change the neighborhood forever. The approved 12 units when broken down are actually 24 residences with 12 more structures. It does not make a significant dent in your needs but it adds housing in a thoughtful way that honors Goleta's values. When the 12 houses dual living was brought to the council in 2016 it was rejected and said it did not fit as the structures were too large for the area. adding 12 houses of dual living is actually dense for this neighborhood. Each neighborhood has different design needs, restrictions, and accessibility.

Please consider a different place for your massive housing monstrosity. Cathedral Oaks and our small streets cannot accommodate a project this large. We do not have enough public transit near, it's far from the jobs and restaurants.

Every core value of Goletas is violated by any large project placed on this property.

Your job as council members and commissioners is to help create housing that makes sense for all residents, in all neighborhoods not just the ones you represent. You have voted to make 7190 Hollister High density and this was a great choice due to its location to jobs, shopping, restaurants, and walking/biking paths. And the fact that it is a flat property which will give the developer many ways to give residents privacy and outdoor areas. 625 Dara Is not large enough to produce housing that can offer residents enough indoor and outdoor space that is adequate for successful development.

These decisions though small by just a straw vote will impact all future ge nerations. Will Goleta have random ugly high‐ density developments visible for miles sprinkled all over, or will it have a city center, beach neighborhoods, rural outskirt neighborhoods, and a place for everyone?
Thank you,
Elena and Kurt Copus
From: Evelyn Senn <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 10:33 AM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 625 Dara Rd re‐zoning to RM or RH Density housing Dear City Council Members and Commisioners,
My husband and I were on Zoom last night,
It was a super long wait til we were all able to be heard. The residents in attendance were waiting to speak on a continuation of the Dara Rd issue from a prior meeting. There were great frustration amongst us that you knowing everyone wanting to speak were purposefully making everyone wait so long 4 hours, hoping some of them would leave of which some of them did, but angry and frustrated. 10pm is not a great time to do business for most people. Please consider putting things on the agenda first for those that needs to speak. That is being respectful to your residents. I have attached a few comments sent to me, so you can see what people felt Secondly it was brought to my attention that you are calling us Goleta's Montecito or Hope Ranch Privilegde group. That is beyond rude. We would all like to have a public apology.

I for one expect you as an elected representative representing me to conduct yourself with professionalism and respect for people who has questions and concerns coming to you with their issues or problems. No one needs to be bullied or intimidated for having a different opinion or questions.

Many of us are long term residents. Martin and I since 1984. We purchased our home on Arundel Rd in 1998 for $400.000. Some only paid $49.000 back in 1968. None of us could ever have anticipated real estate would escalate to the worth it has now to no fault of our own. We came to this country with nothing more than two suitcases each and some money to purchase a used car to do the American Dream 1983. We worked hard, invested hard and saved hard.

We put our kids through college, did a bunch of service in this town through Elks Lodge 613 and Rotary Club of Goleta nightime. We worked our butts off helping to beautify Dos Pueblos High raising funds to plant plants on campus organizing 100's of volunteers to do the work at no cost to the city. We pick‐up trash around the City, for community service with the Rotary Club, worked many hours on putting up Fireworks for 4th of July each year, we donate money to The Unity Shop, Food Bank, Food from the Heart to help elderly citizens and many other organisations. We support the Veterans So don't come and insult us as privileged people because we are trying to protect our assets meaning real estate or because we care deeply about our neighborhood, or because we were caught off guards not receiving such important info in a timely manner that would for ever change our lives. We only want to keep what we purchased. We are looking out for our children's safety, infrastructure failure problems, water resources, and much more. We have the right to be heard and we have the right to raise concerns or protest. That does not make us a privileged group. Please consider apologizing to us on your next meeting with us. 625 Dara rd / Stow Canyon is simply the wrong property to develop High or Medium Density buildings and the community is screaming loud because it is the right thing. Please listen to your voters. We live there. We Know.

We are located in the older part of Goleta and yes not everyone can afford to live here, true. People have been commuting for 40 + years because of it, but that is reality. We can't afford to live in Hope Ranch, Montecito, Beverly Hills or the likes either, so we don't go there. I don't consider them privileged. They earned it. Good for them. Reep what you sow.

I want you to keep in mind how much our area; Fairview to Kellogg to Patterson, provides to the city already. Maravilla and Encina Royale elder community
Elks Lodge 1100 members strong, two highly rated elementary schools. 4 churches, an athletic club, several child care facilities, a library, a farm, Condos, town houses, lots of apartments on Encina Rd, Condos. Two hotels. 1 motel, banks, a bowling ally, 5 Gas stations. Shopping, a carwash, restaurants. Storage facility and more. Our area has provided a lot to make this a city well rounded. Time to focus on other areas to not overcrowd us.

Thank you
Martin Senn
Past Rotary President of Goleta Rotary Club
From: Francis Tillotson <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2023 6:13 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village
Make sure there are 3 parking spots per unit. No more using out streets to park.

From: Heidi Steelsmith <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2023 12:22 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village is located at 7264 Calle Real
Dear Goleta City Council Members,
Recently I became aware of the above menƟoned project. It saddens me that a large scale project is even being considered for this locaƟon.

In my mind, the City is checking a box to provide for the state required housing without truly considering the impact and needs of the community.

A development of this magnitude would greatly impact traﬃc on Calle Real. Have you tried traveling this road during morning and evening commutes? In addiƟon, during large rainstorms the area has ﬂooded and cars need to turn around; can you imaging adding a minimum of 248 cars to that fray? Even though I may be parƟal to seeing that space free because I grew up here, I am sƟll vehemently opposed to such a large project due to the stress this project will place on our community. A project of this magnitude shouldn't even be considered but rather a smaller project would be more feasible. AddiƟonally, if the rumor I've heard is true and this development wouldn't provide for parking for these residences, the impact of the addiƟonal cars would be a grave outcome to the area. Most families have more vehicles than members so this exponenƟal car impact to the local streets would be a huge problem not only to commuters but to residenƟal neighborhoods, walkers and bikers (and the street cleaners, and trash!). Neighbors will be forced to use Cathedral Oaks as an Eastern egress out of El Encanto Heights adding to the already congested Dos Pueblos high school traﬃc. El Encanto Heights is already crowded enough.

A project of this size will most likely require a street light to allow for the ﬂow of traﬃc. We drive this route nearly every day and we see cars traveling 50‐60 mph through there. Folks have already lost their lives on this stretch. There is so much more to consider than just adding to the problem.

An example of the potenƟal impact from cars from this project (and the new ADU laws coming into play won't help), is the small cul‐de‐sac I grew up on in Goleta; the City has allowed mulƟple add‐ons to 2 of the single family residence where one house has 3‐4 families living there and the parking situaƟon is horrendous. It is highly unlikely that an emergency vehicle can make the loop at the top with the volume of vehicles. More thought and planning needs to be considered instead of quickly checking boxes to meet state requirements. It is in my opinion we can push back to the state like other ciƟes are doing. We need to collaborate as a City and push back.

Thank you,
Heidi & David Steelsmith
175 Salisbury Avenue
Goleta, CA 93117
(805) 685‐4089
2 From: Jason Cruse <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 11:25 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 625 Dara Rezoning
I live adjacent to the proposed property under consideraƟon for rezoning at 625 Dara Rd. The proposed high or medium density zoning is not appropriate for this area. It is too extreme and the increased traﬃc will aﬀ ect the safety of children and residents traveling to the nearby schools or park.

While the intended use of the property as a senior residence is admirable, it would not be a suitable locaƟon for such a facility. Other nearby senior living faciliƟes like Maravilla, Heritage House, and Buena Vista are all along major traﬃc arteries and closer to the hospital and medical care. None require traveling through a neighborhood like this proposal would. Besides, all housing is senior housing. Those who would be aﬀected by this facility would be the seniors currently living in this neighborhood. I hope you will agree that age‐inclusive single‐family homes at the density originally approved by the council would be the most appropriate for this area. I would appreciate it if you would read my comments into the record.

Thank you,
Jason Cruse
640 Dara Rd
Goleta, CA
From: Jeffrey Mandrell <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 6:32 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 625 Dara Road - Re-Zoning Follow-up
Good afternoon,
Thank you for taking the time to listen to the comments presented at the July 25th City Council Meeting. I am grateful that our City Council members and Planning Commission are hard at work solving the problems of today.

I had additional time to research and evaluate the proposed site of 625 Dara Road for rezoning from medium density to high density and would like to continue voicing my opposition to both the rezoning effort as well as the medium density housing effort. The original intent for this parcel was for single family housing because it aligns with the infrastructure and character of the area. Other properties such as 7190 Hollister Avenue, 469 Kellogg Wy, Fairview Plaza, 5897 Calle Real, and the area south of Highway 101 adjacent to S Los Carneros Rd are more suitable for high density housing to meet CA state demands.

Affordability:

Medium and high density housing for 625 Dara Road will not benefit new residents because of affordability concerns.

Local young professionals and families (Santa Barbara County) will not benefit from the development of this housing because the market rate for such housing would price the majority of individuals out, leaving only room for those with significant means to move in. The current market rate for the Kellogg specific area is between 1‐2 million dollars. It is understandable that the city desires to build as many units as possible with the intent of benefiting as many as possible, but the desire is unrealistic. It seems the only real benefit for high density housing would be increased revenue from property taxes. Is the County's goal to increase tax revenue or to provide affordable housing in the right location? High density housing on this parcel will not help the most affected members of our community.

Infrastructure:

Several members of the City Council and Planning Commission made comments on July 25th about how adding additional housing will result in better transit. These comments are backwards and inspire a "let's fix it later" mentality.

It's irresponsible to develop a property without first improving the surrounding infrastructure in terms of transportation, congestion, safety, and school capacity. There have been a disproportionate amount of vehicular related accidents in the area. There is also significant concern about school overcrowding in the Kellogg area. What is the city's plan to address school overcrowding at Kellogg school and Mountain View? Will there be a planned increase in hiring while development occurs?
Alternate Properties to achieve state demand:

Development efforts and follow‐through have been historically unreliable at 625 Dara Rd in comparison with efforts from owners of other properties that are candidates for high density housing to achieve state demands.There is a high risk that state demands will not be met if the owner of 625 Dara Rd. fails to follow through on promises, as has been the case for the past several decades. It is more practical to pursue development with historically reliable owners. Alternate properties as described above are closer to business centers, market places, and open space, than 625 Dara Rd. There is a mutual goal in the Goleta community to provide housing ‐ including affordable housing ‐ to local residents, but 625 Dara Rd. is not the location for that housing. It is extremely important that a collaborative effort is taken to solve the housing crisis. Owners, such as the one of 7190 Hollister Avenue, are willing to help the community.

Environme
nt and Green Space:

There is a disproportionate amount of green space in west Goleta and not enough green space in east Goleta.

Developing high density housing in east Goleta will only exacerbate the lack of green space by concentrating the additional residents in small parks such as Andamar Park and Ber keley Park. High‐density buildings often require a significant amount of energy for heating, cooling, and lighting. This increased energy demand will contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. High‐density housing will increase water demand in the area, putting additional stress on water resources that have been stressed for the be tter part of a decade (2012‐2019 was the most severe drought experienced by Santa Barbara County). It is extremely fortunate that our water reservoirs have replenished, but adding additional housing will put the County on track to deplete the reservoir at a faster rate than before. This is especially concernin g in regions like Goleta, where water availability may already be a challenge due to its semi‐arid climate.

I hope my statements appeal to the reason and logic of the City Council and Planning Commission.

Best regards,
Jeff Mandrell
648 Dara Rd.
805‐680‐5441
From: Goleta, CA <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2023 7:49 AM
To: Anne Wells <[email protected]>
Subject: Concern over rampant overcrowding
Site Visitor Name: Jim
Site Visitor Email: [email protected]
I am so confused when I see the members of city council, make decisions that has destroyed the west end of the Goleta Valley. over the last 20 years you have bulldozed just about every square inch of native land with total disregard for any of the longtime residence, you continue to allow the extraction of every ounce of water available, how is this fair?? I’m wondering how you reconcile this in your tiny little minds, to just except these ridiculous housing mandates from the state without any pushback at all? Just because it rained last year, doesn’t mean we have a sustainable water supply, has anyone bothered to read any of the forecasts that have been developed by some of the greatest minds with some of the most sophisticated satellite imagery? there is not enough water for what you are planning. You must tell the state we are all built up out here in Goleta. Just because everyone wants to live here doesn’t mean everyone can live here. We need to get over this culture of giving everyone everything they want just because they want it.

From: Joan Vignocchi <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, July 29, 2023 7:37 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Support any and all housing that we can build
and the faster the better!
I am a tenants lawyer at Legal Aid and the majority of my job is helping seniors transition to homelessness after their rent is raised.

We also have a lot of families living in their cars after evictions now that even Lompoc and Ventura are too expensive to live there and commute here.

We need more local affordable housing!
Please build UP though and not on agricultural land. We need to eat local food, too! ‐‐
Joan
[email protected]
mobile: 805‐455‐6763
From: J&L Fam <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 10:01 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 625 Dara Road rezone-July 31 City Council meeting To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <krichards@cityofgolet a.org>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <jkyriaco@cityofgolet a.org>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected] rg>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected] g>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Dara Road rezone
Honorable City Council Members and Planning Commissioners, I recommend that you reject the rezoning of 625 Dara Road from RS to RH. The reasons for my objection include the following factors:

1. Diminished view-shed/privacy.

2. Increased traffic which is likely to negatively im pact the safety of children at Kellogg School & Andamar Park. Please note that Kellogg School [enrollment: 415 elementary school children, ~80 staff] is located only ~ 0.3 mi. away from the proposed site. Many of these children walk, bike, or ride a scooter to school. Andamar Park, which has become very popular, is directly adjacent to the site on its east side.

3. The increased traffic would t end to overload already busy intersections at: a) Fairview & Calle Real, b) Patterson at 101.

4. A rezoning to RH on this site will add approximately 250 additional cars leading to an increase in vehicle miles traveled with attendant air pollution due to hydrocarbon emissions. If this rezone occurred, I predict that the great majority of occupants would drive (rather than walk or bike) to the shopping center on Calle Real. I have lived near this site on Arundel Road for 22 years. During that period I have observed only a couple of instances of individuals walking & carrying groceries to their home.

5. Please consider these facts: this site has a higher elevation than all of the existing homes that surround it. If multistory living units (mandated by a RH designation) were built at this site, those structures would dwarf the community below. The view-shed & privacy of existing homes on Andamar Way, Dara Road, and Stow Canyon Road would be negatively impacted.

I realize that you have a difficult job: evaluating the positive and negative aspects of numerous sites in order to meet the objective of providing more housing to meet demand.

Please consider the factors that I have described above. My general conclusion is that zoning 625 Dara as RH would be extremely incompatible with our neighborhood. Please retain the character of this neighborhood, which I appreciate & cherish.

Respectfully,
John Pasinski
653 Arundel Road
From: John Preston <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 6:45 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 625 Dara Road Re-Zoning
Dear Council and Commission members,
As a long term resident of Goleta and speciﬁcally the Kellogg school district, I implore you not to destroy my neighborhood by re‐zoning the 625 Dara Road property to High or Medium density! My home is essenƟally right around the corner from this property and the impact on my quality of life and the value of my home will be adversely eﬀected. My address is 473 Arundel Road.

There are many other (more suitable) locaƟons for this type of housing. PLEASE direct your aƩenƟon to these other properƟes and do not ruin my neighborhood.

Thank you in advance for doing the right thing,
John Preston
(805) 539‐8017

1 P.O. Box 6737
Santa Barbara, CA 93160
www.SantaBarbaraAudubon.org

July 31, 2023

To: City of Goleta City Council and Planning Commission From: Katherine Emery, Executive Director, Santa Barbara Audubon Society

Regarding: Draft Housing Element, 2023-2031 Site Inventory Rezoning The Santa Barbara Audubon Society (SBAS) is a chapter of the National Audubon Society with approximately 1100 members in the Santa Barbara and Goleta area. The mission of SBAS is to protect area birdlife and habitat and connect people with birds through education, conservation, and science. Our members, many of whom reside in Goleta, frequently use the parks, natural areas, and open spaces in and around the City of Goleta for recreational, scientific, and outreach activities.

We 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. In this letter we would like to address possible rezoning of the Kenwood Village property (7264 Calle Real). In 2016, SBAS provided a long list of concerns about water supply, environmental resources, air and water pollution, and traffic, health and safety issues for a much smaller project (60 unit) proposed for this site. The City’s Draft Housing Element, however, proposes to rezone this property to high density residential, accommodating up to 284 housing units, which would require a denser and more extensive build out thereby exacerbating the problems with development at this site that we noted in 2016. Our understanding of the current rezoning exercise is that its purpose is to identify sites that would be suitable for high density housing so that the City can meet state housing mandates. Given our numerous concerns about this site (see below), we conclude that this is not a suitable site for high density residential zoning. We also believe that careful consideration of rezoning proposals with adequate information is necessary, at this point, to circumvent future conflicts over eventual development proposals.

Water Supply. Any development at this site has no firm, formalized commitments for an adequate water supply. Checking with the Goleta Water District (GWD), we found that this site has no “can and will serve letter” from the GWD and has “no water entitlement”.

Although this site has a very limited water allocation for past agricultural use, Measure J prohibits the use of agricultural water for residential use. Although GWD has stated that it will begin granting new water allocations this fall, the GWD is constrained in its allocations by various ordinances, water supply projections, and demands from other users, so it is not at all clear that the developer will obtain sufficient water to support a very dense development.

Goleta’s own policies dictate that any land use decisions shall be guided by the evaluations of the adequacy of essential resources or services (GP PF 4.1 d, Inland Zoning Ordinance).

Downscaled climate change models predict an increased frequency, intensity, and duration of drought, requiring the City to consider overexpansion that stresses future water supplies.

2 Traffic. The proposed rezoning of Kenwood potentially could result in large impacts on our overtaxed transportation network. The Kenwood property is bordered by a very narrow frontage road, Calle Real. We have concerns about the safety impacts of vehicle access between Calle Real and any dense Kenwood Village development, not only during normal operations but also when access roads and Calle Real are used as evacuation routes during emergencies. Further, any residents of this dense housing development, which is removed from shopping centers, would probably access the Camino Real and Hollister Village malls for shopping, necessitating that they drive through some of the lowest performing intersections in the County (Storke-101, Hollister-Storke). Addition of even small numbers of trips to already poorly performing intersections can greatly decrease levels of service, substantially increasing idling and wait times, contributing to the production of greenhouse gases.

Agriculture. Part of this property is currently zoned for agricultural use and the City has many policies for protecting agricultural lands, which would be abrogated by the rezone.

Environmental Impacts
Environmentally sensitive habitats (ESH) and species of special concern The Kenwood Village property is bordered on the west by El Encanto Creek, which usually contains surface water and has a well-developed riparian zone, parts of which extend onto the Kenwood property. The El Encanto Creek corridor is designated as ESH by the City so is subject to all the City’s policies dealing with the protection of ESH and required buffer areas (e.g., CE 1.6 a). Because of the high value that the City places on streams and their riparian zones, this site is also subject to City policies protecting streams, riparian zones, and associated buffer areas (stream protection areas, SPAs). Given the very high housing density potentially designated for this site, it is hard to imagine how this rezoning proposal could not result in eventual impacts on streams, riparian zones, SPAs, and ESHs.

This property is also home to a variety of native species of special concern. The Western pond turtle has been recorded from El Encanto Creek and it is possible that the Red-legged Frog also occurs there. White-tailed Kites (a State Fully Protected Species) and other raptors have been documented using this and nearby areas as nesting, roosting, and foraging sites.

Under City or State policy, these species are protected and any areas containing them are considered ESH (GP CE 1.2 k and l, CE 1.9, CE 8.1 d, e, f, CE 8.2). Given the very high housing density enabled by this rezoning proposal, it is also hard to imagine how associated lighting, noise, pets, and biocides would not affect birds and other wildlife. SBAS believes that rezoning decisions should follow General Plan policies.

Runoff and water quality
A rezone that would allow a very high housing density would inevitably result in covering large parts of the rezoned property with impervious surfaces. As a consequence, a dense housing development would alter storm flow paths and volumes, as well as water quality, and such a dense build out would allow only limited space for accommodating mitigation measures, such as bioswales. These impacts on water quantity and quality would not only affect the adjacent stream but also downstream areas, ultimately reaching Devereux Creek (already a 303d impaired water body) and Slough.

3 Air quality
The Santa Barbara Air Pollution District recommends any housing developments be offset from freeways by at least 500 feet, based on studies of freeway impacts on human health.

The dense housing enabled by this rezone would necessitate building in areas that are much closer to the freeway.

On behalf of SBAS, I hope that these comments are useful in guiding Goleta’s elected and appointed officials in making sound rezoning decisions while safeguarding the City’s many environmental amenities.

Sincerely,

Katherine Emery, Ph.D.

Executive Director
Santa Barbara Audubon Society

From: Kathleen McIntosh <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 12:06 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Goleta rezone project
Thank you for this opportunity to address the rezoning for the housing element project. My list of concerns, comments and questions are:

My husband and I have owned & resided in our condo at Cannon Green Dr for more than 25 years and have had the privilege of enjoying raising our children in this wonderful and beautiful community.

The intersection of Cannon Green Dr and Hollister Ave generates a lot of use, including car travel, left turns, bikes, and pedestrians. During busy times, there is quite a line of traffic on Cannon Green Dr. High density building at 7360 Hollister will add to that usage and create additional traffic issues.

The combination of that and the 7190 Hollister project will have a huge impact on the area.

Our bike paths create a safe way to travel to Ellwood School, shops, and services - when used properly. Too many bike users do not adhere to the stop signs. We have witnessed numerous dangerous close calls. I have contacted the city a few times regarding it. This will be problematic going forward and require addressing. Perhaps with a traffic light? Our area is already high density, with the Ellwood Beach area, Hollister Village, condos, apartments, mobile home parks and small local businesses in our section of Goleta. Preserving the mountain views, endangered species habitats have been established as important values to our community. Please adhere to the Goleta General Plan to keep the spirit of community alive! Changing Hollister Ave to 3 lanes here, and decreasing Hollister to one lane in Old Town seems to be an unbalanced plan.

We support not bunching housing projects so close together. Let us be fair in our approach! We have a housing affordability crisis in Goleta, so much so that our children and many of our friends cannot afford to live here. We need to balance maintaining quality of life and include ‘low income’ housing.

How will we plan for water usage with the recent moratorium lifted after a rainy season, and how can there be enough for the buffer or additional projects?
How will our services be impacted for the future? Will the schools, safety, and emergency services including fire protection be increased appropriately?
Thank you for helping to keep Goleta the beautiful community we’ve known for more than 25 years. We appreciate all you are doing to implement this incredibly difficult task and trust it will be accomplished with great consideration to fairness.

Sincerely,
Kathy & Al McIntosh
From: LOIS MOORE <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 5:37 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 240 units on Baker Lane
I am submiƫng my opinion that this project is a bad idea because it is way too dense for the neighborhood. Already it’s a bit hazardous exiƟng the GlenAnnie ramp from the freeway at certain Ɵmes of the day. There is oŌen a line of cars along the freeway trying to exit but they’re held up by the light and abundance of cars trying to get into the neighborhood. It can interfere with north bound traﬃc because the right lane is compromised with a line of cars at a stand sƟll. Now there’s a proposal for 240 more living units and insuﬃcient parking for the average 2‐3 cars each unit will bring in. That would be at least another 240 cars using that freeway to get home aŌer work if the resident worked in Santa Barbara. I am familiar with the vacant lot near 7‐11 and it would be suitable for a few single family homes with garages or carports— not 240 units. I hope you’ll send this project back to the drawing board. Thank you.

Lois Moore
7281 Padova Dr
Goleta
Sent from my iPhone
From: Martha de Leon <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 4:23 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 625 Dara re-zone follow up
Good afternoon,
I am writing to the city again to express my thoughts on the re‐zoning of 625 Dara Rd from single family to RM/RH. I would also like to speak in this Mondays meeting.

I was able to attend the meeting held last Tuesday and was able to better understand the city’s conundrum and the importance of finalizing the housing development project for the city. I also heard the councils arguments about why various other properties were not included in this proposal. However, I think before a decision is made, we need to revisit the councils decision to not include some properties mentioned in the last meeting, including the 7190 Hollister Avenue and the two adjacent parcels to the east.

While some of the arguments made were valid. One big question remains. Why would the city not take advantage of the aforementioned properties especially since they already have the needed infrastructure in place? To me, rezoning in the Hollister properties makes the most sense since it is close to many amenities.

Not to mention, the property owner has expressed interest.

Its unclear why the the city feels comfortable including the 625 Dara rd property. In which the owner has had several decades to build housing in his lot. What makes you so sure that the property owner can deliver? Historically the owner has not been reliable in terms of building what they were approved to do. The city should consider that even if the property is rezoned for higher density housing there is still a risk that the owner will not deliver on the actual development as history has shown.

The owner of the Hollister property on the other hand is reliable, he has been helped develop other properties.

He is a local who has demonstrated a vested interest in seeing Goleta succeed. His philanthropic acts speak for themselves.

In summary, 625 Dara Road is not appropriate for 84 medium-density units, and certainly not for 127 high- density units!
Best regards,
Martha De León
648 Dara Rd
Goleta, CA 93117
#310‐654‐0488
From: Miranda Fierro <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 10:36 PM
To: City Clerk Group; Paula Perotte; Stuart Kasdin; Kyle Richards; James Kyriaco; Luz Reyes-Martin Subject: Kenwood Village Environmental Impact
Please have an external wildlife biologist assess the location and relocate animals prior to starting construction. I know that we need more housing, but will greatly miss the nearby nature space, so please be responsible with the wildlife. My family lives in the neighborhood and have greatly enjoyed the green space, espe cially during COVID with the plethora of wildlife: insects, frogs, crayfish, rabbits, owls, herons, egrets, snakes, hawks, etc. All of the below photos were taken on the Kenwood Village Property.

The Fierro Family
Plumas Avenue
Goleta, CA 93117

From: Paulette Le Blanc <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 11:26 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Proposed Development for the 9.84 acres of property between Baker Lane and 7-11 along Calle Real As a homeowner in the city of Goleta who regularly walks the neighborhood between Glenn Annie and Winchester Canyon Roads, I am appalled at the thought of 284 units being added to the property between the 7-11 on Calle Real and Baker Lane. It seems self-evident, but the issues/problems I see include:
- Currently, there is NOT a sidewalk in that area and Calle Real is only one lane in each direction
- There is not room to widen the road, add a sidewalk and/or add bike lanes in each direction
- This stretch of road has had a # of accidents (including death) because of this lack - Calle Real is extremely busy during the morning and evening rush hours - Adding more cars will exacerbate this situation and greatly impact public safety - Adding 284 units of a parcel of <10 acres will negatively impact the environment and the local wildlife
- There have been a # of mountain lion and coyote sighting in this area during the daylight - Adding more units will reduce their prey/food supply and increase their encroachment into the neighborhood to find food
- As for parking, since a limited number of spaces are allocated for this development, the idea of the residential overflow and/or their guests parking in the neighborhood is preposterous and will likely result in fighting (possibly literally) for street parking I understand the pressure that the City of Goleta is experiencing from the State's building mandate, but I implore you to stop this insanity and if this ill-conceived development can't be stopped at least re-zone it from high density housing to medium or low density housing.

Paulette Le Blanc
30 Winchester Canyon Road, Space 64
Goleta, CA 93117
1 From: sayma berry <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 2:56 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Housing
We’re exclatly on hollister
Sent from my iPhone
From: Scott Vahey <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2023 2:07 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 625 Dara
Hello,
At the last meeting there was a lot of talk about traffic at the proposed sites. Below is the summery of the differences between 625 Dara and 7190 Hollister. The data is showing that the Hollister site is a better choice for an RH development where as Dara it is un clear if it can support a safe and green RH where people will use green ways to travel. I would encourage you to reevaluate the data and not make Dara zoned RH.

This weekend, 7/30, there was yet another 3 car accident on Cathedral Oaks and Arundel Rd when a car was turning onto Cathedral oaks.  RH projec
t in an area that supports driving better than walking/biking will greatly increase the danger to the neighborhood.
625 Dara   7190
Hollister
Thoughts
Bus Line
(https://sbmtd.gov/)
Line 10 ‐
Only runs
some of the
time
Line 7  ‐ 20
Min walk
Line 6/11
Line 7/28
Line 27
Line
12x/24x
Line 15x
Line 10
Line 23
Hollister is close to a major bus line to
support ridership.  Dara bus frequency
may be increased if there is more
ridership but will never be as good as
Hollister. Livi
ng in the Dara neighborhood
I find it is faster to walk to old town
Goleta than take a bus.

Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress (April 28, 2021)
1 = good to 4 = bad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckR7LmcUfjc
LTS 4
Fairview
LTS 3 ‐
Cathedral
Oaks
LTS 3‐ Calle
Real
LTS 1 ‐
University
LTS 4
Hollister
LTS 1
Hollister
(West)
LTS 1
Pacific
Oaks
Road
Hollister has more low stress bike route
options compared to Dara.

Most Car Collisions (2014‐2019)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckR7LmcUfjc
#3 Fairview
& Calle Real
#1 Stork
&
Hollister
In the meeting they said collisions are
correlated with amount of traffic on the
road. Having both intersections on the
top 3 any RH construction in those areas
will equally impact traffic and should not
be used as a deciding factor.

Closest Food Market Walking Time 22 Min 6 Min Hollister market is close enough people will walk. Dara people will drive.

Closest Park Walking Time 0 Min ‐
Andamar
Park
8 Min ‐
Berkeley
Park
6 Min Andamar and Berkeley park are small
parks with playground equipment. Girsh
Park is a lot larger and has better
facilities. Parks near Dara may be
overwhelmed by an RH building making
people drive to other parks where
Hollister park
s are large enough to handle
the crowds.

Closest Restaurant Walking Time 17 Min 3 Min Hollister has easier access to restaurants and are close enough that people will
walk. Dara they are far enough away that
people will drive.

Thanks,
Scott Vahey
From: Sharlae Jenkins <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 10:31 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 625 Dara Road
Dear Goleta City Council and Planning Commission Members:

I have lived on Arundel Rd. for more than 30 years, and while I understand the need for housing in our community, I believe it is poor planning to rezone the 625 Dara Road property to medium or high density.

I am in agreement with my neighbors that the massive scope of adding 84- 127 dwelling units on such a small piece of property raises valid concerns and is an inappropriate choice for this location.

 This parcel is in the middle of an existing
neighborhood, with no direct access to a major
thoroughfare. To access the Dara property, drivers must weave through existing neighborhood streets
 It’s already difficult to turn onto Cathedral Oaks from both Arundel and Dara Roads. Adding substantially more vehicle traffic will make it even worse, and with no traffic feasibility study being considered at this time, it’s impossible to know the full adverse impact. While our neighborhood is a lovely place to walk, it doesn’t guarantee that all neighbors will walk or bike. Traffic WILL increase with such high density.
 It’s no secret that our neighborhood has had its fair share of issues with sewer and drain lines. It is
unknown if the sewer infrastructure in the Dara
neighborhood is even adequate to handle such an
increase in usage. Some of you have stated that you
hadn’t even thought of sewer impacts, but this is a
very real concern.
 The lack of communication to ALL neighborhoods
affected by possible rezo
ning is frustrating to say the
least. When such major, life-altering decisions are
being considered for specific neighborhoods, there
should have been signs posted on every property
advising of a potential rezone. Detailed letters and
maps should have been mailed to neighborhood
residents. Any rezone can be a significant change to
the existing General Plan and the community must be
given fair opportunity for input.

I was disheartened by the condescending attitudes I witnessed from some of you as I watched the proceedings online. Some assumptions were made that offended me.

To insinuate that those of us who live in this neighborhood are ‘affluent’ does not reflect the reality that many of us have worked hard and sacrificed much to be here. I was born in Santa Barbara and have lived here all my life. I grew up on the ‘other side of the freeway’, and there were many times when our family had little to no income. While having only $20/week for groceries may not have labeled us as impoverished, we certainly were not privileged.

To say that it’s not ‘fair’ that there are no high density projects in our neighborhood and it’s time that we share the load is a terrible way to plan and develop a community!
I understand that the city is under great pressure from state officials regarding our Housing Element. However, the locations we choose MUST make sense, and rezoning 625 Dara Road is not a good decision. I implore you to look more thoroughly into the other sites, including business/mixed-use options and please…don’t stop trying to make contact with the property owners of those sites.

Respectfully submitted,
Sharlae Jenkins
From: Stan Asarch <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 7:47 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 284 housing unit
Needs to be reduced to medium
Size due to eﬀect on extra traﬃc
In case of wild ﬁre, increase traﬃc on 101, too much traﬃc at glen ann exit, put burdon on school So therefore reduce number of units,we sƟll open space
Sent from my iPhone
From: Chela Sandoval <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 3:37 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>; Chela Sandoval <[email protected]> Subject: City discussion of density on Calle Real/Baker Lane to the 7-11 on Calle Real Goleta There is a memorial installation (a white bicycle and flowers across from Baker Lane) we neighbors see every day, which was left to honor a woman killed in that spot by a fast moving car that swerved into the bike lane. This memorial site is only one visible sign of warning. Every day our neighborhood experiences threat by cars and over population that is focused on the area between Storke and the 7-11. Not only bicyclists are threatened. Young people run across the freeway to get from the Costco area to our El Encanto neighborhood. A few years ago a young highschooler was killed trying to make that run. These incidents, and the daily unreported dangers to bicyclists and pedestrians are increasing. It must be recognized by all that this location is threatening to human and animal life. Please review the Calle Real frontage speedway between Stork and the 7-11 and that borders our El Encanto working class neighborhood . When will we receive the protection our neighborhood was once promised?
The Calle Real street bordering the El Encanto neighborhood remains overcrowded with cars that drive too fast on their way and from work and the Winchester area.

That Calle real area, though populated with good, working-class neighbors, is uncared for by the City of Goleta (garbage fills the trench next to the bike lane that goes down over one mile). Pedestrians walk to work in close range to speeding cars.

We hoped that the City of Goleta would do something to protect us from the dangerous speed of cars and the subsequent danger to life. Instead I hear our area is being slated to take on a high density housing development on our main exit road, Caalle Real and in the area between Baker Lane and the 7-11.

Please, our people, children and animals are already in a dangerous situation here.

Please stop builders from trying to install an additional high density living area to be added to what we are already experiencing.

Questions: How can we stop cars that make the Calle Real Frontage road an alternative freeway? Cars travel at high speeds from Storke all the way down to the Winchester area. No one considers that the houses and people they pass are part of a neighborhood of workers and families. Another question: Where is the other freeway entrance that was supposed to be built on Calle Real to alleviate the neighborhood’s overburdened traffic situation? What happened to the overpass that was slated to be built to allow the neighborhood bikes and cars access to the Costco while keep traffic from being stopped? What happened to the safe bike and pedestrian paths once considered for this area? Why isn’t a high stone fence put up to protect our El Encanto neighborhood from the increasing freeway noise? Our neighborhood is receiving very little help.

Now there is a proposition on the table to add additional pressure and danger to our lives by high density building in this already high density neighborhood. Are our lives not as important as yours?
Best regards,
Nancy Sandoval
4 Violet Lane
Goleta, Ca 93117
--
Chela Sandoval
Zoom Room: https://ucsb.zoom.us/my/chesandoval
From: Barbara Petrini‐Marrison <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 7:03 PM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: Dara Rd property
As a resident on the corner of Dara and Cathedral Oaks, I cannot imagine the increased traﬃc that would come with rezoning the property on Dara to a 127 unit, 3 story apartment complex.. It is almost impossible right now to make a leŌ turn onto Cathedral Oaks, and adding 127 pluc addiƟonal cars would be ridiculous. We’ve already had mulƟple fataliƟes along that stretch of road.

There is really only 1 direct way into that property and most of those addiƟonal cars would be entering and exiƟng from Dara and a Cathedral Oaks
What happened to the peƟƟon the owner of that property had us residents sign saying we approved of the 12 luxury homes he was proposing. The draŌs that were drawn up blended seemlessly with the surrounding single family homes and many neighbors agreed.

To plop a 3 story high density building would be catastrophic on many levels…ﬁnd a more appropriate spot Sent from my iPhone
From: deborah holmes <[email protected]>
Date: July 30, 2023 at 2:55:22 PM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Kyle Richards <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>, Luz Reyes‐Martin <lreyes‐[email protected]>, James Kyriaco <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing element
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 Perotte and City Council,
I am writing to strongly object to the large, high density housing units proposed for Calle Real (Kenwood Village) 284 units, and also Hollister parcels (east of 7190 Hollister and 7760 Hollister) 205 units and 291 units respectively.

The Western part of Goleta has seen enormous development, and more than it’s fair share of growth, in the last two decades with the large box stores at Camino Real, housing and stores at Hollister Village, housing and a hotel off Storke Road, Target, housing near the golf course, a senior residence, multiple housing projects and businesses off Hollister, near Los Carneros, to name a few.

This has resulted in an extremely congested intersection for traffic and pedestrians at Storke and Glenn Annie. Adding this number of new housing units where traffic would have to flow into the same intersection and surface streets is a potential nightmare,. It is also very unfair to add this burden of high density homes and cars to the existing residents in those neighborhoods.

This is simply too many units to build in areas of Goleta where traffic is already dangerously congested and development has been occurring expodentially. Please consider reducing the density and high number of units in in these parcels.

Sincerely,
Deborah Holmes
7910 Rio Vista Drive,
Goleta
CA 93117
My concern is due to the following:

Sent from my iPad
From: Heather Blancho <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 8:59 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 7264 Calle Real - Kenwood Village
Dear City Council,
I am a long time resident of western Goleta and live near the proposed development at 7264 Calle Real. I understand that we need more housing in our area and support the development of properties if/when it is done with careful planning and consideration of all of the issues in the area. My understanding is that this development is slated to be a high‐density project with limited parking.

This particular area is very, very busy with students during school days and commuters in the morning as well as the evening. Western Goleta is already greatly impacted with traffic, particularly the Storke/Glen Annie exit, and parking issues in the adjacent neighborhoods.There have been multiple car, motorcycle, and bike accidents in this area and surrounding areas. A high‐density project is not appropriate for this location for these reasons.

I strongly feel that the Council should consider approving a MEDIUM DENSITY project, at the most, on this property.

Thank you,
Heather Blancho
Goleta Mountain View Ranch Resident
From: Holly McCord Duncan <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 6:01 PM
To: Housing Elements@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: Goleta housing proposal
I wish to expressed my concern, and if necessary objection to the project under consideration for 284 units on 9 acres at Kenwood Village on Calle Real between 7‐11 and Baker Street. The high density project will definitely be the first in the neighborhood and change the nature of the neighborhood. The parking appears to be minimal at best and would create overflow, crowded parking on surrounding streets. If you haven’t driven those streets after 5 PM, you may not know that there are plenty of cars already. More won’t help.

I have additional concern about the traffic in the area. On a typical morning taking a child to school at Dos Pueblos high school it is already difficult turning left at the 7‐Eleven. Traffic flies by and those waiting to turn left onto Calle Real are often backed up six or seven cars. The logical freeway entrance and exit for that location is Glenn Annie. This exit already has significant traffic issues and backs up onto the freeway creating a traffic hazard. I’m sure there’s already a high count of accidents there if you were to look at reports.

I understand the need for additional housing. However, it should reflect and respect the nature of the neighborhood. High density housing is not in line with the community there. Please revise the plan to include fewer units and sufficient parking to maintain the feel of the existing neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Holly McCord Duncan
Sent from my iPhone
From: Irene Russo <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2023 8:28 AM
To: Housing Elements@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Projects at 35 Ellwood StaƟon Road and 7360 Hollister I live at 7368 Hollister Avenue. I live in a mobile Home Park there. The City of Goleta is planning two housing projects next to our park. The ﬁrst at 35 Ellwood StaƟon Road is on a defunct Vulcan Cement Plant. It operated a few years ago.

This plant is a hazardous waste site. It is also directly across a road from our park. The City plans a 146 unit residenƟal housing unit . A large housing unit on a hazardous waste site. This site is on a small cul de sac with our 75 space mobile home park, and a large condominium complex. The developer took down about 20 Eucalptus Trees and two large cement silos with no permits .

The other housing unit is right next to our park on the other side . It is a privateresidence that the City wants to turn into 70 housing units. This would mean 300 housing units in a couple of acres of space.

The City does not believe in EIR’s and these projects would make our access road a nightmare not to menƟon the main road. This road is already a nightmare .

So we are talking about 300 housing units in less than one square acre of land.

I am opposed to developing a hazardous waste plant into housing and dropping another 70 homes literally in our driveway.

I have s peƟƟon of neighbors who are also opposed to this.

Irene Russo
Ellwood Mobile Home park
7368 Hollister Avenue, #70
Goleta Ca93116
8058867391
From: Jane Shie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 8:47 AM
To: City Clerk Group; Deborah Lopez
Subject: Opposing 625 Dara Rd Re-zoning
I live across the street from the proposed development at 625 Dara Rd. There is a real lack of aﬀordable housing in our area and I am a supporter of new construcƟon at this site. A high or medium density, however, is unreasonable at this locaƟon and threatens the health and safety of residents.

An increase in density would make this small neighborhood less safe in several ways. This site is at the border of a high‐ﬁre zone. In the increasingly likely event of a ﬁre, a high neighborhood density would restrict evacuaƟon here.

There is also no traﬃc light at Dara and Cathedral Oaks and an elevated increase in traﬃc entering and exiƟng would threaten collisions in an area already familiar with traﬃc fataliƟes. The increased traﬃc within the neighborhood would also impede safe passage to school for children and families and would discourage walking and biking.

We need more housing in Goleta. I urge you to consider single‐family residenƟal zoning for this site as the most reasonable and safe opƟon. Please read my leƩer into the record.

Thanks!
Jing Xie
From: Karen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 10:09 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 7264 Calle Real (Kenwood Village) rezone to high density Please add this to comments for 07/31/23 workshop/ City Council meeting To all concerned:

Letters in support of high density zoning at 7264 Calle Real from Ferrone, Zoltan and Smythe are from individuals who are not Goleta (or even Goleta Valley) residents. At least one is a real estate investor.

I would think that these Kenwood Village supporters would be endorsing Ken Alker's current proposal for 60 homes that, under SB 330, only await water to proceed.

I suggest you listen to your constituents who know their community and experience the local environmental issues that would be accurately categorized as "constraints" to high density development.

Karen Lovelace
Goleta (city of) resident
From: jlcompfam <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 10:45 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Pacific oaks/Hollister housing
To whom it may concern,
I am extremely concerned with this amount of units be proposed for this already very congested area of Goleta. The storke overpass already has so much traffic from the others units that have been built in recent years. Maybe more units a little further north that can use the Winchester exits.

Thanks for your consideration,
Lisa Compton
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S22+ 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone From: jlcompfam <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 10:39 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Baker lane housing
To whom it may concern,
I am expressing my concern for such a large number of condos to be placed in that very small area.Also with the current amount of traffic/ accidents storke and Hollister has we shouldn't be added so many units.

Thanks for your consideration,
Lisa Compton
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S22+ 5G, an AT&T 5G smartphone From: Mark Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>
Subject: 625 Dara Road
Two whom it may concern:

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

Without restating my reasoning from my previous letter, I would like to make some observations from my perspective gleaned from the last meeting.

This felt predetermined with what I felt was a dash of hostility from at least one council member. To make matters even more frustrating our elected representative for this district was unable to represent us due to a recusal rule. I understand that, but again that leaves us to fend for ourselves.

A fairly large group showed up at the council meeting on July 25 to take part in the public discussion, I believe that of the crowd three came to try to add their properties to the list, three to oppose the Kenwood project, and the rest were there objecting to this one.

I must once again emphasize that we were not noticed about the July 20 meeting, neighbors were frantically texting and posting on the day of, someone found it in an agenda. I sorely wish we would have known about it, we would not be starting partway through the race. We have heard twice that 10K notices went out, they did not go to anyone near the Dara property.

It was brought up that people in the Pacific Oaks area were not noticed, or could not be noticed, because of their income level? I did not follow the logic.

We were there because we care about what happens to our neighborhood, we organized ourselves without having been noticed by the City, just as anyone could have done. We felt as if we were being criticized for doing so.

Whatever the case, we were told that we own "McMansions", 625 Dara is in fact surrounded by Goleta tract homes, and that we were all there because we were more privileged than other groups. Again I'm not certain of the logic, I am certain of the inaccuracy. Among other things there are a significant number of people in the neighborhood who bought long ago, as the 625 Dara landowner did, and are not high income.

We were given two history lessons on the zoning of our neighborhood, one I could not follow, one invoked the Fair Housing Act. We were told that we were a historical relic of a time before Civil Rights and the Fair Housing Act. This is blatantly false, the Fair Housing Act, which came after the Civil Rights Act dates to 1968, the vast majority of if not all of the homes surrounding 625 Dara were built after that, the property was zoned as it is currently very long after that.

We also heard that other neighborhoods were not objecting as vociferously as we were, there is not a single other proposal that puts high density housing in the middle of an existing neighborhood, of course we are going to object to it, for the myriad of reasons given previously.

Best regards,
Mark and Cristi Smith
5671 Stow Canyon Road
From: Michele Fitch <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 9:59 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Considerations for SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting on 7/31/23 To Whom it May Concern:

Regarding your meeting this afternoon on 7/31/23, to discuss the housing inventory in Goleta, I would like to encourage you to abandon the consideration of rezoning properities to High Density usage. I know you are required by the State of California to prove adequate diligence in providing housing according to their mandates. I would encourage you to be bold in your efforts to retain a sensible level of housing density, regardless of pressure from Sacramento.

In particular, I would like to address the vacant property at 7264 Calle Real, known as Kenwood Village.

My husband and I live at 7281 Butte Dr, Goleta CA 93117, about 100 yards from the northern edge of this property.

We access our neighborhood using Calle Real and Ellwood Station road, driving past this property mulitiple times daily. This section of Calle Real is heavily used during peak commute times with people leaving/returning for work at the same time people are arriving/leaving to access Dos Pueblos High School. I'd argue that a study could show heavy traffic going in both directions around the same times of day, morning and evening. There has been as least one bicycle fatality on this stretch of Calle Real.

If a High Density residential rezone were to be affected, that would mean that up to 284 new units could be built on this property. I am assuming a "unit" means a dwelling space, and that an additional two cars per unit could be counted on, contributing a minimum of 500 additional cars to daily traffic flow on Calle Real. My unstudied impression is that the traffic flow on Calle Real is already dense, and such an increase would cause an undue burden on public safety.

Please consider only rezoning to medium density housing. And if possible, please consider finding ways to
represent Goleta's best interests in the face of pressure from State Representatives who don't live in our area or hold the same concerns and values that we do locally.

Thank you for all your hard work.

Respectfully,
Michele Fitch
1 From: Richard Foster <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2023 1:52 PM
To: Lanza, Tristan@HCD
Subject: Goleta Housing Element
Ms. Lanza.

I am desperate because a Goleta City Council meeting is scheduled for tonight. If you could squeeze the time to respond today it would be immensely appreciated.

A question has come up that may mitigate a lot of current anxiety at the City Council tonight. In the 2020 Gui de book the following example was given:

Part B: Sites to accommodate low to very low income RHNB Step 1b
Sample Program: Provide Adequate Sites for Lower Income Households on Nonvacant and Vacant Sites Previously Identified The City of X will rezone to allow developments by right pursuant to Government Code section 65 583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households on sites identified in Table A to accommodate the lower income RHNA that was previously identified in past housing elements. Specifically, the City will rezone the non vacant sites identified on Table A previously identified in th e 5th cycle housing element, and the vacant sites identified on Table A as previously identified for both the 5th and 4th cycle housing elements. 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 da te, no more than three years from the beginning of the planning period) The last sentence gives the city 3 years to enact zoning changes as long as sufficient sites have been identified. Is that still true? Or has it changed in a later guidebook? Some people think no matter how ma ny reserve sites we have, the zoning changes need to be executed before the plan is filed or do we still have three years once the plan is accepted.

Thank you!
Richard Foster
7129 Del Norte Drive, Goleta
Email or call [email protected] 805 637‐7129 From: Rick Van Wickle
To: Deborah Lopez
Subject: Proposed rezone for 625 Dara Road
Date: Friday, July 28, 2023 8:50:42 AM
To Whom it may concern:

I am against reasoning the above parcel to be high-density residential. This parcel is surrounded by single family homes and should be zoned consistent with the existing neighborhood.

High density residential should be located in areas closer to commercial uses and transportation corridors. There are better choices available to the city for high density housing.

Best Regards,
Rick Van Wickle
Van Wickle Appraisal
Phone: 805 252 5071
Fax: 805 681 0965
vanwickleappraisal.com
From: Doctorbob F <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 10:29 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Proposed Housing Project at 7264 Calle Real
To: Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission
Greetings,
There is a lesson we all should have learned in our high school sociology class. When a large group of individuals live in a limited space, there will be increases in tension, violence, crime, sickness and death. This is true of both animals and humans.

Look at the old housing projects of bigger cities. Violence and crime always increase. When you approve these high‐ density housing projects, you are asking for increases in stress, illness and crime. These should be expected, and the blame for this will be all yours.

Our state politicians and, unfortunately, even our local leaders, seem to have all forgotten this essential lesson of living life together. People need space in order to be
healthy. Reductions in housing density was one of the key social changes that lowered the incidence of many deadly diseases of the past.

With regard to the proposed site on Calle Real, high‐density housing is a poor fit for that area of town. The El Encanto neighborhood has only traditional Ranch style homes. Your cramped housing would be nothing but an out‐of‐place eyesore. This is not something anyone would welcome or be proud of.

The Village at Los Carneros, the Hollister Village Apartments and Willow Springs Apartments all worked out well in those areas. But to dump an HD project into the older El Encanto Heights neighborhood ‐ that would be a godawful disaster.

With your proposed 284 units, this would likely mean 500 more automobiles daily driving that narrow two‐lane road where a bicyclist was killed recently. Several new traffic lights would be needed to make it safe, but this would only back up traffic horribly. This is utter folly.

The Goleta Water District is planning to lighten the restrictions on water use, allowing us to use as much water as we have used in the past. Now this may be news to you, but there will be more droughts in Goleta Valley's future. If you thought the last drought was rough, with an increasing number of people using up more and more water, the next drought may be unbearable.

We cannot continue cramming more and more people into this narrow strip of arid land we call the Goleta Valley.

Nature simply does not support it. And with the State's ongoing poor management of water resources, they can not and will not be able to help us out very much. We are on our own. If we behave that way, we may be able to make something work here ‐ if we intelligently exercise water austerity and building limits.

Like any responsible adult, we need to adjust our city budget to live within our means. This way we will not have to be so dependent upon State money. Then we can live the way we all want to,without being pushed around by distant bureaucrats and politicians in Sacramento.

Very sincerely,
Dr. Robert Fitch
7281 Butte Drive
Goleta, 93117
From: Russhmd <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 10:06 AM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Input for tonights meeting at 5:30 P.M.

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.

To the Goleta City Council and Planning Commission: July 31, 2023 My wife and I are residents near the Dara Rd. Project and we and many other neighbors will be severely affected by this project's outcome. We have written before, but now we and many other neighbors feel we are not being represented by the present Mayor and City Council. We and many other residents are still severely opposed to a change to higher density zoning at this location.

Dumping a high density project into the middle of an established low density neighborhood would be a disaster for this neighborhood. Where is our representation we thought we had from our Mayor and City Council ?? Who is representing us ??
There will be huge disruptions and negative impacts such as:

1. Traffic

2. Greenhouse Gas emissions.

3. No room at Kellogg Elementary School.

4. Huge water issues for 127 more houses (presently a single family home)

5. Auto accident risk through na rrow streets & school zone

6. Towering structures on a hill b
locking public mountain views.

7. Decrease in home value for existing neighbors.

But, still on top of the list for not considering this is:

1. Availability of other locations more suitable.

Property owners on Hollister ave. have expressed high support for a higher density project.

2. Mayor and City Council have not researc hed properly for even other suitable locations.

It was obvious at the last City Council meeting that several poss ible other sites might be available, but the Council stated that they had not even contacted the owners for their input.

Please reconsider the adoption of this potential high density project, and consider the alternate Hollister Ave. or other possible site. It is not the thing to do to Dump a high density project into an existing lower density neighborhood. Pleas
e represent the residents of your community, and not just take the easiest solution for the Council.

We urgently need you to support the neighborhood residents of this community.

Thank you,
Russell & Karren Hagen, 5745 Stow Cyn. Rd. Goleta, Ca. 93117 e-mail: [email protected] phone: (805) 967-3925

July 30, 2023
Subj: Considerations for the Rezoning of the Dara Rd Site Dear Mayor Perotte, Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners, As a follow-on from comments made at the Thursday housing sites rezoning study session, be realistic about public transportation and its use by future Dara Road residents. Public transit is available, but it is not close by, not convenient and shouldn’t be a criterion for any planning decisions about what kind of zoning is appropriate for Dara Road.

The Dara Road site is a 15-minute walk to the closet bus stop at Calle Real at Kellogg. Buses along Calle Real have 30-minute headways, thus running just twice each hour. The bus from the Kellogg/Calle Real stop takes about 30 minutes to get into Santa Barbara. To get to job centers in western Goleta using the bus on Calle Real will require a transfer in Old Town, yet another delay.

Miss the bus and there is a 30-minute wait for the next bus. And think about a shopping trip on a bus to Costco. Schlepp home groceries on a bus? Not likely. Don’t base your decision-making on appropriate zoning for the Dara Rd site on the thought that a small number of lower income housing units and their residents will add to or improve bus ridership. They will have no impact.

Thus, cars both for work and shopping will be needed by anyone living at a Dara Rd housing project. The more housing units, the more cars on the site, probably overflowing into the adjacent neighborhood since there will be insufficient onsite parking (most likely for the “affordable” housing). I hope that you have made a visit to the Dara Rd site to understand the possibilities for housing there as well as the site’s limitations for accommodating a high-density housing project.

Thank you for considering my comments,
Cecilia Brown

From: [email protected]
Date: July 31, 2023 at 11:23:59 AM PDT
To: Paula Perotte <[email protected]>, Stuart Kasdin <[email protected]>, Katie Maynard <[email protected]>, Jennifer Smith <[email protected]>, Jason Chapman <[email protected]>, Jennifer Fullerton <[email protected]>, Anne Miller <[email protected]>
Subject: Justice for all
On July 20, 2023, less than 2 weeks ago, all planning commissioners and 3 out of 4 City council members overwhelmingly voted for and instructed staff to go forward with the change in zoning to high density on 625 Dara Road.

The reason for the support was:
1 - The location couldn't be better because the property is located in the N.E. of the City & there is no other land existing.
2 - It is the proper thing to do by disbursing the rezone in the entire city rather than most in the west of the City.
3 - 625 Dara Road is perfectly located as an in-fill location. HCD and City Council favored in-fill the most.
4 - Treating 625 Dara based on equity.
5 - 625 Dara is close to the school and shopping center. 7 - 625 Dara Road is situated in the part of the City which has the lowest traffic. 8 - 625 Dara Road site has all the infrastructure, utilities, built sidewalk, and has dedicated to the community.
9 - At the present time this site is an eyesore in the middle of nice homes."High density will make the neighborhood better"
10 - By high-density rezone, public transportation will return to Cathedral Oaks. 11 - 625 Dara Road “checks all the boxes.”
On July 25, 2023, less than a week after the previous vote, planning commissioners and the City Council reversed their vote. The vote as it stands is 2 for RHD to 2 for RMD. It seems the previous vote still stands, since the second voted was not a majority to replace the previous first vote. The city attorney was questioned about this, but she had no answer at the time.

City Council and Planning Commission tried to change the vote:
1 - Some emotional neighbors decided to protest, as they have done with all of the previous proposals for this property. The reasons given were: this rezone does not belong to our neighborhood, we have children, it blocks their view and solar, it will create more traffic, and finally, "rezone somewhere else like west of Hollister Ave".

Almost every one of the neighbors said exactly the same thing "Put it on Hollister Ave."
Response to neighbors.
1 - If these neighbors let their children run alone on public roads they should not have children. The parents are the problem, not the new homes. 2 - 625 Dara Road in-fill is not in the scenic view map designation of the City. 3 - No one around this in-fill property has a solar system (except myself) and if a project is developed on this land it will not affect a single neighbor's house. 4 - Every new house and every project that will be built tomorrow will add some traffic. It is normal because we live in the city, and we need houses for the ones that don't have one.
5 - The protester said: "Rezone somewhere else", which is a classic “not in my backyard (NIMBY)” attitude and response. No matter what is proposed on this land, there will be opposition because it represents change and progress, which they don’t want or like.

What reason the City Council and the Planning Commission gave to try to change the votes:
1 - NONE.

Observation:

On July 20th, eight out of nine decision-makers overwhelmingly supported RHD for 625 Dara Road, and 5 days later they changed their mind on a dime. How could such a popular opportunity, which checked all the boxes, get such treatment? I don't see any physical changes to my property. Do you?
During the first and second hearings, the decision-makers made it absolutely clear that they believed in dispersing the rezone throughout the City of Goleta. Suddenly, in the second meeting, the decision-makers took the NE area of Goleta off the map. Some of the planning commissioners objected to treating NE of Goleta (where 625 Dara Road is located) the same as Montecito and Hope Ranch, where the privileged own houses.

This is precisely what the neighbors of 625 asked and some decision makers give them the privileged treatment. Please let me know if I am not seeing it correctly. After all, I just had cataract eye surgery.

The decision-makers decided to take the vote for the 625 Dara Road (RHD) and gave the RHD rezoning to 3 adjacent lots owned by an owner on the west side of the city which most of the rezone RHD has been given. At the hearing, it was explained by one of the City Council that the owner and the recipient of these 3 lots is a philanthropist, and his family donated land to the City of Goleta. Furthermore, the owner sat on the same committee for the preservation of the creek setback that the City Council supports.

I am certainly an environmentalist, I certainly donate money to help animals. However, my parents were poor and we did not have land to donate to the City. Also, I haven't been lucky to inherit money to be able to be a philanthropist. However, I have been trying to provide housing for the past 46 years and have been stopped by neighbors even when I wanted to build 12 houses on the same parcel of land. The same neighbors then walked to the hearing room and had nothing substantial to say except “Put the rezone in some other place, not in our neighborhood.” I encourage all of you to do the right thing and allow for viable development on this in-fill site in order to help achieve certification of the City’s Housing Element.

Hersel Mikaelian

Beth A. Collins
Attorney at Law
805.882.1419 direct
[email protected]
www.bhfs.com
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
805.963.7000 main
1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, California 93101
July 31, 2023
VIA EMAIL TO: [email protected]
City Council and Planning Commission
City of Goleta
130 Cremona Drive
Goleta, CA 93117
RE: Third Meeting on Housing Element 2023‐2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session, Second Meeting on July 31, 2023
Dear Mayor, City Councilmembers, and Planning Commissioners:

This letter follows my letter from Thursday, July 20, 2023 regarding the sites inventory for rezoning necessary for the City to obtain certification of its draft 2023‐2031 Housing Element (“Housing Element”). We respectfully request that the City Council and Planning Commission carefully consider the following comments during their deliberations on the rezones for the Housing Element’s site inventory.

I. THE BASIS FOR STAFF’S CALCULATION OF THE CITY’S UNIT SHORTFALL HAS STILL NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO THE PUBLIC OR DECISIONMAKERS
As staff detailed in the first meeting on July 20, 2023, “after revisions to address HCD 3/20/23 comments” the City now reportedly has a shortfall of sites for low and very low income categories.

But the basis for these numbers has never been shared – with the public or decisionmakers. Despite weeks of meetings, no one has seen the analysis supporting the almost 1,200 unit swing in the City’s shortfall of units in the site inventory. As explained in our July 20, 2023 letter, the City’s most recent draft Housing Element reported a surplus capacity of 558 lower income units on vacant and underutilized sites under existing zoning (see Housing Element, Table 10‐1 below), but now staff estimate a 583 shortfall, plus staff seek a 15 percent buffer (for a total of 637 lower income units).1

1 Housing Element 2023‐2031 Site Inventory Rezone Study Session, p. 4 (July 20, 2023).

City of Goleta
City Council and Planning Commission
July 31, 2023

Page 2 ends

This swing of approximately 1,200 lower income units (from +558 to ‐637 lower income units) is the starting point for the City Council and Planning Commission’s decision about whether the City is identifying sufficient sites to rezone in its Housing Element, yet the reasoning behind that baseline has not been vetted. The assumptions about the development potential of these sites – both the existing sites plus the potential rezone sites – on the site inventory lies at the foundation of the City’s Housing Element. Public participation in understanding the basis for these numbers is particularly valuable because the public has information that the City Council and Planning Commission and staff do not have about the viability of potential development over the next cycle. Decisionmakers should have the information now as you all consider potential rezones to address the City’s shortfall. Without that information, vetted by the public, City Council and Planning Commission cannot know if the shortfall you are currently seeking to address is actually much higher, and the City needs to identify even more sites to rezone.

Without the information, the City Council and Planning Commission should apply a significantly larger buffer to ensure the City will rezone sufficient sites to meet its legal requirements, retain local control, and most importantly, provide enough affordable housing for working families in Goleta.

II. THE COMMENTS AT THE WORKSHOPS MAKE CLEAR THAT MORE SITES ARE NEEDED The hearings have demonstrated that there are many, many forces at work to stop and reduce development at all of these sites. We heard concerns about higher density development and height on the proposed sites being incompatible with surrounding development, concerns about impacts to views archaeology, biology, environmental setbacks, traffic, noise, and interest in protecting certain neighborhoods and distributing development across the City (while also focusing it near schools and

City of Goleta
City Council and Planning Commission
July 31, 2023

Page 3 ends

other development).2 But very few comments pushed for more density, more height, more development at any of these sites. Almost none. Plus, as many commenters and decision‐makers acknowledged it is incredibly unlikely that the City will meet the 100 percent affordable projections for a number of the sites.

That means that the City needs to rezone and upzone more sites. Waiting to do it only once the City starts falling behind as we move through the eight‐year housing element cycle will put the City far behind. As we know, development projects take years to entitle. It is better to rezone additional sites now and let as many projects as possible start moving through the design and preapplication process, and allow the projects to be modified as needed in response to site specific constraints. Additional sites are necessary especially in light of factors outside the City’s control that can slow or halt development projects, such as economic downturns, inflation and interest rate increases, natural disasters and other global disturbances, and a water moratoria. To ensure housing is developed as needed in this cycle, this City needs to get as many viable sites moving forward through the development process as possible, as soon as possible. The City Council and Planning Commission should not support a hollow exercise to rezone the minimum number of sites to receive certification of its Housing Element when it is clear that approach would not truly achieve the community’s workforce housing needs.

III. THE SHELBY SITE PROVIDES A WONDERFUL POTENTIAL REZONE SITE FOR AFFORDABLE

HOUSING
As noted in my July 20, 2023 letter, the Shelby Site has a (a) willing owner (with a demonstrated dogged commitment to building residential units on this site), (b) surrounded by other urban uses, and (c) a pending residential project that is exempt from Measure G. It is located walking distance to schools and close to transit. The Shelby Site also is a vacant site, which is highly valued by HCD when evaluating the City’s Housing Element because it is more likely to be developed with housing during next eight‐year planning period.

The 14‐acre Shelby Site is surrounded by urban uses and cannot be used for agriculture. The Shelby Site would also not have some of the impacts to surrounding neighbors that some of the other sites in the inventory may have because the property is naturally buffered from surrounding neighbors (single family homes south of Cathedral Oaks and condominiums to the west across Northgate Drive). The Shelby Site could also provide an affordable project designed minimizes potential impacts to surrounding neighbors with setbacks and variation in building heights. The Shelby Site also helps distribute new housing development more around the City. As such, the Shelby Site is an ideal

2 These comments similarly apply to the already identified sites in the site inventory that remain unvetted.

City of Goleta
City Council and Planning Commission
July 31, 2023

Page 4 ends

candidate site for rezoning and demonstrating the City Council’s commitment to support affordable housing development within the City.

In summary, we urge the City Council and Planning Commission to rezone all the sites proposed and add the Shelby Site to the potential rezones. The Shelby Site could be rezoned with RM Residential – Medium Density and RS Single Family Residential to allow for a more dense, affordable housing project that still aligns with the overall character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Thank you for your careful consideration of these comments.

Sincerely,
Beth A. Collins

Cc: Anne Wells, Advance Planning Manager
Andy Newkirk, Senior Planner
25878092.1

From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 12:30 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: High Density Housing in Goleta and El Encanto Heights Dear City Council:

I would like to express my concern about high density housing in El Encanto Heights and the Goleta area in general.
‐‐‐‐ There must be other available areas better suited to high density housing. It seems that most of these projects are being planned for the Goleta area. Spread out the
projects.
‐‐‐‐ Intersections at Stork/Calle Real and Stork/Hollister already experience grid lock. Traffic coming off 101N at Glen Annie/Stork often backs up onto the freeway. Grid lock occurs at both intersections. Both dangerous conditions. ‐‐‐‐ My understanding is that the Kenwood Village project would not provide enough parking for residents who would then have to park on neighborhood streets.
‐‐‐‐ Infrastructure should to be in place/improved before any project is completed. (parking, widening Calle Real, signal
lights, Winchester overpass)
‐‐‐‐ You would have at least 3 cars for each unit, maybe more.

They need someplace to park rather than encroaching into neighborhood streets.

Why is the majority of these projects slated for area and El Encanto Heights. Possibly because we do not currently have a representative for the Third District?
I am against these planned developments.

Robin Thomas
38 San Mateo Avenue
Goleta, CA 93117
From: Veronica Gil <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 12:32 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Re: the 284 housing units on Calle Real
Hello,
I am emailing to oppose the addition of housing between Baker Lane and 7-11 off Calle Real at Glen Annie and Storke Road.

Too many units for the small stretch of Calle Real. This will add 300+ cars daily which will add to traffic in the area. The neighborhood is established and already with the three different styles of housing on the stretch looks out of place. Consider another location for this large housing need.

We also have to think about the surrounding schools (DP and Brandon) and how this will impact them.

Please keep Goleta, The Goodland. No more expansion on this side of the 101.

Kindly,
Veronica Gil
From: Lauren VanVeelen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 12:59 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Village Opposition
Dear Council Members,
I have written in opposition to this project and I will continue to suggest that you look closely at the data and move on to alternate sites, better suited for a project of this scale. We purchased our home almost 6 years ago and I have seen first‐ hand, the number of accidents with animals, people, bicycles and cars that occur. We were aware of the Kenwood Village project when we purchased our home and the original plan for 60 units was rejected for good reason. Those reasons have not changed and never in a million years did I think that the proposal would multiply by nearly 6 times the original scope of work.

This lot is the only one on your list of Candidate and Alternate sites with Agricultural zoning and we need to preserve the little bit of agricultural land that we have left. It is a much‐needed open space that breaks up the congestion on Calle Real. If the owner wants to do something for the community, he should donate the Agricultural portion to the Food Bank of Santa Barbara for a community garden. Put a path up to the neighborhoods behind us to avert foot and bike traffic from Calle Real and make a safe passage for people to get to work and school. This area and Brandon Elementary school cannot accommodate the bulk of the High‐Density units…. alternate locations need to be considered. 7780 Hollister Road is similar in scale and if you read the public commentary, the residents are begging for this to be re‐ zoned from commercial to residential. This is at the far North end of Goleta that is less congested, has street lights and a road that can handle a project of this size. This would route people to the Winchester Exit, versus Glenn Annie and that is huge. I have been told by teachers in the area that Elwood School has capacity for growth, and using this as an alternate site would solve many problems.

Also, I believe that Fairview and Dara Road projects are both in the Kellogg district and RH Density at Dara would add significant impact on the schools. These facts need to seriously be considered prior to rezoning all of the lots in town. Rather than using up our much‐needed open space, change the focus to underutilized lots and areas of town that could better serve the community. There is nothing to service these families on Calle Real aside from a couple of liquor stores. Putting these residents within walking distance to restaurants, grocery stores, medical clinics, etc. would encourage people to do just that… walk and bike! We don't have the infrastructure here as it is, let alone with another 1000+ people added to it.

Also, there are other larger scale projects being discussed on the Shelby Trust property and Glenn Annie Golf courses and all of these in combination are not feasible. You would need to build another school at Cathedral Oaks to accommodate the population out here and Glenn Annie freeway ramps would need to be expanded.

Considering the pressure that you all are under, we need to focus on what works now. Kenwood Village doesn’t work now. The alternate locations at Kellogg, Fairview, Hollister and Los Carneros, a smaller build at Colusa and 7780 Hollister at Winchester do. And it spreads out the projects so that the concentration isn’t in one area.

Please do not move forward on rezoning Kenwood Village and change the focus to the alternate sites that are available and ready to move forward as they stand.

Thank you,
Lauren VanVeelen

From: Valerie Oesterling <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 28, 2023 4:28 PM
To: Housing Elements@HCD <[email protected]>
Subject: AddiƟonal housing projects projects in Goleta California I am deeply concerned about the growth that Goleta has seen in the last 20 years the conƟnued growth plans.

The plans for many addiƟonal homes don’t take into consideraƟon…

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

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

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

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

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

5. Crime. More people more crime.

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

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

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

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

Kellogg Ave.

Westmont Mariposa at Ellwood Shores
Maravilla
Goleta already has high density and traﬃc issues while Montecito and Hope Ranch and Enjoy huge single-family, lots and no traﬃc. It is not in the best interest of the people of Goleta who grew up here because it was a small, coastal town, and not a big city. People who own property and pay taxes in an area should have some ownership in how the land is used.

Thank you, Valerie Oesterling
Goleta resident for 53 years
From: Art Battson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 3:17 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Are you out of your mind? - Hearing on July 31 RE: the 284 housing units, mostly duplexes and triplexes the City suddenly wants to build on the 9.84 acres of property between Baker Lane and 7-11 off Calle Real at Glen Annie and Storke Road.

1. Traffic on Calle Real west of Glen Annie is alrea dy dangerous. Although we live 1/2 mile west of the 7/11 we ha
ve been involved in a number of near-misses in recent years along Calle Real and residents between Glen Annie and the 7/11 already face an even greater danger.

2. Proposed density is far too high.

3. The duplex and triplex plan does is not co mpatible with the existing homes to the east.

4. UCSB is a driving force in the need for growth in student and staff housing. A far better location would be alon
g El Colegio or other property owned by UC. Hollister Avenue east of Los Carneros should also be cons
idered. The fact that UCSB and the airport property are gerrymandered into the City of Santa Barbara shou
ld not be an excuse to push the problem onto Goleta residents. They are causing the problem and shou
ld solve it themselves.

From: Marret Krebs <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 3:16 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Dara Road site
To Our City Council Members:

I am writing to you once again about the Dara property being considered for rezoning. PLEASE DON’T use this property for the proposed 127 units!
Please consider instead the 7190 Hollister Avenue and the adjacent parcels to the east. They already have the needed infrastructure in place. Dara Road is not an appropriate choice for 84 medium‐density units nor the proposed 127 high density units.

My neighbors and I are close and we have the means of staying active with this issue. We will continue with this “fight” as long as we need to. The city should and needs to submit a proposal to the state of California. If need be, our community will take this matter to the state ourselves.

Sincerely,
Marret & Bill Krebs
663 Arundel Rd.

From: Lisa Citore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 2:48 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: Kenwood Development - NO‼
Dear City Council,
I have a strong NO for the Kenwood development proposal for many reasons. 1) The impact on traﬃc. The Glenn Annie exit oﬀ the freeway is already dangerous. Cars are completely stopped on the freeway way before the exit. And don’t think adding another lane will solve things. 2) The stress on our already fragile water supply. (Honestly, have you thought this through?!) 3) The overcrowding of the El Encanto Heights area, which is the neighborhood we live in. On our small street alone (San Bergamo Drive) there are 100 cars.
4) The loss of natural sanctuary and open space
All of the above will be taxing on people’s nervous systems. It will add stress to people’s lives and there will be more road rage and violence.

IniƟally, a 60 unƟl building was proposed, which is why perhaps there wasn’t strong objecƟon. 280 units is a whole diﬀerent story!
How did this happen? Why weren’t people informed of the changes along the way? It’s also important to note that the 60 unƟl proposal only went through because the city failed to meet a deadline with its own proposal and the land was leŌ up for grabs for private corporate investors.

The single most important funcƟon of government is to be the voice of its people and to protect its people’s rights.

Please do your job.

This was your mistake. Please ﬁx it.

This project will not in any way beneﬁt the quality of people’s lives. It will in fact greatly diminish it. It will only put money in private corporate pockets.

Important decisions about our city are not to be made between private corporate investors and government oﬃcials, but by the people of Goleta. It is OUR city.

Thank you for taking my leƩer into consideraƟon. I am speaking on behalf of many in our community who are uninformed and will not know the impact of this monstrous development unƟl it happens and it’s too late.

Government of Goleta ‐ If you don’t stop this now, you will have much more diﬃcult problems to resolve in the future because of it.

I will be at the meeƟng this evening.

Sincerely,
Lisa Citore and Len Van Nostrand
From: Karen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 3:16 PM
To: City Clerk Group
Subject: 7264 Calle Real (Kenwood Village)
Please include my comments for today's agenda 07/31/23
RE: 7264 Calle Real (AKA Kenwood Village) in El Encanto Heights I live near 7264 Calle Real (AKA Kenwood Village), the site recently proposed for high density (284 units on less than 10 acres).

I don’t want you to think I am a NIMBY (not in my back yard).

I know we have a housing shortage as there are thousands, perhaps as many as BILLIONS of people around the world who would love to live here. I know we have an affordability problem. I also know that affordability is just a buzz word to try to fool the masses into believing that building high density will lower the cost of housing when, in fact, it's a charade.

Therefore, one has to admire Mr. Alker’s stated desire to develop his property so his employees can afford to live there.

I would urge the planning staff and this council to move forward and approve his submitted plans for the 60 unit Kenwood Village development. After all, this would be one of the first housing sites to move forward when the water district releases water later this year.

Why not take 60 new houses for people today rather than wait and hope something affordable is built there over the next eight years? Who knows, it might not pencil out.

Why not reward Mr. Alker’s long deferred efforts to house his staff? Besides, he could price the units or the rents at truly affordable levels. At least 60 units today would be a step toward meeting moderate and upper level quotas. It's a win‐win.

If you won't, please stop telling us about a housing shortage. We don’t need to hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth if you put off the ability to provide housing in the next year or two for a hopeful pie‐in‐the‐sky promise.

Karen Lovelace
City of Goleta resident
From: Yolanda Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 3:55 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed High Density Development on Calle Real & Baker Lane There is no quesƟon that there is a dire need for aﬀordable housing in all the communiƟes of Santa Barbara County. Yet I see many parts of the county that are not idenƟﬁed as being part of the “soluƟon”.

In the past two to three decades Goleta has been transformed from a small town open space community to a thriving business town with many of the beneﬁts of increased taxes and all spoils of the same. Grid lock traﬃc, apartment buildings jammed into any open space, loss of beauƟful acres of natural land and the ever eroding feeling of a community are the consequences of nonstop building in Goleta.

It appears that any open space in Goleta is now a target for high density development regardless of the impact it will have on neighborhoods, resources and infrastructure in those areas.

I urge the city leaders to consider that the proposed development (the type of housing and number of units) is not compaƟble with the neighborhood.

Respecƞully,
Yolanda Perez
From: Hugh Sutherland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 4:35 PM
To: City Clerk Group; Kim Bus Email
Subject: Baker Lane: Opposed: Suggestion
Here's a suggestion to help with affordable housing: Go after the slumlords who bought SINGLE Family (Elwood) tract houses decades ago, have no mortgage and a low prop tax, refuse to maintain the properties, convert garages (unpermitted?) to residential use, then rent at high rates to often multiple families (or non‐relations), taxing our infrastructure, especially schools.

We know. We lived in a nicely renovated (including the massive investment we made to improve the property) home on Astoria, where half of the houses were rentals. There were 26 vehicles associated with 5 rental houses! And no on street parking available for the rest of us. Each property was literally falling apart. We couldn't even get the landlord next door to maintain a tree on her property that damaged our garage slab, or help repair our common fence when it blew over.

This from a person who showed up every few months in a (different?) giant Mercedes sedan.

Clean up this abuse, incentivise renting to low income workers, single families, maintain the property...maybe a tax deduction or credit.
‐‐‐
Hugh
Hugh Sutherland
[email protected]
805‐886‐5607
From: Hugh Sutherland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 3:39 PM
To: City Clerk Group; Kim Bus Email
Subject: Baker lane Proposed Housing
We wish to express our opposition to the proposed 284 housing units on the 10 acre Baker Lane property.

Having lived in Goleta since the mid‐seventies and otherwise lived our lives in Southern California, we have witnessed a doubling of the population of California and the housing and development associated with that growth. Traffic, pollution and loss of open space and farmland have been the result. Our roads are always in disrepair and never of sufficient capacity. And, it is entirely irresponsible to pave over agricultural land and open spaces.

The Glenn Annie/Storke area has already experienced tremendous growth with traffic out of scale for Goleta.

For decades the lack of water helped keep development at bay in our area, though politicians kept claiming the housing/jobs balance was always out of balance, one way or the other, depending on pressure from developers.

Now the State of California demands that each region provide housing, regardless of the impact on existing residents.

This is not a sustainable policy. We don't have the water or the land. The State needs to be more creative in solving the housing cost issue, beyond "build baby build".

We understand it is expensive to live in California, but building more housing has never addressed that problem.

California is one of the most desirable locations in the world, so market forces drive costs. We don't have a specific solution for those who work in The Goodland/SB but must live in Ventura or Lompoc. We do know that building more housing is NOT a sustainable solution.
‐‐
Hugh & Kim
Hugh Sutherland
Goleta, CA
[email protected]
805‐886‐5607
Comment Letter: July 31, 2023

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

RE: Item A1. Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session

Dear Mayor Perotte:

As context for tonight’s Housing Element Rezoning discussion and decision, I thought it would be helpful to revisit the December 15, 2020 City Council meeting to initiate a General Plan Amendment on 625 Dara Road to change from Single Family to Medium Density Residential.

The Council voted 3-2 to initiate the GPA. The Ayes were Councilmembers Aceves, Kasdin and Kyriaco.

You and Councilmember Richards voted no. We in the neighborhood around 625 Dara were appreciative that you agreed with us on a Medium Density designation when you said before you voted “it just doesn’t fit the community” and you “heard loud and clear from the community that it’s not compatible”. Using the meeting video I transcribed relevant remarks you made on December 15, 2020 on the attached page.

It is disheartening to hear now that you have voiced straw-vote support for High Density Residential at 625 Dara when in July and December 2020 you opposed even Medium Density Residential. The neighborhood surrounding 625 Dara is just the same today as it was in 2020. There is no nearby transit service. There are Safe Routes to School issues with Kellogg School. Kellogg School is apparently at capacity. 625 Dara is not near employment sites. It is a 15 minute walk to retail. Putting High Density housing at that location would increase Vehicle Miles Traveled and exacerbate Green House Gas emissions.

My neighbors and I are asking that tonight you support the most minimally impactful option available as you did in 2020. That would be to not make any changes in the Housing Element with regards to 625 Dara. If the property owner can make the necessary submittals for the GPA, the Council can consider Medium Density at a later date with a lot of valuable information generated as part of the GPA process.

Or the property could stay Single Family if the GPA initiative expires. It would seem that either way, with the property owners near 7190 Hollister being supportive of their own High Density project, you could once again support the neighborhood around 625 Dara without dire consequences for the City’s Housing Element resubmittal.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Steve VanDenburgh
5731 Cathedral Oaks Rd.

Attachment: Remarks of Perotte and Richards of Dec. 15, 2020.

DECEMBER 15, 2020, Agenda Item E1. General Plan Amendment Initiation on 625 Dara Rd.

Closing comments prior to voting:

Councilmember Richards:

I do feel like though that from everything I’ve learned at this point, it’s really about the neighborhood compatibility of the zoning and the land use designation itself. I just feel that fundamentally that land use designation [Medium Density] is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. And so that’s where I guess I’m landing on that. It’s really difficult for me to imagine a project that would be compatible.

Mayor Perotte
I do want to say I respect the opinions of Councilmember Aceves, Councilmember Kasdin, and Mayor Pro Temp Kyriaco. But I have to say that I reviewed the July 21 meeting and my feelings have not changed. I know that Councilmember Richards and myself were the two that opposed the idea of moving forward with this [Medium Density] discussion. And my feeling hasn’t changed. And I’m not going to echo everything that Councilmember Richards just said. But he is spot on on the way I’m thinking. It just doesn’t fit in this community—I don’t feel it fits in the community. We’ve heard loud and clear from the community that it’s not compatible. And I’m cautious to go down the road only to then come back and say no again.
…it may move forward, we may have three votes on this, but I’m not going to be supporting moving forward with a General Plan Amendment initiative [to Medium Density].

From: Hugh Sutherland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 4:35 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>; Kim Bus Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Baker Lane: Opposed: Suggestion

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.

Here's a suggestion to help with affordable housing: Go after the slumlords who bought SINGLE Family (Elwood) tract houses decades ago, have no mortgage and a low prop tax, refuse to maintain the properties, convert garages (unpermitted?) to residential use, then rent at high rates to often multiple families (or non-relations), taxing our infrastructure, especially schools.

Clean up this abuse, incentivise renting to low income workers, single families, maintain the property...maybe a tax deduction or credit.

---
Hugh
Hugh Sutherland
[email protected]
805-886-5607

Comment Letter: July 31, 2023

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

RE: Item A1. Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory Rezoning Study Session

Dear Mayor Perotte:

The Council voted 3-2 to initiate the GPA. The Ayes were Councilmembers Aceves, Kasdin and Kyriaco.

Thank you for your consideration of my comments.

Steve VanDenburgh
5731 Cathedral Oaks Rd.

Attachment: Remarks of Perotte and Richards of Dec. 15, 2020.

DECEMBER 15, 2020, Agenda Item E1. General Plan Amendment Initiation on 625 Dara Rd.

Closing comments prior to voting:

Councilmember Richards:

From: Hugh Sutherland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 3:39 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>; Kim Bus Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Baker lane Proposed Housing

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.

We wish to express our opposition to the proposed 284 housing units on the 10 acre Baker Lane property.

Having lived in Goleta since the mid-seventies and otherwise lived our lives in Southern California, we have witnessed a doubling of the population of California and the housing and development associated with that growth. Traffic, pollution and loss of open space and farmland have been the result. Our roads are always in disrepair and never of sufficient capacity. And, it is entirely irresponsible to pave over agricultural land and open spaces.

The Glenn Annie/Storke area has already experienced tremendous growth with traffic out of scale for Goleta.

Now the State of California demands that each region provide housing, regardless of the impact on existing residents. This is not a sustainable policy. We don't have the water or the land. The State needs to be more creative in solving the housing cost issue, beyond "build baby build".

We understand it is expensive to live in California, but building more housing has never addressed that problem. California is one of the most desirable locations in the world, so market forces drive costs. We don't have a specific solution for those who work in The Goodland/SB but must live in Ventura or Lompoc. We do know that building more housing is NOT a sustainable solution.

--
Hugh & Kim
Hugh Sutherland
Goleta, CA
[email protected]
805-886-5607

-----Original Message-----
From: Yolanda Perez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 3:55 PM
To: Housing Element <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed High Density Development on Calle Real & Baker Lane

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.

There is no question that there is a dire need for affordable housing in all the communities of Santa Barbara County. Yet I see many parts of the county that are not identified as being part of the “solution”.

In the past two to three decades Goleta has been transformed from a small town open space community to a thriving business town with many of the benefits of increased taxes and all spoils of the same. Grid lock traffic, apartment buildings jammed into any open space, loss of beautiful acres of natural land and the ever eroding feeling of a community are the consequences of nonstop building in Goleta.

It appears that any open space in Goleta is now a target for high density development regardless of the impact it will have on neighborhoods, resources and infrastructure in those areas.

I urge the city leaders to consider that the proposed development (the type of housing and number of units) is not compatible with the neighborhood.

Respectfully,
Yolanda Perez

-----Original Message-----
From: Lisa Citore <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 2:48 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Kenwood Development - NO‼️

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 City Council,

I have a strong NO for the Kenwood development proposal for many reasons.

1) The impact on traffic. The Glenn Annie exit off the freeway is already dangerous. Cars are completely stopped on the freeway way before the exit. And don’t think adding another lane will solve things.

2) The stress on our already fragile water supply. (Honestly, have you thought this through?!)

3) The overcrowding of the El Encanto Heights area, which is the neighborhood we live in. On our small street alone (San Bergamo Drive) there are 100 cars.

4) The loss of natural sanctuary and open space

All of the above will be taxing on people’s nervous systems. It will add stress to people’s lives and there will be more road rage and violence.

Initially, a 60 until building was proposed, which is why perhaps there wasn’t strong objection. 280 units is a whole different story!

How did this happen? Why weren’t people informed of the changes along the way?

It’s also important to note that the 60 until proposal only went through because the city failed to meet a deadline with its own proposal and the land was left up for grabs for private corporate investors.

The single most important function of government is to be the voice of its people and to protect its people’s rights. Please do your job.

This was your mistake. Please fix it.

This project will not in any way benefit the quality of people’s lives. It will in fact greatly diminish it. It will only put money in private corporate pockets.

Important decisions about our city are not to be made between private corporate investors and government officials, but by the people of Goleta. It is OUR city.

Thank you for taking my letter into consideration. I am speaking on behalf of many in our community who are uninformed and will not know the impact of this monstrous development until it happens and it’s too late.

Government of Goleta - If you don’t stop this now, you will have much more difficult problems to resolve in the future because of it.

I will be at the meeting this evening.

Sincerely,
Lisa Citore and Len Van Nostrand

From: Hugh Sutherland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 4:35 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>; Kim Bus Email <[email protected]>
Subject: Baker Lane: Opposed: Suggestion

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.

Clean up this abuse, incentivise renting to low income workers, single families, maintain the property...maybe a tax deduction or credit.

---
Hugh
Hugh Sutherland
[email protected]
805-886-5607

From: April Reid <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 7:01 AM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Request for plans for Kenwood Village

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

Dear City Council and City Clerk:

First, for anyone riding this e-mail who may want to contact the State about the City Council's straw vote to allow 284 housing units at Kenwood Village between Baker Lane and 7-11 off Calle Real and Stroke Road, the e-mail address is [email protected]

To the City Council:

It has come to my attention the at least two of the City Councilmembers were shown a fullest of plans/drawings for 284 housing units at Kenwood Village by the property owner. Most likely, these plans/drawings were used to help persuade the City Councilmembers to vote to agree to allow 284 housing units on the property. However, the public has not been given access to/notice of these secret plans/drawings so we could comment/object to them before the straw vote. Please release the plans/drawings to the public immediately so we can have the chance to comment/object to them when we send our comments/objections to the State. It is the only fair thing to do!!!

April Reid
15 Baker Lane
Goleta, CA. 93117

-----Original Message-----
From: deborah holmes <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 6:22 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Subject: Housing Element

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 Perotte and City Council,
>
> I am writing to strongly object to the large, high density housing units proposed for Calle Real (Kenwood Village) 284 units, and also Hollister parcels (east of 7190 Hollister and 7760 Hollister) 205 units and 291 units respectively.
>
> The Western part of Goleta has seen enormous development, and more than it’s fair share of growth, in the last two decades with the large box stores at Camino Real, housing and stores at Hollister Village, housing and a hotel off Storke Road, Target, housing near the golf course, a senior residence, multiple housing projects and businesses off Hollister, near Los Carneros, to name a few. >
> This has resulted in an extremely congested intersection for traffic and pedestrians at Storke and Glenn Annie. Adding this number of new housing units where traffic would have to flow into the same intersection and surface streets is a potential nightmare,. It is also very unfair to add this burden of high density homes and cars to the existing residents in those neighborhoods. >
> This is simply too many units to build in areas of Goleta where traffic is already dangerously congested and development has been occurring expodentially. Please consider reducing the density and high number of units in in these parcels.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Deborah Holmes
> 7910 Rio Vista Drive,
> Goleta
> CA 93117

Sent from my iPhone

From: Karen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 31, 2023 4:42 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Subject: High Density Delusion

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

Please share with Council and Planning Commissioners

California’s housing crisis and the density delusion
ocregister.com

Sent from my iPhone

From: Denise Stevens <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 1:51 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Subject: And more on Next Door Blog

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.

The El Encanto neighborhood is WHOLLY UNFIT for more density. A condo complex next to 7-11 and some private homes were built on the Calle Real corridor within last few years. There is one lane in each direction, the area is hemmed in by the 101 on one side with only Glen Annie/Storke or Cathedral Oaks to cross over…. Glen Annie/Storke in particular is already at maximum capacity in terms of safe traffic….

There are already hundred of ranch style homes with all those families using this narrow Calle Real access and Glen/Annie Storke freeway on/off ramp. Adding hundreds of more people to use those streets is a nightmare and dangerous. You are putting EVERY SINGLE PERSON living here at risk in an emergency. Can we sue you and State if someone dies???????

Here is another posting

Bob Fitch
Dos Pueblos/El Encanto •
Edited 21 hr ago

Letter to the Special Joint City Council/Planning Commission There is a lesson we all should have learned in our high school sociology class. When a large group of individuals live in a limited space, there will be increases in tension, violence, crime, sickness and death. This is true of both animals and humans. Look at the old housing projects of bigger cities. Violence and crime always increase. Each time you approve one of these high-density housing projects, you are asking for increases in stress, illness and crime. These results are to be expected. Our state politicians and, unfortunately, even our local leaders, seem to have all forgotten this essential lesson of living life together. People need space in order to be healthy. Reductions in housing density was one of the key social changes that lowered the incidence of many deadly diseases of the past. With regard to the proposed site on Calle Real, high-density housing is a poor fit for that area of town. The El Encanto neighborhood has only traditional Ranch style homes. Your cramped housing would be nothing but an out-of-place eyesore. This is not something anyone would welcome or be proud of. The Village at Los Carneros, the Hollister Village Apartments and Willow Springs Apartments all worked out well in those areas. But to dump an HD project into the older El Encanto Heights neighborhood - that would be a godawful disaster. With your proposed 284 units, this would likely mean 500 more automobiles daily driving that narrow two-lane road where a bicyclist was killed recently. Several new traffic lights would be needed to make it safe, but this would only back up traffic horribly. This is utter folly. The Goleta Water District is planning to lighten the restrictions on water use, allowing us to use as much water as we have used in the past. Now this may be news to you, but there will be more droughts in Goleta Valley's future. If you thought the last drought was rough, with an increasing number of people using up more and more water, the next drought may be unbearable. We cannot continue cramming more and more people into this narrow strip of arid land we call the Goleta Valley. Nature simply does not support it. And with the State's ongoing poor management of water resources, they cannot and will not be able to help us out very much.

We are on our own. If we behave that way, we may be able to make something work here - if we intelligently exercise water austerity and building limits. Like any responsible adult, we need to adjust our city budget to live within our means. This way we will not have to be so dependent upon State money. Then we can live the way we all want to, without being pushed around by distant bureaucrats and politicians in Sacramento.

Very sincerely, Dr. Robert Fitch

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Denise Stevens
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 1:42 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: You are reading this on the Next Door blog, aren't you. There is very little community support for some of the higher density housing projects, especially those that target ag land or recreational space

Here are some of the snippets:

More housing does not make lower or econmically affordable rents. Cortona Court was voted in by the city council because "We need workforce housing!" A two bedroom goes for $4,900 per month. Add another fifty for a cat and $100 if you have a dog. Mr Price submitted a letter asking the Shelby property be rezoned because he has 125 retail employees who can't afford to live here. He had the chance to make Cortona affordable and to some degree chose not to. But we are all entitled to make a profit. Few people will sell below market rate, or rent their ADU's for less than market demand. The reality is, given the cost of land, our onerous business code, the cost of construction, and a free market the only housing that will be economically affordable in price, is subsidized housing. It is time for the business community to step up and pay up for the impacts they cause, the traffic they create and the services they use. Perhaps, minnimum wage in an area should be tied to the average rental price of the community. Secondly, the city council has permitted our roads and infrastructure to rot while they pursue designer projects that cost millions. Their campaign promises to "Fix Our Roads" are as realistic and believable as the misleading catch phrase, "Affordable by Design" or "Workforce Housing." The result is jamming housing projects into substandard arterials while they vote to put High Density housing as far from their homes as possible. They fail to look for smaller parcels so low income housing is mixed into the community rather than ghettoized in plces that don't meet HCD's site standards.

Joe Guzzardi
• Santa Barbara, CA
The entire “housing crisis” narrative is a complete scam. Build more, need more. Then build more, and need more. It’s a never ending cycle. Affordability is never achieved. The ONLY achievement is the destruction of what made this area so beautiful. Open space will be gone. The ugliness of density will bring gridlock traffic. Water and electricity will be (more) scarce. Pollution will most certainly increase. In the end we’ll all regret what cannot be reversed.

phillip
Exactly. The bureaucrats can’t raise Prop 13 taxes, so the workaround is to double the housing stock and suck up more tax revenue from the new development. The result is that we’ll have double the units, and ALL of them will be in the same unaffordable price range. Build more, need more, build more, need more.

Kendra D.
• San Antonio Creek
You forgot about the pet deposits on top of the pet “rent”! Another interesting fact is how local jurisdictions surveyed residents regarding housing needs.

The survey was posted on social media or sent by e mail to those signed up for it. But targeted in person outreach was conducted by a consultant in disadvantaged communities. Specifically North County Spanish speaking and rural areas. Those results were incompatible with the current housing agenda so nothing became of it. When asked if residents would like to move closer to their job if new units were available the answer was no they like the community in which they live. When asked why they reside in North County, the most common answer was wanting to live in a house and wouldn’t be able to afford a house in the south. Also many commute in all directions from North County and from San Luis into North County to work. Many people work in SY yet the county proposed no new housing there. Instead they proposed adding 5K housing units in the Eastern Goleta Valley, right next to the city limits of Goleta. Also an additional 900 in Carp. All of them in areas that should not be rezoned for high density housing. These are AG lands, recreational lands and in a high fire hazard severity zones. All have inadequate infrastructure. So who are we trying to help?

Who are these insane housing laws benefiting?

1. Investors

2. Real Estate Developers

3. People with wealth that want a vacation home or an air B&B.

4. Young single professionals with moderately high paying jobs who think everyone rides a bike and cars shouldn’t exist.

5. UCSB students willing to pay 1K or more to share a room

6. Construction Unions

7. Politicians who receive massive campaign contributions from Ca Yimby and other faux affordable housing advocates

Who loses:

1. People who truly need affordable or deed restricted housing

2. Local families and workers who would like to own a starter home

3. Anyone who drives a car

4. Local renters who will be displaced and priced out

5. Surrounding neighborhoods that will be greatly impacted by high density.

6. Everyone when the next disaster occurs and we will be gridlocked.

7. Kids & teachers

8. Our aging inadequate infrastructure

Denise Stevens
• Mountain View Ranch
Bravo. Right on all counts. TELL THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE all of this as Sacramento started this insanity by requiring too much housing too quickly (with no real guardrails for the … See more

Sent from Mail for Windows

From: Darla Sharp <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 12:34 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>
Subject: High Density housing on Calle Real near DPHS

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

I'm a home owner on Mader Drive and I'm very concerned about the high density project and the impact it will have on my very small, already overrun with cars neighborhood. I work at UCSB and just getting to work from El Encanto over the very crowned Glen Annie/Storke overpass during the school year is so challenging. Adding all that housing and the many, many cars will have an enormous and negative impact on the current residents. The high school already causes so much traffic chaos due to the lack of a pedestrian bridge connecting the neighborhoods south of the 101 coming over to DPHS. Adding housing at the parcel on Calle Real is of course unavoidable, but high density housing in this already congested area? No, please, no! It's already chaotic! High density housing means hundreds more cars!

Please reconsider this project. It's too much for the area given all the current constraints that are not subject to change.

Thank you,
Darla Sharp
7068 Madera Dr.

Goleta, CA 93117

From: Christopher Elstner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 1, 2023 5:49 PM
To: City Clerk Group <[email protected]>; Luz Reyes-Martin <lreyes- [email protected]>
Subject: 625 Rare Road Use

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 All Concerned With The Future Use of 625 Dara Road in Goleta:

My name is Christopher Elstner and my wife, Paula Bagalio, andI have lived at 680 Dara Road since 1988. We are true Goletans having raised three sons, now grown, who went to Goleta schools who now have lives of their own elsewhere, but always return to their home to get their renewal of life by being back in Goleta.Paula is a nurse practitioner, now retired, and I am a retired pediatrician, having worked many years at the Goleta Neighborhood Clinic, forgoing a higher salary to be able to see all of the youth of Goleta and Santa Barbara, particularly those who are marginalized for various reasons socioeconomically. Paula and I come from a place in the heart of being good citizens doing our fair share for the community.

As regards the use of the property at 625 Dara Road I have attended some meetings and I understand how difficult zoning and property density issues are. A tip of the hat to you all for doing the hard work of projects like these.

My understanding is that there really are two choices of how to use 625 Dara Road. One is for a density of around 80 units and the other in the 120+ range number of units. Both Paula and I are not NIMBYs as we know someone had to give up something so we could have our house which was built in the 1960s. After careful thought our feeling of having lived here for 35 years is that there is a specialness to the neighborhood that would be best to keep as close to the feeling of the neighborhood as possible.

For that reason Paula and I hope you will choose the 80 unit choice over the 120+ unit choice. Here are our reasons:
1) The roads in the neighborhood were designed for a certain amount of traffic flow. Dara Road itself is only two blocks long. Our only bus line is on Cathedral Oaks that goes only hourly and there is no foot or bus traffic to groceries, drug stores and the like. In order to go to Trader Joe's requires a car ride. If this bucolic neighborhood were to immediately increase by 120+ units, there would literally be hundreds more people having to use their cars in and out of their homes every day. Not only the texture of the neighborhood would be hugely changed, but the air quality would suffer as would noise, trash and utilities. Rolling brownouts could increase. Using a plan for 80 units makes more sense. 120+ seems too much.
2) As Dara Road connects to Cathedral Oaks, the way the intersection was built made it permanently dangerous to turn either right or left onto Cathedral Oaks from Dara Road. It's a hail Mary every time we try to make either a right or left turn. And the reverse is true. As we back out of our driveway, it is also a hail mary as cars tunr onto Dara Road, usually speeding, making the simple act of going in and out of our driveway frankly dangerous. We all know there have been several deaths on Cathedral Oaks due to traffic in the past few years. As a doctor who has done my share of working in ERs and in combat areas with Doctors Without Borders (South Sudan), most people have not seen a dead body let alone one that has been torn apart. It is not a pretty sight. With literally hundreds of more car trips going in and out of that intersection alone it is only a matter of time for more fatalities and serious injuries to occur.

Statistically those chance still increase with 80 units, but less than with 120 units. 3) the property at 625 Dara road is a stone's throw from Kellogg School and two churches who are stalwarts of the neighborhood. Kellogg is incredibly crowded with lots of very young children going to and from school every day, including the summertime. Adding hundreds of car trips with 120+ units is going to cause serious accidents and problems.
4) It's important to remember that the items I have enumerated are just as appropriate for those newcomers coming into the units as well as the existing residents. It's not as though increasing congestion by 120+ units isn't good for the existing people, it's bad for the people who move in. It's that simple
In pediatrics we bend over backwards to take care of all children no matter who. It's that attitude which Paula and I have about our neighborhood. In pediatrics sometimes doing the best doesn't work out right and it's called "doing good badly." The heart is in the right place but the physical results don't come out in the best way. It's the same with 625 Dara Road. Yes, offering housing to those who are needing it is good. But adding too many results in a bad outcome for existing residents, and for those who move in.

Thanks for all the time and effort you are putting into the project. Going forward, but with some moderation of choosing 80 units we feel works best for everyone.

Sincerely,
Christopher Elstner, M.D.

Goleta City CouncilJuly 31, 2023

Goleta City Council
July 31, 2023