From: april reid <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2023 10:28 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Deborah Lopez <[email protected]>; Andy Newkirk <[email protected]>
Subject: Goleta- Kenwood Village has single family housing on two sides
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.
Crashstudy.pdf
To The State and Goleta City Council:
As I have stated repeatedly, I am highly concerned that the State is not familiar with the true make-up of the area surrounding Kenwood Village at 7264 Calle Real, Goleta, CA. 93117. Kenwood Village is surrounded on two sides by single family housing and on a third side by moderate family housing. The fourth side consists of a dangerous road, Calle Real. I was highly distressed to discover that members of the City Council, after years of working on the Housing Element Plan and eight months of working on rezoning/upzoning various properties, including Kenwood Village, were under the misunderstanding that Kenwood Village was surrounded on three sides by high density housing. IT IS NOT. I do not know if the City Council were simply mislead by the property owner’s friends who constantly claimed the property was surrounded on three sides by high density housing, even though my neighbors and I consistently corrected them; or if they were mislead by the City staff, some of whom are pro- development, who may have inaccurately stated Kenwood Village was surrounded by high density housing on three sides, or if the City Council just did not bother to determine the actual make-up of the area surrounding Kenwood Village. Regardless, if the City Council is confused about the real make-up of the area surrounding Kenwood Village, then it is highly likely the State is also being mislead/confused about the true make-up of the area surrounding Kenwood Village. I have sent you numerous pictures and documents. Please confirm that you are aware of the true make-up of the area surrounding Kenwood Village before considering the final Goleta Housing Element Plan. Otherwise, please let me know if you need additional pictures and/or documents.
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL ALREADY DECLARED THERE WOULD BE BUILDING ON
KENWOOD VILLAGE WITHOUT ANY DISCLOSED PLAN/UPDATED CEQA
ANALYSIS/ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES OR ADDENDUM, INCLUDING ANY UPDATED
ENVIRONMENTAL OR TRAFFIC STUDIES FOR THE AREA
Curiously, two members of the City Council, Councilmembers James Kyriaco and Stuart Kasdin, stated at the December 5, 2023 final vote for the Housing Element Plan/rezoning/upzoning that there will be building at Kenwood Village. These are the two Council members who had
separate meetings with the property owner prior to the public revelation in July 2023 that the City Council planned to rezone/upzone certain properties. I am not sure how the two City Councilmembers have already determined there would be building at Kenwood Village for the upzoned/rezoned number of housing units proposed for high density housing, 190, when there has not been any public comment or any plans developed as far as I know and there has not been any updated CEQA review/addendum since the original 2016 review for the original 60 proposed housing units. So, either the property owner will build only 60 housing units based on a prior development plan, the property owner and/or the City staff actually showed/discussed a new plan based on the increased number of housing units and the City Council agreed to it, even though the plan was not released to the public for comment, or; the City Council agreed to let the property owner build the upzoned/increased number of units, 190, on the property without bothering to figure out what it looks like and without any public comment. I think the City Council should disclose how they came to the decision to approve the building of 190 units on Kenwood Village without a new CeQA review/addendum and without public comment.
Also, there are four members of the City Council and one Mayor. The Mayor recused herself from voting on Kenwood Village, so it would take 3 out of 4 City Council members to vote to build a certain project on the property. Who is the third Councilmember that has already agreed to build 190 housing units on the property in addition to Councilmembers Kyriaco and Kasdin? It is my understanding the other two Councilmembers did not meet with the property owner. Did the Councilmembers already come together to decide to vote to allow the property owner to build a specific project on the property in violation of the Brown Act? Did the City staff contact each City Councilmember individually to determine that at least three Councilmembers agreed to allow the property owner to build on the property, even though there has not been any public comment or subsequent CEQA review since the original CEQA review for Kenwood Village took place in April 2016 and many things have changed since then, such as the traffic and wildlife on/near the property? Either way, this declaration of allowing the property owner to build without public comment is not designed to accommodate the spirit of the law/ordinances/intentions, if not the actual law/ordinances/intentions/spirit of the public comment process itself. It is also not in compliance with the CEQA/addendum requirements.
LECTURING THE GOLETA CITIZENS
After the final public comment section of the Housing Element Plan/rezoning/upzoning on December 5, 2023 wherein people had the courage to leave their families for a long night in order to express their sincere opinions, the members of the City Council saw fit to lecture the Goleta citizens for disagreeing about what should be built/rezoned/upzoned in Goleta. The City Council stated the Housing Element Plan was dividing citizens. It is not the citizens who are dividing themselves. It is the State that caused division by forcing high density housing onto the public when there were perfectly good single family housing units that could have been built. It is also the City Council for not bothering to investigate/become familiar with any given site before voting to enforce high density housing on that site. We, the people, have a right to express our frustration/anger at how the City Council blindly voted to place high density housing on random sites due to the arbitrary requirements of the State that forced the City Council to vote for high density housing rather than accepting great housing possibilities for single family housing. To be clear, we, the people, do not need lectures about expressing our opinions about how badly the process ended up becoming. We are NOT the ones dividing Goleta, it is the State, the City Council and the City staff who did not handle this entire process well. Do not lecture the Goleta citizens for pointing out the horrible way this entire process was handled.
CONDUCT OF CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE STAFF
The Goleta City staff’s excessive involvement in the process is disturbing. It is my understanding many of the City staff is pro-development. It is very easy for them to orchestrate the outcome of the process so they get what they want, rather than what is best for the City of Goleta. It is the City staff that was able to pick and chose which properties to push hard/work on to get permission from the property owners to agree to build high density housing. It was the City staff who told the City Council that the City Council needed to suddenly upzone/rezone properties as soon as possible, which the City Council complied with. It was Ann Wells who ensured I would not participate in the Housing Element Plan after finding out I promoted slow growth in Goleta when she wrote me, “Kenwood was one of 24 sites included in the vacant sites table. Please note that the estimate was prepared independent from the housing development proposal and is included in the table as part of the Housing Element process, not a project approval process. The State requires that the City identify vacant, residentially zoned sites and estimate the number of possible units that could be built on the site. It is not a project approval but instead accounting of our vacant land inventory for the State to review and certify.
Proposed development go through the permit process…” She also told me the City Council would not vote to build on Kenwood Village. As a result, I was not given the opportunity to attend the three early workshops and the early meetings wherein the Housing Element Plan was shaped/developed. It was truly nauseating to listen to the members of the City Council praise/commend the City staff for their so-called “hard work”. The City staff clearly has way too much control over the City Council to influence the City Council into voting a certain way. This is especially apparent when a member of the City Council does not even know the true make-up of the area surrounding Kenwood Village before taking a final vote to rezone/upzone the property.
NEW EIR NEEDED
As previously stated, the City of Goleta has not had a CEQA EIR since September 2006. Clearly, a new CEQA review is needed, not just an addendum. The idea that there are no significant changes to Goleta after all the recent building is absurd. Further, there have been significant changes to Kenwood Village since the April 2016 EIR was prepared, especially after all the new proposed building in El Encanto Heights/Dos Pueblos area where Kenwood Village is being proposed. There is significant new traffic near Kenwood Village and additional protected wildlife on the Kenwood Village property that was not included in the original 2016 Kenwood Village CEQA review. Neither CEQA review includes the addition 1,000 housing units at the Glen Annie Golf Course proposed by the County of Santa Barbara or the increased housing at Kenwood Village and Colusa and the increased housing along Hollister near the intersections of both Storke and Marketplace Drive. In additional, there are significant increases in traffic at the 101 freeway at Glen Annie and Storke Road, especially after the added traffic from all of these additional housing units will take effect.
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
The Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan for September 2016 states the objective in mitigating traffic impacts of development is “[t]o ensure that new development is supported by adequate capacities in transportation systems, including city streets and roads, without reducing the quality of service coexisting residents, commuters, and other users of the city street system. . .Future development in Goleta will cause added burdens on the transportation system. Traffic analysis and reports SHALL be required for development proposals which the City Engineer and Planning Director determine may have effects on the local street system, including but not limited to possible degradation of service levels, potential creation of safety hazards,
potential adverse effects on local neighborhood streets, or other substantial transportation concerns... New development shall only be allowed when and where such development can be adequately (as defined by the LOS standards in Policy TE4) served by existing and/or planned transportation facilities.” This issue has been addressed previously. There should be traffic studies completed before rezoning/upzoning over twelve hundred additional housing units at the El Encanto Heights/Dos Pueblos community to determine whether the additional traffic will substantially harm the community. For example, at Kenwood Village, the street entrance to the property, Calle Real, is a dangerous road with one narrow lane of traffic in each direction. There have been many accidents/fatalities on the road. Also, there is a freeway on one side of the road and housing on the other side of the road, so there is no way to widen the road. As a result, there is no adequate, safe street at Kenwood Village, as stated below.
Further, there are three dangerous intersections that a fire truck from the closest fire house would have to cross before getting to the El Encanto Heights/Dos Pueblos community, including Kenwood Village. According to The City of Goleta’s April 2021 report, “A Traffic Safety Study for the City of Goleta Including: Systemic Safety Analysis Report Local Road Safety Plan, the intersection of Hollister Avenue and Storke Road is considered the Number 1 Highest Risk Intersection and corridor in Goleta. The number 2 highest risk intersection and corridor is Marketplace Drive and Storke Road. In addition, the highest risk arterial segment in Goleta is Storke Road and US 101 Southbound ramps to Hollister Avenue, which is the offramp that people living on Kenwood Village will use. It is my understanding that the prior Goleta City Council already determined from reports that the intersection at US 101 and Storke and Glenn Anne had a significant traffic impact and required overriding considerations to be approved.
The traffic will be even worse with an additional about fifteen hundred housing units in the area coming from both sides of the freeway. There needs to be an updated traffic study to determine the effects of the already crowded/dangerous intersections before additional housing is built in the area.
In fact, the Kenwood EIR from 2026 states that the U.S. 101 southbound ramps at Storke Road “exceed the City’s acceptable operating standards in peak A.M.and F.M. hours.” Further, the Hollister Avenue and Storke Road intersection “exceeds the City’s acceptable operating standards in the peak P.M. hours.” This study does not even take into account the additional proposed housing units on both sides of the freeway if rezoning/upzoning is approved. Glen Annie is an on/offramp to a freeway and it would take a lot of work and money to add on an additional lane for the offramp. It will also be difficult to add lanes to Calle Real at the intersection, as well as Storke Road. If it is even possible, the Kenwood Village property owner should be required to construct the necessary transportation system improvements to reduce traffic and prevent the possibility of increased fatalities/accidents. Otherwise, he should be required to construct transportation improvements or identify alternative strategies, such as transit improvements, improving signalization, improving other streets, adding pedestrian or bicycle improvements, etc. to mitigate potential traffic impacts. There has been significantly more building in the area and more traffic since the original EIR in 2016. In addition, there are currently multiple new sites in the area being proposed, including the Glen Annie Golf Coarse, with a possible 1,000 new housing units, in addition to Shelby with at least 60 new housing units, though the owners want to increase the number, Colusa with 38 new housing units and a minimum of 190 housing units at Kenwood Village. All of this does not even include bonus density. Then, there are multiple housing units proposed at or near Hollister between the Glen Annie and Storke Road on/offramp and Winchester. These intersections will have possibly over a thousand additional vehicles, which will have a significant impact on the community. Even worse, the City Council recently took away the money for a fire station in El Encanto Heights/Dos Pueblos. Since the nearest fire engine to El Encanto Heights/Dos Pueblos and Kenwood Village will have to travel through all three intersections to arrive at Kenwood Village or any other place in El Encanto Heights/Dos Pueblos, including Glen Annie Golf Course, there is a potential for significantly increased traffic accidents/fatalities, in addition to tragedies if the fire trucks are delayed in getting to an emergency due to traffic issues. The City should require a new traffic study which includes potential housing from the County to determine if the highly increased traffic that would occur can be accommodated safely.
CONTAMINATE SOIL/HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL
The 2016 Kenwood Village General Plan Supplemental EIR states, “The project site is in an area with past oil development activities that may include contaminated soils. However, no known oil exploration or production activities have occurred on the project site . . . The project site has historically been farmed; agricultural operations ceased in 2007. Due to the previous use of the project site for agricultural purposes, it is reasonable to assume that herbicides and pesticides were applied to the site sometime in the relatively recent past. If residual concentrations of herbicides and pesticides are present in the project site soil, the disturbance of the site by grading and construction activities could have the potential to result in health impacts to on- site workers and nearby residents, primarily through the creation of dust that could transport contaminants. The potential for the project to result in health-related impacts due to the presence of residual herbicides and pesticides in on-site soils is considered to be a potentially significant and mitigable (Class II) impact.” The property owner should be required to test the soil before being able to build.
FLOODING
According to Redfin and Risk Factor, a site that documents the likelihood of various catastrophes in the area, the condos next to Kenwood Village are in a flood zone. There is a 99% chance there will be flooding at the condos next to Kenwood Village in the next 30 years.
According to the documentation I already sent you, the property owner should accommodate for the likelihood the property will flood by raising the foundation of the housing units above the flood level.
WASTEWATER/ SOLID WASTE
The supplemental 2016 EIR for Kenwood Village states, “[T]he project would have a significant impact if it would: Generate five percent or more of the expected average annual increase in waste generation thereby using a significant portion of the remaining landfill capacity (the numerical value associated with this 5 percent is approximately 196 tons per year increase). If a proposed project generates 196 or more tons per year, after receiving a reduction and recycling credit of 50 percent, impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. . . Significant impacts would occur with implementation of the GP/CLUP if results included substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire protection, Police protection, Schools, Parks, Other public facilities.” The effects of the increased number of housing units should be determined before the property owner is allowed to build. The property owner should be required to mitigate these potential significant effects, if that is even possible.
WATER
As previously stated, Goleta has been in a significant drought for many year. In fact, the property owner said he was not able to get water permits for more than 16 years because of a severe drought in Goleta. There are other property owners who were also not able to get water permits for 16 plus years. It is my understanding the Goleta Water District is still not handing out water permits. Just because the Goleta Water District says they will hand out water permits to the required number of housing units to be build does NOT mean there is sufficient water for all of these units now or in the future. Then, Goleta will be back to being in a long term drought again.
NOISE
According to the 2016 Supplement EIR for Kenwood Village, “implementation of the GPA would increase noise impacts over what was identified in the GP/CLUP Final EIR, including impacts related to the exposure of noise sensitive land uses to construction noise, and the exposure of additional population to traffic and train noise. These impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I).”
LIGHT AND GLARE
According to the 2016 supplemental EIR for Kenwood Village, there was “identified significant impacts related to the increase of light and glare resulting from development of vacant land visible from U.S. 101 and other identified scenic corridors. The project site is located near the U.S. 101 corridor and the GPA would facilitate the construction of additional residences that would contribute to this impact. The GP/CLUP Final EIR concluded that the potential for lighting-related impacts to scenic corridors would be reduced to a less than significant level with the implementation of Policies VH-1 (Scenic Views).” The property owner should mitigate the light and glare for the neighbors and the people driving on US 101.
IMPACTS TO THE VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE SANTA YNEZ MOUNTAINS AND FOOTHILLS
The 2016 supplemental EIR for Kenwood Village “concluded that development on vacant land would have the potential to result in Class I impacts to views of the Santa Ynez Mountains and foothills. The property owner should not be allowed to block the views of the Santa Ynez Mountains and foothills from the people who have lived in the community for over 55 years and built their homes with a intention of having views of the Santa Ynez Mountains and the foothills.
LOSS OF PRIVACY
The GP/CLUP Final EIR for Kenwood Village identified significant impacts associated with the loss of privacy or the creation of other conditions incompatible with existing neighborhoods.
The supplemental Kenwood Village EIR report states, “[D]evelopment of the project site consistent with the proposed GPA would also have the potential to result in this impact because it is adjacent to existing neighborhoods.” Further, building high density housing will allow any occupants to view inside my house and my rental house. This is especially creepy during the times I am renting to a family with small children, as I have done.
PRESCRIPTIVE EASMENT
In California, a user of land may establish a prescriptive easement by proving that his or her use of another’s land was: (1) continuous and uninterrupted for five years; (2) open and notorious; and (3) hostile. A prescriptive easement allows non‐owners to gain the legal right to use a part of someone else's property. Since I was a child, my family and I, as well as many other people, used the well worn walking path between the back yard of the houses on Tuolumne and my rental property at 17 Baker Lane. Further, we also used the path along the back of the houses on Baker Lane, as well as the path behind the houses at Tuolumne from Baker Lane to the 7‐11. With the building of housing on Baker Lane, Violet and Daffodil in around 2002, even more people used the well-worn paths on Kenwood Village; a private property. To date, there are well worn shoe prints and a lot of dog droppings all along these paths. In an article written by the property owner in the Independent called Setting The Record Straight dated November 17, 2023, Mr. Alker called all of us “trespassers.” He stated, “[O]nce houses have been built on the parcel, the threat of fire and trespassers will be significantly reduced.” As stated previously, these well worn paths behind Tuolumne Drive and Baker Lane should be preserved for the multitude of people who have been using them for decades. Thus, the property owner should have to build back farther than the required 20 feet from the back of the houses to preserve the walking paths.
Thank you.
April Reid
15 Baker Lane
Goleta, CA. 93117