Agenda Item A.4
CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: January 16, 2024
TO: City Council
FROM: Megan K. Garibaldi, City Attorney
PREPARED BY: Scott Shapses, Deputy City Attorney
SUBJECT: Consider and Respond to Brown Act Allegation by April Reid Regarding Kenwood Village Project
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive and file April Reid’s January 1, 2024 complaint demanding the City Council “cure and correct” alleged Brown Act violations;
2. Receive and file this report analyzing the allegations in Ms. Reid’s complaint; and
3. Direct the City Attorney to prepare and execute, and the City Clerk to send, a letter pursuant to Government Code section 54960.1(c) (2) to April Reid conveying that the City Council considered Ms. Reid’s January 1, 2024 email demanding a cure or correction under the Brown Act , determining that no Brown Act violation occurred as no action for any project approvals at 7264 Calle Real, Goleta, CA (Kenwood Village) has been taken by the City Council, and therefore the City Council will not take further action regarding this matter as there is no action to correct.
BACKGROUND
On January 1, 2024, April Reid, a resident of the City of Goleta, sent an email (the “Demand”) to the City Attorney and the City Clerk alleging a Brown Act violation by the City Council and demanding an action to “cure and correct” under Government Code Section 54960.1. The Brown Act provides that any person may challenge an action taken by the City Council by filing a written demand to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in violation of the Brown Act. (Gov. Code § 54960.1, subd. (b).)
The City takes every Brown Act allegation seriously, even when it would appear on its face to be without merit. The Brown Act dictates that the City Council determine within 30 days of receipt of a demand whether it will cure or correct or, alternatively, cease and desist from, the challenged action. If the City Council does not act within 30 days, it is deemed to have determined not to take any corrective action. Tonight’s meeting is within 1 the 30 day period for response. Pursuant to Government Code Sec tions 54960.1, subdivision (b), the Council must determine whether a violation occurred and if so, whether to cure the violation.
ALLEGATIONS/DEMAND
A copy of the Demand alleging violations of the Brown Act is attached. (Attachment 1).The Demand asks for the following relief:
“Pursuant to that provision (Government Code Section
54960.1), I demand that the Goleta City Council cure and correct the illegally taken action as follows: the formal and explicit withdrawal from any commitment made to build on the Kenwood Village property at 7264 Calle Real, Goleta, Ca. 93117, coupled with a disclosure at a subsequent meeting of why individual members of the Goleta City Council took the positions- by vote or otherwise- that they did, accompanied by the full opportunity for informed comment by members of the public at the same meeting, notice of which is properly included on the posted agenda.”
The basis for the Demand is, at its core, based on the following factual allegations:
“At the end of the December 5, 2023 City Council meeting, after the City Council voted to upzone/rezone Kenwood
Village at 7264 Calle Real from part single family housing and part agriculture to all high density housing, both
Councilmember Kyriaco and Councilmember Kasdin stated
there would be building on the property. I am not sure how they would know this. It is my understanding that they are only allowed to speak to one other Councilmember at a time
outside of the City Council meetings. So, when did the City Council collectively dec ide there would be building of high density housing units on Kenwood Village? The Mayor
recused herself from voting, so there are only four
Councilmembers who could vote. It would take three
Councilmembers to get a majority in order to vote to build high density housing on Kenwood Village. Who is the third person who agreed to allow building on the property? In 2016, there was an EIR report completed for 60 housing units at Kenwood Village. However, there has not been an EIR CEQA
review/addendum for the increased number of housing units, 190; there is no public plan for the increased number of housing units, as far as I know and there has been no public comment for the increased number of housing units. So, how do Councilmembers Kyriaco and Kasdin know t here will be building on the property? Further, at the end of the December 12, 2023 meeting, Councilmember Kyriaco stated there would be a lot of building in Goleta. Again, how does he know this 2 without having an agreement with other City Councilmembers which did not take place at a public hearing? ”
. . .
“In its meeting of December 5, 2023, the Goleta City Council took action to promise/pledge to allow building on the property of Kenwood Village at 7264 Calle Real, Goleta, CA. 93117 based on an increased number of housing units, from 60 units to 190 units, without the issue being placed on the agenda; without an updated CEQA review/addendum or without any
public comment whatsoever. In so doing, the Goleta City Council took “action” as defined in Government Code 54952.6 because a majority of the members made a collective decision and/or a majority of the members made a collective
commitment or promise to make a positive or a negative
decision, i.e. to allow building of high density housing on Kenwood Village.”
The Demand does not describe at what time in the meeting these alleged statements occurred, provide the specific statements made by either Councilmember, or context for the alleged statements. In essence, the Demand asserts that a majority of the Council took action on a matter —i.e., Kenwood project approvals —that was not placed on the agenda at the December 5 meeting and/or outside of a public meeting, in violation of the Brown Act (the “December 5, 2023 Allegations”).
In addition to the Brown Act allegations set forth in Part 1 of the Demand, Ms. Reid also alleges other “ethical” violations without re ference to any law. In brief, Part 2 of the Demand email generally alleges that the “City Council intentionally failed to in form themselves about any ‘discrepancies’ regarding the true nature of the surrounding area around Kenwood Village before taking a vote.” (Attachment 1) However, the Demand also notes that there were conflicting positions in the community regarding the “true nature” of the area , as well as information presented by City staff supporting City Council’s determinations with respect to the matter . As Part 2 does not touch and concern the Brown Act, those issues are not addressed herein.
It is unclear whether Part 3 of the Demand email is intended to be a separate allegation of a Brown Act violation or a further allegation of an “ethical” violation. Assuming for the sake of argument it was intended to raise additional Brown Act violations, it asserts that communications from Anne Wells, the City’s Advance Planning Manager , deprived Ms.
Reid of the opportunity to participate in workshops and provide public comment relating to the rezoning of the Kenwood Village site in 2020 (the “2020 Allegations”) More specifically, the Demand also alleges that in 2020, Ms. Reid was “deprived of the opportunity to appear at many of the City Council meetings for the Housing Element Plan for public comment, especially early on when so many issues were being discussed/agreed upon according to the City staff. I was also deprived of the opportunity to participate in the three workshops held by the City.” That allegation is based on an email from Anne Wells, Advance Division Planning Manager, responding to a question 3 from Ms. Reid regarding why Kenwood Village was included on the City’s list of Housing Element Vacant Sites. Ms. Wells responded with clarifying information regarding why Kenwood Village was included and noting that the Housing Element process and approval was distinguishable from a development proposal. Ms. Reid also alleges a phone call in which Ms. Wells allegedly stated she is pro -development and supports building on Kenwood Village and that the City Council would not vote to build on the property. The Demand alleges that as a result of those statements, “I did not attend any workshops or meetings because I truly believed there was no danger of approving the Kenwood Village project and the Housing Element Plan did not amount to anything important according to Ms. Wells.”
DECEMBER 5, 2023 AGENDA AND COUNCIL ACTION
The following item was, verbatim, placed on the December 5, 2023, City of Goleta (“City”) City Council’s (“Council”) regular meeting agenda, imaged as below:
The above-referenced agenda item clearly describes that the City Council would consider whether to add 7264 Calle Real to the Housing Element 2023 -2031 Subprogram HE
2.1(a) and the Technical Appendix Residential Sites Inventory. It further describes that Council would consider whether to adopt amendments to increase the allowed density at 7264 Calle Real, and identifies that Council would introduce an ordinance to change the zone district and standards for 7264 Calle Real. Finally, it clearly states that no further environmental review was necessary because a CEQA Addendum was considered as part of a separate action.
4 On December 5, 2023, City Council met to consider Item D.1, as agendized. Council publicly deliberated on the various identified issues before acting on staff’s recommendation. All those wishing to speak were provided with the opportunity to make public comment. April Reid was called as the first speaker in the period designated for public comments, spoke on the item, and was provided the same amount of time to speak as any other speaker.
Critically, Council did not take any action to authorize project approvals for Kenwood Village. No statement made by any Councilmember had the effect of authorizing any project approvals for Kenwood Village. The Council instead acted o n the item as presented, adding Kenwood Village to the Housing Element inventory site list and conducting rezoning, as more particularly described in Item D.1, as set forth above.
BROWN ACT
The Brown Act's requirement that public meetings be open ensure s the public's right to attend City Council meetings , subject to limited statutory exceptions. The Brown Act mandates that “meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meetin g of the legislative body of the local agency, except as otherw ise provided in this chapter.” (Government Code § 54953(a).) Official actions of a legislative body of a local agency must be taken at a noticed meeting, and every regular meeting of a legislative body must be preceded by a posted agenda that advises the public of the meeting and the matters to be transacted or discussed at that meeting. (Government Code § 54954.2 (a).) A brief description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words. (Ibid.) The Brown Act disallows local legislative bodies from acting on any matter not listed on the posted agenda. (Government Code § 54954.2) The Brown Act was designed to facilitate public participation in local governmental decisions and to curb misuse of the de mocratic process by secret legislation.
Before pursuing judicial determination of an action allegedly in violation of the Brown Act is null and void, an interested party must first demand the legislative body cure or correct its mistake. (Government Code § 54960.1(b).) Under the facts presented here, April Reid made written demand on January 1, 2024 as to certain alleged statements made in the December 5, 2023 City Council meeting. (See Government Code § 54960.1(c)(1).) While unclear if Part 3 of the Dem and was intended to allege a Brown Act violati on, this Staff Report addresses that component of the Demand as if it were an allegation of a Brown Act violation.
The City has thirty days to respond to the Demand per the requirements of the Brown Act. (See id.)
ANALYSIS
It is the position of the City that the above-referenced agenda description and the Council’s actions on such items , did not violate the Brown Act . Specifically, the above - referenced agenda title expressly identifies the item to be considered, among other things, (1) the addition of 7264 Calle Real to Housing Element 2023 -2031 Subprogram 5 HE 2.1(a) and the Technical Appendix Residential Sites Inventory, and (2) amendments to the General Plan to facilitate high density residential development at 7264 Calle Real.1 The City Council considered and adopted staff’s recommendations as to Item D.1 . In short, the City Council considered precisely and only what the agenda identified. It took no other action.
The Demand separately alleges that Ms. Reid and the general public were not afforded the opportunity to engage in public participation with respect to the development of the Housing Element. All those wishing to speak on Item D.1 were provided with the opportunity to speak on the same. Moreover, the first speaker during public comment for the same item D.1 was April Reid. Ms. Reid has therefore been afforded the opportunity to speak on the item and to address her concerns as they pertain to the adoption of the Housing Elem ent as required by the Brown Act and Government Code Section 65583(c)(8).
Ms. Reid suggests a Brown Act violation based on alleged statements by Councilmembers Kyriaco and Kasdin that there would be building on 7264 Calle Real . (Attachment 1) The Demand also discusses that “at the end of the December 12, 2023 meeting,2 Councilmember Kyriaco stated there would be a lot of building in Goleta.” (Id.) However, it is unclear when those statements were made, the context, or the specific statements made by either Councilmember. In any event, the referenced statements did not grant any approval to any applicant . Nor could they. Approv al of discretionary entitlements requires identification and description of the project and the permits and/or approvals at issue, none of which is alleged in Ms. Reid’s statement. Moreover, a part of the Housing Element process is to identify the location for future potential development; reference to anticipated development on the sites that the City must identify to satisfy its Site Inventory list requirement is in line with the very purpose of the agenda item. More importantly, City Council has taken no action, whether in regular session, special session, or closed session to authorize or approve entitlements for 7264 Calle Real. Further, the City’s position is that no discretionary approvals have been issued for 7264 Calle Real, so there could not have been an action outside of a meeting to approve any entitlements for Kenwood Village. Thus, even if the statements alleged in the D emand were made, there is simply no action to cure as to December 5, 2023 Allegations in the Demand because there have been no entitlements issued for a project at 7264 Calle Real.
Ms. Reid further alleged a Brown Act violation on the basis that she was “deprived/deceived out of the opportunity to participate in the early process to influence the outcome of the Housing Element Plan” based on certain communications, by email and phone, with Anne Wells, the City’s Advance Planning Division Manager in 2020 . (Attachment 1) The email from Ms. Wells merely directly responded to Ms. Reid’s questions for clarification regarding why Kenwood Village was included on the Housing Element inventory. It was factually accurate that the inclusion of Kenwood Village on the Housing Element inventory was not part of the project approval process, and Ms. Wells’s
1 The City Council also passed a resolution to modify Title 17 of the Goleta Municipal Code to change the zone district and standards applicable to 7264 Calle Real and determined that no further environmental review was necessary because a CEQA addendum was considered and approved as part of a separate action.
2 The City Council did not meet on December 12, 2023, but did meet on December 5, 2023 and on December 19, 2023.
6 email did not state “it did not mean anything” as inferred by Ms. Reid. Moreover, it is unclear when the telephone call alleged in the Demand occurred and there is no evidence of such a call . Even if Ms. Wells made the statements alleged to occur in the alleged phone call, the three workshops and meetings of the City Council discussed in the Demand were open to the public. Ms. Reid had every opportunity to participate in the public process with respect to Kenwood Village, and as identified by Ms. Wells, the addition of Kenwood Village to the Housing Element and upzoning of the parcel did not authorize any entitlements to develop the property. Thus, there was no Brown Act violation merely because Ms. Reid chose not to attend the various public meetings and workshops relating to Kenwood Village based on a misinterpretation of a direct and clear response to an emailed question.3
Based on the foregoing, City staff recommends responding to the Demand stating that no project approvals to begin building have been issued for Kenwood Village, and no action that would otherwise be required by the City Council for approval of Kenwood Village project entitlement has been taken , and th erefore no Brown Act violation occurred because the action alleged in the Demand was never taken.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The consideration of this item does not constitute a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15378 since directing the City Attorney to respond to a Brown Act demand letter does not have the potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonabl y foreseeable indirect phys ical change in the environment. Moreover, pursuant to State CEQA Gu idelines, section 15061(b)(3), directing the City Attorney to respond to a Brown Act demand letter is exempt from CEQA because there is no possibility that it may have a significant effect on the environment.
LEGAL REVIEW BY: Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: Robert Nisbet, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. April Reid’s January 1, 2024 Email/Brown Act Demand
3 In any event, the opportunity to allege such a violation from 2020 has long passed. 7 Attachment 1
April Reid’s January 1, 2024 Email/Brown Act Demand
8 KenwoodEIRBaker.pdf
Annewells.pdf
Ms. Lopez and Ms. Garibaldi:
The following is a Complaint for a Brown Act Violation against the Goleta City Council. I am also including Complaints for various ethical violations against the Goleta City Council and the Goleta City staff. I am not an expert in the ethical violations that can be filed against the City Council and/or the City staff, so I am setting out a statement of facts with possible ethical violations. I presume that the ethical rules for the City Council, who are elected, would be different than the ethical rules for the City staff, who are hired employees. Further, I am not sure if the City Council’s incompetence; failure to resolve discrepancies before voting; failure to become informed about an issue/project before voting; failure to investigate and/or to have the staff investigate an issue before voting; and/or failure to understand an issue before voting are ethical violations. I realize that both of you are employed by the City of Goleta.
As
such, neither of you will likely be objective regarding my statement. Rather, you will both likely do what you can to protect the City Council and the City staff. But, I am compelled to file this Complaint anyway.
1. BROWN ACT VIOLATION AGAINST THE CITY COUNCIL
At the end of the December 5, 2023 City Council meeting, after the City Council voted to upzone/rezone Kenwood Village at 7264 Calle Real from part single family housing and part agriculture to all high density housing, both Councilmember Kyriaco and Councilmember Kasdin stated there would be building on the property.
I am not sure how they would know
this. It is my understanding that they are only allowed to speak to one other Councilmember at a time outside of the City Council meetings. So, when did the City Council collectively decide there would be building of high density housing units on Kenwood Village? The Mayor recused herself from voting, so there are only four Councilmembers who could vote. It would take three Councilmembers to get a majority in order to vote to build high density housing on Kenwood Village.
Who is the third person who agreed to allow building on the property? In 2016, there was an EIR report completed for 60 housing units at Kenwood Village. However, there has not been an EIR CEQA review/addendum for the increased number of housing units, 190; there is no public plan for the increased number of housing units, as far as I know and there has been no public comment for the increased number of housing units. So, how do Councilmembers Kyriaco and Kasdin know there will be building on the property? Further, at the end of the December 12, 2023 meeting, Councilmember Kyriaco stated there would be a 9 lot of building in Goleta. Again, how does he know this without having an agreement with other City Councilmembers which did not take place at a public hearing? As such, this letter is to call your attention to what I believe was a substantial violation of a central provision of the Ralph M. Brown Act, one which may jeopardize the finality of the action taken by the Goleta City Council.
In its meeting of December 5, 2023, the Goleta City Council took action to promise/pledge to allow building on the property of Kenwood Village at 7264 Calle Real, Goleta, CA. 93117 based on an increased number of housing units, from 60 units to 190 units, without the issue being placed on the agenda; without an updated CEQA review/addendum or without any public comment whatsoever. In so doing, the Goleta City Council took “action” as defined in Government Code 54952.6 because a majority of the members made a collective decision and/or a majority of the members made a collective commitment or promise to make a positive or a negative decision, i.e. to allow building of high density housing on Kenwood Village.
The action violated the Brown Act because:
1. It was taken in closed session on a matter the Act does not permit to be discussed in closed session;
2. It was taken on a matter that was not properly described in the agenda for the open meeting at which the action was taken, and none of the exceptions specified in Gov.Code Section 54954.2 (b) was satisfied;
3. If the action could properly be discussed in closed session, it was not sufficiently described in the closed session agenda, and/or;
4. The action was taken at a special meeting that did not comply with Gov. Code Section 54956.5.
As you are aware, the Brown Act creates specific agenda obligations for notifying the public with a “brief description” of each item to be discussed or acted upon, and also creates a legal remedy for all illegally taken actions - namely, the judicial invalidation of them upon proper findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Pursuant to that provision (Government Code Section 54960.1), I demand that the Goleta City Council cure and correct the illegally taken action as follows: the formal and explicit withdrawal from any commitment made to build on the Kenwood Village property at 7264 Calle Real, Goleta, Ca. 93117, coupled with a disclosure at a subsequent meeting of why individual members of the Goleta City Council took the positions- by vote or otherwise- that they did, accompanied by the full opportunity for informed comment by members of the public at the same meeting, notice of which is properly included on the posted agenda. 10 Informed comment might in certain circumstances include the provision of any and all documents in the possession of the Goleta City Council related to the action taken, with copies available to the public on request at the offices of the Goleta City Council and also at the meeting at which reconsideration of the matter is to occur.
Regarding participation, the Housing Element Plan states, “[S]tate law requires that local governments make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort (California Government Code Section 65583(c)(8)).” Clearly, this was not done.
As provided by Section 54960.1, you have 30 days from the receipt of this demand to either cure or correct the challenged action or inform me of your decision not to do so. If you fail to cure or correct as demanded, such inaction may leave me with no recourse but to seek a judicial invalidation of the challenged action pursuant to Section 54960.1, in which case I would also ask the court to order you to pay my court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees in this matter, pursuant to Section 54960.5.
2. THE GOLETA CITY COUNCIL MAY HAVE BEEN DECEIVED BY THE CITY STAFF INTO BELIEVING
KENWOOD VILLAGE IS SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY HIGH DENSITY HOUSING AND/OR
THE GOLETA CITY COUNCIL DID NOT BECOME PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE TRUE MAKE-UP
OF THE SURROUNDING AREA OF KENWOOD VILLAGE BEFORE VOTING TO REZONE/UPZONE
THE PROPERTY AND/OR THE HCD MAY HAVE BEEN DECEIVED BY EITHER THE GOLETA CITY
COUNCIL AND/OR THE GOLETA CITY STAFF INTO BELIEVING KENWOOD VILLAGE WAS
SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY HIGH DENSITY HOUSING
Kenwood Village at 7264 Calle Real is surrounded on two sides, Tuolumne Drive and Baker Lane, by single family housing.
A third side is surrounded by El Encanto Creek, followed by moderate density condos. The fourth side is a dangerous street, Calle Real. The City Council intentionally failed to inform themselves about any “discrepancies” regarding the true nature of the surrounding area around Kenwood Village before taking a vote. The City Council either believed the property owner despite all the evidence I presented; they believed the City staff if the staff presented the surrounding area as high density housing on three sides; they ignored any reference to the true surrounding area of Kenwood Village and voted without being fully informed of the area or they knew the true make-up of the surrounding area, but they chose to ignore it to make it easier for them to vote to rezone/upzone the Kenwood Village so they could pretend the surrounding area was high density housing on three sides.
For several months, the property owner at Kenwood Village had his friends, some from Hope Ranch outside of Goleta, submit written comments and speak at the public hearings, falsely claiming Kenwood Village is surrounded on three sides by high density housing. THIS IS NOT TRUE. My neighbors and I have repeatedly corrected the property owner’s friends for 11 months, stating the true character of the area surrounding Kenwood Village. Despite this, at the December 5, 2023 hearing, after the public comments, Councilmember James Kyriaco stated there were “discrepancies” regarding the make-up of the Kenwood Village surrounding area.
Then, rather than clearing up the discrepancies, the City Council voted to rezone/upzone Kenwood Village from part single family housing and part agriculture to all high density housing.
After that, I sent multiple additional comments to the City Council with pictures and documentation establishing the true character of the Kenwood Village surrounding area.
At the December 12, 2023 hearings, during public comment before the second reading/vote, I asked that each member of the City Council state that they knew the true surroundings of Kenwood Village. They all refused to respond. Instead, Councilmembeer James Kyriaco stated they would all vote.
The City Council then unanimously voted to
upzone/rezone Kenwood Village to all high density housing.
It is my understanding that one element of building/rezoning/upzoning is that the new building at Kenwood Village should be compatible with the rest of the neighboring area, though I know that is not the only consideration.
Clearly, the City Council had no interest in
resolving the “discrepancies” around the true make-up of the surrounding area of Kenwood Village so they could accurately consider whether any building on Kenwood Village would be compatible with the neighboring area before voting to rezone/upzone Kenwood Village to high density housing.
Further, it is my understanding the City Council is supposed to become “informed” about any issue/“discrepancies” regarding any area before voting to change the area, such as approving upzoning/rezoning. The City Council had years to work on the Housing Element Plan and eight months (since March 2023) to deal with upzoning/rezoning properties, including Kenwood Village, some of that time the City Council worked in secret without revealing the upzoning/rezoning plans to the public, which was not publicly announced until mid July 2023.
Despite all the time the City Council were provided to learn about the surrounding area at Kenwood Village, they did not bother to resolve any “discrepancies” about the surrounding area before voting.
The City Council owes the public a duty to resolve any and all “discrepancies” BEFORE voting to rezone/upzone a property.
Interestingly, Councilmember Kyriaco claimed at the December 19, 2023 meeting he did do research regarding rents for apartments in Goleta for a discussion on tenant’s rights.
So,
Councilmember Kyriaco is certainly capable of doing research if he wanted to. The question then is, did Councilmember Kyriaco mistated the character of the surrounding area or did Councilmember Kyriaco not want to/bother to do any research about the true make-up of the surrounding area at Kenwood Village before voting to rezone/upzone the property from part single family housing and part agriculture to all high density housing? Even worse, it is entirely possible that the HCD has been given the incorrect information about 12 the true surroundings of Kenwood Village. The City Council, the City staff and/or the property owner may have inaccurately represented to the HCD that Kenwood Visage was surrounded on three sides with high density housing, which is not true.
That way, if HCD inaccurately
thought Kenwood Village was surrounded on three sides by high density housing, it would be easier for them to believe building high density housing at Kenwood Village was compatible with the neighborhood, and HCD could more easily certify the Goleta Housing Element Plan.
I
have recently sent HCD multiple comments with pictures and documentation showing the true surrounding of Kenwood Village, but no one from HCD has responded, as they have responded to the property owner’s e-mails.
I’m concerned HCD will certify the Goleta
Housing Element Plan without knowing the true make-up the surrounding area of Kenwood Village.
The property owner also constantly misrepresented the true make-up of Kenwood Village itself.
He misstated the section zoned agricultural was actually zoned commercial. IT IS NOT.
In reality, it is part single family housing and part agricultural.
IT IS INFURIATING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS BEING REWARDED WITH
REZONING/UPZONING BASED ON HIS VARIOUS REPEATED MISSTATEMENTS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO RESEARCH/BECOME INFORMED ABOUT BEFORE VOTING.
3. I WAS DEPRIVED OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN WORKSHOPS/SOME PUBLIC
COMMENT EARLY ON WHEN SOME REZONING/UPZONING ISSUES WERE BEING
CONSIDERED/RESOLVED
I was deprived of the opportunity to appear at many of the City Council meetings for the Housing Element Plan for public comment, especially early on when so many issues were being discussed/agreed upon according to the City staff. I was also deprived of the opportunity to participate in the three workshops held by the City.
On 9/16/20, after I
reviewed the Housing Element Plan on-line, I discovered for the first time that Kenwood Village, located at 7264 Calle Real, was on a list of Housing Element Vacant Sites. I was not clear about why it was on the list of sites or the purpose of the sites.
So, on 9/16/20, I wrote
an e-mail to Anne Wells, a staff member for the City of Goleta, stating, “I am writing to you because I am not sure who to write to. You were the one who gave the report on the Housing issues at the City council meeting I watched last night. I also read the report that is on -line. I
was confused and alarmed that Kenwood Village was including on page 14 of the report on the City's list of Housing Element Vacant Sites. I do not know how Kenwood Village was able to get on the list. I noticed that not all pending developments that are waiting for water or for approval are on the list, so I am not clear how Kenwood Village was one of the developments that was chosen to be placed on the list. Did the City pick Kenwood Village or did the developer chose to be on the list? I am also confused about how it was decided the maximum number of units was adjusted from 28 to 22. Was that a compromise enforced by the City in 13 order for Kenwood Village to go forward? Was that something that the developer modified on his own? The last time I spoke to the developer, he refused to change anything unless the City forced him to do so.
Further, I noticed that Kenwood Village was listed as an above- moderate site. However, it seemed in the meeting that Goleta had enough above-moderate sites. Does the number of approved above-moderate sites include or exclude Kenwood Village in the count of the number of above-moderate sites counted in Goleta? Finally, the last time I heard about Kenwood Village, it was my understanding that the project was on hold due to a water moratorium.
I feel like I may have missed something. Can you or someone in your office please clarify? Thank you for your help.”
On 9/17/20, Ms. Wells responded, “The Kenwood Village site has long been on our Housing Element vacant site inventory because the site is vacant and has residential zoning and a residential land use designation. The Housing Element Table 10A -33 you refer to includes an
estimate of the number of units that the site might be able to accommodate. 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 and I copied Lisa Prasse and Peter Imhoff to provide you with an update of the development proposal. I hope this clears up the difference between the Housing Element table and any future project application on the site.”
Ms. Wells did not mention the Housing
Element Plan had any effect on building/upzoning/rezoning Kenwood Village at all. Essentially, she stated it was just a basic accounting of inventory and that it did not mean anything since it was not a project approval process.
There was no mention that the Housing Development
Plan would have any effect on the Kenwood Village Project, including but limited to upzoning/rezoning from agricultural land and single family housing to high density housing. If I had known the Housing Element Plan would have any effect on Kenwood Village whatsoever, I would have absolutely attending the City Council meetings and all three workshops. I am submitting the e
-mails between myself and Ms. Anne Wella
Further, during a telephone call with Ms. Wells, she stated she was pro-development and she supported building on Kenwood Village, but the new City Council was more slow-growth.
She
then said the new City Council would not vote to build on the property. As a result of her statement and e-mail, I did not attend any workshops or meetings because I truly believed there was no danger of approving the Kenwood Village project and the Housing Element Plan did not amount to anything important according to Ms. Wells.
As such, I was
deprived/deceived out of the opportunity to participate in the early process to influence the outcome of the Housing Element Plan.
14 Thank you for your consideration of the above issues.
April Reid
15 Baker Lane
Goleta, CA. 93117
15