Alternative 2 would include construction within Cathedral O aks Road for utility installation and therefore would have similar potential to interfere with emergency response or evacuation of Cathedral Oaks Road as the proposed project, which would be minimized with implementation of a Construction Traffic Managemen t Plan. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2’s operations would not introduce activities that could impede or interfere with the Santa Barbara County MultiJurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan or emergency evacuations on Cathedral Oaks Road. Further more, Alternative 2 would result in fewer vehicle trips compared to the proposed project due to the reduced residential development on- site which would result in less potential to impede traffic on Cathedral Oaks Road during evacuation. Alternative 2’s imp act related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 2 would be located w ithin the same fire hazard severity zones as the proposed project and therefore be exposed to the same fire risks as the proposed project. However, because Alternative 2 would result in less development compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have less potential to exacerbate fire risk during construction. As with the proposed project, construction of Alternative 2 would not include unique activities that could exacerbate fire risk, such as storage of high quantities of flammable liquids and f uels. As with the proposed project, construction of Alternative 2 would comply with California Public Resources Code Sections 4442, 4427, 4428, and 4431, and California Fire Code Section 3312 to minimize the potential for wildland fire. Alternative 2’s str uctures would result in similar fire risks as the proposed project, which would be minimized with adherence to the standards in the California Fire Code, California Building Code, and California Code of Regulations Title 14. Alternative 2 would result in the use of farm equipment on-site which would increase operational fire risk compared to the proposed project; however, the use of such equipment would occur in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 4442 which mandates the use of spark arrestors on machinery which uses an internal combustion engine.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include a Construction Traffic Management Plan which would minimize disruptions to Cathedral Oaks Road, including in the event of emergency eva cuation. Overall, Alternative 2’s impact related to wildland fire would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
227
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
194 | P a g e
Based on the above, Alternative 2’s impacts related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardou s materials and wildland fire would be greater compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant. Alternative 2’s impact related to emergency evacuation and wildland fire would be reduced compared to the proposed project and would rem ain less than significant. Alternative 2’s impacts related to accidental release of hazardous materials and handling hazardous materials proximate to a school would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have no impacts related to hazardous materials sites or airport hazards. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-23 -- 6-24.) h. Hydrology and Water Quality
Given the reduction in construction activities, Alternative 2 would have a reduced potential to degrade water quality compared to the proposed project during construction. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include demolition of existing on-site structures, which could discharge ACB and LBP to on-site soils where they could then be transported off -site in stormwater runoff. Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ -2 would continue to be required and would minimize the potential for the accidental release of ACB and LBP. Construction of Alternative 2 would occur in compliance with the Construction Stormwater General Permit which requires implementation of construction site BMPs to minimize the creation of stormwater pollutants during construction. During operation, given the agricultural uses tha t would occur, Alternative 2 would have greater potential to result in substantial runoff or polluted runoff compared to the proposed project.
Alternative 2 would be required to include stormwater infrastructure to treat and discharge stormwater consistent with the requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board during operation which would ensure construction activities would minimize substantial runoff water post -construction and adequately treat stormwater prior to discharge in El Encanto Creek or the City’s storm drain system. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not substantially increase the rate of runoff on the site compared to existing conditions with installation of stormwater control infrastructure. Alternative 2 could result in erosion during operation due to on -site agricultural uses, which would not occur with the proposed project. Operational agricultural uses would occur in compliance with Section 15.09.080 of the City’s Municipal Code which sets standards specific for grading for agricultural practices, including obtaining erosion control permits, implementation of long -term erosion control BMPs, and required inspections. In addition, agricultural practices on -site would be subject to the Central Coast Region Water Quality Control Board’s General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands (Order No. R3 -2021-0040) which requires that land managers for agricultural lands implement BMPs to ensure surface water discharges from irrigation do not exceed water quality objectives or contribute substantial pollutants to surface water or groundwater. Alternative 2’s overall 228
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
195 | P a g e
impacts related to water quality degradation, erosion, and the introduction of substantial polluted runoff and exceedances of stormwater capacity would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Given the project site soils are not conducive for infiltration in the existing condition, Alternative 2’s smaller footprint would not substantia lly change groundwater infiltration rates on -site or result in substantial interference to groundwater recharge compared to the proposed project. As described in the Utilities and Service Systems discussion below, Alternative 2 would result in a water dema nd of approximately 31.63 acre-feet per year (AFY), which would be 8.18 AFY less than the proposed project; therefore, Alternative 2 would require less groundwater use compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be subject to Goleta Water District (GWD) review prior to issuance of a Can and Will Serve Letter which would ensure that Alternative 2 could receive water from GWD, which supplies water partially from the Goleta Groundwater Basin.
Alternative 2 would be subje ct to the same GWD regulatory measures as the proposed project requiring water conservation during times of drought. Alternative 2’s impact related to substantially decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2’s stormwater infrastructure would be sized to collect and detain stormwater and release it at a controlled rate to ensure discharge runoff rates would not exceed existing conditions for the 100 -year flood event consistent with the requirements of the Central Coast Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project site is not located within a flood hazard zone and Alternative 2 w ould therefore not place structures in a floodplain in a manner that could increase flooding. Alternative 2’s impact related to on - or off-site flooding would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant. Alternative 2 would occur at the same site as the proposed project and therefore would be located outside of a flood hazard zone.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 2’s stormwater infrastructure would discharge stormwater flows from the site so they would not increase c ompared existing conditions, the proposed project would not alter off -site flooding or drainage. Like the proposed project, no impact related to impeded or redirected flood flows would occur.
Alternative 2 would occur at the same site as the proposed proj ect and therefore would be located outside of a flood hazard zone, tsunami inundation zone, and seiche zone and therefore would not risk pollutant release due to inundation within these zones. Like the proposed project, no impact would occur.
Given the re duced scope of development activities compared to the proposed project, but increased erosion potential during operation due to agricultural uses on-site, Alternative 2 would have reduced potential to conflict with the Basin Plan 229
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
196 | P a g e
compared to the proposed p roject. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would adhere to the requirements of the Construction Stormwater General Permit and Chapter 13.04 and Chapter 15.09 of the City’s Municipal Code to minimize water quality impacts, and, given that Alternati ve 2 could include alterations or demolition of the existing residence, would require Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 to reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, operational agricultural uses would occur in compliance with Section
15.09.080 of the City’s Municipal Code which sets standards specific for grading for agricultural practices, including obtaining erosion control permits, implementation of long -term erosion control BMPs, and required inspections. In addition, agricultural practices on -site would be subject to the Central Coast Region Water Quality Control Board’s General Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands (Order No. R3 -2021-0040) which requires that land managers for agr icultural lands implement BMPs to ensure surface water discharges from irrigation do not contribute to substantial erosion on -site.
Accordingly, Alternative 2’s impacts related to conflicts with the Basin Plan would be reduced compared to the proposed proj ect but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
As described above, Alternative 2 would require less water use than the proposed project and would not adversely impact groundwater supplies. Accordingly, Alternative 2 would not interfere with the management of the Basin in accordance with the Wright Judgement. Alternative 2’s impact related to conflicts with the Wright Judgement or GWD’s Groundwater Management Plan would be reduced compared to the proposed project but impacts would remain less than significant.
Based on the above, Alternative 2’s construction impacts related to water quality, polluted runoff, erosion, and conflict with water quality plans or groundwater management plans would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 2’s operational impacts related to water quality, polluted runoff, erosion, and conflict with water quality plans or groundwater management plans would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impacts related to groundwater would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant. As with the proposed project Alternative 2’s impact related to on - or off-site flooding would remain less than significant. As with the proposed project, no impacts related to flood hazard zones and release of pollutants from inundation would occur. (FEIR, pp. 6-24 -- 6-
26.)
i. Land Use and Planning
As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not divide an established community because Alternative 2 would include development on an underutilized parcel in Goleta and would not include any components such as new roads or 230
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
197 | P a g e
highways which would divide existing communities. Alternative 2’s impact related to the physical division of an established community would be the same as the proposed project and would remain less than significant. Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be designed consistent with the standards of the AG- II zoning district. Similar to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be consistent with the City’s zoning standards. Alternative 2 would have a reduced development footprint compared to the proposed project and t herefore would have reduced potential to be inconsistent with City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy CE 1.6, CE 1.9, CE 2.3, CE 5.3, and CE 9.5.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be designed to be consistent with Policy CE 2.2 regarding encroachment into the Streamside Protection Area buffer.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8, CUL-1 through CUL-3, GEO-1, GEO- 2, HAZ -1, HAZ -2, and NOI -1 to ensu re Alternative 2’s consistency with other applicable City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policies. Alternative 2’s impacts related to land use plans and policies would be similar to the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
However, Alternative 2 would not assist in fulfilling the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements identified within the City’s 2023 -2031 Housing Element as Alternative 2 would not include new residential development aside from potential renovations and expansions to an existing on -site residence and farmworker housing. Based on the above, Alternative 2 would have the same impact as the proposed project related to the physical division of an established community, which would remain less than significant. Alternative 2 would have a reduced impact related to land use policy consistency compared to the proposed project, which would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 6-26.)
j. Noise
Due to the reduction in construction activities compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in less construction noise compared to the proposed project. Alternative 2’s construction activities would occur the same distance from sensitive receptors. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -1 to ensure construction noise levels do not exceed 65 dBA construction noise standards. Accordingly, Alternative 2’s construction noise impact would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Given Alternative 2’s reduction in structures compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would use less heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units on-site compared to the proposed project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less stationary operational noise compared to the proposed project. However, Alternative 2 would include the use of farm equipment such as tractors which would 231
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
198 | P a g e
generate on-site noise during operation that would not occur in accordance with the proposed project. The use of a tractor at the project site could generate noise levels of 74 A-weighted decibels at a distance of 100 feet, which would exceed the City’s 65 A -weighted decibels Community Noise Equivalent Level standard.
However, the City would require the use of nois e-reducing equipment on farm equipment in order to reduce operation noise below the City’s noise threshold.
Therefore, as with the proposed project, operational noise associated with these units would not exceed City noise thresholds. Accordingly, Alternat ive 2’s stationary operational noise impact would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 2 would decrease vehicle trips to and from the project site compared to the proposed project. The proposed pr oject would not result in a 3 dBA increase in traffic noise due to increases in vehicle trips; therefore, Alternative 2 would also not result in a 3 dBA increase in traffic noise. Alternative 2’s operational traffic noise impact would be reduced compared t o the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 2 would result in a reduced scope of development activities within a reduced project footprint compared to the proposed project and therefore would result in less groundborne vibra tion levels from construction at nearby sensitive receptors. Alternative 2 would require the use of similar construction equipment as the proposed project. As the proposed project’s vibration levels would not exceed the Federal Transit Administration’s gro undborne vibration threshold, Alternative 2’s construction would also not exceed the Federal Transit Administration’s groundborne vibration threshold. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2’s operational activities would not include railroads or subwa ys or other projects known to generate excessive groundborne vibration. The farm equipment that could be used under Alternative 2 (i.e., tractors) would result in additional groundborne vibration during operation compared to the proposed project; however, this equipment would not result in groundborne vibration levels that could cause damage to on-site structures.
Alternative 2’s groundborne vibration impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be located outside of the noise contours of the Santa Barbara Airport. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have no impact related to excessive airport noise. Based on the above, Alternative 2’s const ruction noise impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 2’s operational noise impacts and groundborne vibration impacts would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Like the proposed project, Alternative 2 would have no impact related to airport noise. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-26 -- 6-27.) 232
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
199 | P a g e
k. Transportation and Circulation
As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would not include elements that would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in temporary lane, bicycle route, or sidewalk closures on Cathedral Oaks Road for utility installation, the impacts of which would be minimized with implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan. Access to the p roject site would be subject to review and approval by the City and the Santa Barbara County Fire Department (SBCFD) which would minimize the potential for vehicle to pedestrian and vehicle to cyclist conflicts. However, Alternative 2 would not include the extension of the Class I trail parallel to Cathedral Oaks Road and therefore, unlike the proposed project, would not support the City’s policies for alternate modes of transportation. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impact related to conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system would be greater than proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 2 would require less construction activity than the proposed project and therefore would generate less short-term VMT increases than the proposed project. This construction-related VMT increase would be temporary and would not have a lasting effect on the overall transportation network or long -term VMT patterns in the area. The City’s adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the Provisions of Vehicle Miles Traveled, including Vehicle Miles Traveled Thresholds of Significance (Resolution 20-44) was utilized to assess potential impacts related to VMT. As Alternative 2 would include both a single -family res idence and a commercial component (i.e., greenhouse facility, agricultural uses, and farmworker housing), each of these components are evaluated separately consistent with guidance in Resolution 20-44. The City has identified areas where operation of a workbased project would be presumed to have a less than significant impact on increases in VMT. The project site is within the work -based screening area; therefore, Alternative 2’s greenhouse complex and agricultural uses, including farmworker housing used to house employees working at the project site, would be presumed to have a less than significant impact related to VMT. The City has also adopted a VMT screening threshold for developments that would result in less than 110 vehicle trips per day, which is u sed for the purposes of this analysis to evaluate Alternative 2’s residential component. Given Alternative 2 would only include one single -family residence and would not result in 110 vehicle trips per day, Alternative 2’s single-family residence would be presumed to have a less than significant impact related to VMT. Accordingly, Alternative 2’s impacts related to conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) would be reduced to a less than significant level, compared to the proposed project’s signific ant and unavoidable impact.
233
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
200 | P a g e
As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include access points on Cathedral Oaks Road that would be designed to provide clear visibility and minimize potential offset intersection conflicts in accordance with SBCFD and City requirements. Alternative 2’s circulation design would be subject to review and approval from SBCFD and the City which would minimize potential for transportation design hazards. Alternative 2 would not present new conflicts with incompatible uses, as any equipment used for the greenhouse complex and agricultural uses would not be kept within the roadway. Accordingly, Alternative 2’s impacts to increased hazards would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 2’s construction equipment staging and worker parking would occur entirely on-site which would minimize the potential for construction related vehicles and equipment to result in inadequate emergency access. As with the p roposed project, Alternative 2 would also include implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan as a Condition of Approval to minimize disruptions on Cathedral Oaks Road. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would be designed in accordance with all applicable SBCFD standards to maintain adequate emergency access. As with the proposed project, SBCFD and the City would review and approve Alternative 2’s design, which would ensure Alternative 2 would provide adequate egress for emergency access.
Based on Alternative 2’s reduction in people on -site compared to the proposed project Alternative 2 would result in fewer daily vehicle trips to and from the project site compared to the proposed project which would result in less potential to impede emergency access on Cathedral Oaks Road. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impacts to emergency access would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Based on the above, Alternative 2’s impacts related to conflicts with transportation plans and policies would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Alternative 2 would have a less than significant impact on conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), compared to the proposed project’s significant and unavoidable impact. Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts related to transportation hazards which would remain less than significant.
Alternative 2’s impacts to emergency access would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6- 28 -- 6-29.)
l. Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would have a reduced development footprint compared to the proposed project because it would include fewer structures. Although g round disturbance would occur for agricultural uses (e.g., tilling, etc.), this would be less intensive than the ground disturbance required for development of the proposed 234
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
201 | P a g e
project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have reduced potential to result in impacts to unknown tribal cultural resources compared to the proposed project. Alternative 2 would require implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1 through CUL-3 to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources of Native American origin by requiring co nstruction monitoring and procedures and final disposition of any unanticipated discoveries of such resources. Alternative 2’s impact related to tribal cultural resources would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 6-
29.)
m. Utilities and Service Systems
Given the fewer structures compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would require a reduced amount of utility infrastructure compared to the proposed project.
Given that the proposed project would not require the construction or relocation of utility infrastructure outside of project components, Alternative 2’s reduced utility development, would also not necessitate the construction or relocation of additional utility infrastructure. Accordingly, Alternative 2’s impact related to the relocation or construction of utility infrastructure would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
The proposed project would re sult in an annual water demand of approximately
39.81 AFY, of which 15.17 AFY would be required for irrigation . For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed irrigation requirements for landscaping would be similar to that of the proposed project. T he County’s 2024 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual water demand rate of 3.0 AFY per acre for greenhouses are used to estimate water demand from the greenhouse complex.
Based on this water demand Alternative 2’s greenhouse complex would result in an annual water demand of approximately 1.38 AFY. Alternative 2’s water demand from the single family residence would be 0. 44 AFY, calculated using demand factor within the proposed project’s Average Water Demand Report (MQ Design Tech 2026). Alternative 2’s water demand from the farmworker housing would be
2.64 AFY, calculated using the County’s 2024 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual water demand rate of 0.22 AFY per farmworker housing unit.2 Conservatively assuming the undeveloped areas on-site are used entirely for row crops (i.e., the proposed agricultural use with the highest water demand), Alternative 2 would result in a water demand of approximately 13.38 AFY for agricultural uses, based on the County’s 2024 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual water demand rate of 1.0 AFY for field crops. Accordingly, Alternative 2 would result in a water demand of approximately 31.63 AFY, which would be 8.18 AFY less than the proposed project. The proposed project’s water demand would be within GWD’s anticipated water demand projections which GWD would be able to accommodate with existing GWD water supplies. Alternative 2 would require a Can and Will Serve letter from GWD to supply water to the project site. Similar to the proposed project, if sufficient water allocations are not available 235
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
202 | P a g e
at the time an application for a water supply allocation is submitted to GWD, water allocations could be purchased from another GWD customer to meet demands.
Accordingly, Alternative 2’s reduced water demand wo uld not generate water demand exceeding GWD’s projected supplies, the same as the proposed project.
Alternative 2’s impact on water supply would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 2’s anticipate d wastewater generation from the residence and farmworker housing would be 2,860 gallons per day, consistent with the wastewater generation factor of 220 gallons per day per residential unit used in the City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Fin al EIR (City of Goleta 2006b). Wastewater generation from Alternative 2’s greenhouse complex is calculated consistent with the wastewater generation factor of 100 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of habitable space for commercial development used in the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Final EIR (City of Goleta 2006b). Accordingly, wastewater generation from the greenhouse complex would be 2,000 gallons per day, or 0.002 million gallons per day (MGD). The total wastewater generation from Alternative 2 would be 0.0049 MGD, which would be approximately 0.005 MGD less than the proposed project’s wastewater generation. Alternative 2’s wastewater generation would be within the 0.93 MGD capacity of the wastewater treatment plant available t o Goleta West Sanitary District customers. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 2 would result in a reduced scope of development activities within a smaller project footprint than proposed project and therefore would result in less construction solid waste generation as the proposed project, which would not exceed the City’s project specific demolition and constructio n threshold of 350 tons. During operation, Alternative 2’s residence and farmworker housing would result in a solid waste generation of approximately 32 tons per year, consistent with the County’s 2024 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual waste generation factor of 0.95 tons per year per residence multiplied by the average number of people per unit. Alternative 2’s solid waste generation due to the greenhouse complex is calculated based on a waste generation factor of the total square footage of these facilities multiplied by 0.0057, consistent with the County’s 2024 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual solid waste generate factor for miscellaneous services. Based on this solid waste generation rate, operation of the greenhouse complex would generate 114 additional gross tons of solid waste per year. Alternative 2’s total gross solid waste generation would be 146 tons per year, which, with a 50 percent diversion rate, would be reduced to 73 tons per year. This amount of solid waste does no t exceed the City’s project - specific threshold of 196 tons per year. Therefore, Alternative 2’s impacts related 236
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
203 | P a g e
to solid waste would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Based on the above, Alternative 2’s im pacts on utility infrastructure would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 2’s impact on water supply would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Alternative 2’s impacts on wastewater would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Alternative 2’s impacts on solid waste would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant. (FEIR, pp. 6-29 -- 6-
30.)
n. Wildfire
Alternative 2 would be located on the same project site and therefore be located in the same high and very high fire hazard severity zones as the proposed project.
Alternative 2 would include construction within Cathedral Oaks Road for utility installation and therefore would have similar potential to interfere with emergency response or evacuation of Cathedral Oaks Road as the proposed project, which would be minimized with implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2’s operations would not introduce activities that could impede or interfere with emergency evacuations on Cathedral Oaks Road. Alternative 2 would generate 38 fewer residents compared to the proposed project. Based on Alternative 2’s reduction in people on -site compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would result in fewer daily vehicle trips to and from the project site compared to the proposed project which would result in less potential to impede traf fic on Cathedral Oaks Road during evacuation.
Alternative 2’s impact related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be reduced compared to the proposed project but woul d remain less than significant.
Alternative 2 would require less construction activities due reduced structures on- site compared to the proposed project would result in less fire risk compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, construction of Alternative 2 would not include unique activities that could exacerbate fire risk, such as storage of high quantities of flammable liquids and fuels. Construction of Alternative 2 would be carried out in accordance with California Fire Code (CFC) Chapter 9, Section 3312 to require a water supply system on -site prior to the start of construction.
Alternative 2’s structures would be designed in accordance with applicable CFC, California Building Code, California Residential Code, and City General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan requirements for fire safety. Compliance with these requirements would reduce the likelihood that structures would ignite from embers, radiant heat, or direct flame contact during a wildfire, as these requirements are designed to interrupt common ignition pathways and limit fire spread. As with the 237
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
204 | P a g e
proposed project, Alternative 2 would be subject to review by SBCFD to ensure the proposed project design adheres to SBCFD development standards for adequate ingress and egress, fire hydra nt spacing and water flow to the site, installation of a stored water protection system on -site, adequate fire sprinkler systems, and defensible space. Alternative 2 would result in the use of farm equipment on -site which would increase operational fire ri sk compared to the proposed project; however, the use of such equipment would occur in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 4442 which mandates the use of spark arrestors on machinery which uses an internal combustion engine.
Accordingly, Alternative 2’s impact related to fire risk or pollutants from wildfire would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 2 would require the installation of less utility infrastructure on the project site than the proposed project. This utility infrastructure would be underground similar to the proposed project which would minimize fire risk. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would maintain a maximum 100 -foot buffer zone near the riparian ar ea on the southwestern border of the project site to further reduce spread of wildfire to adjacent land. Alternative 2 would occur in compliance with the defensible space requirement set forth in the SBCFD development standards, Chapter 49 of the CFC, and Section 51182 of the California Government Code to minimize fire risk. Accordingly, Alternative 2’s impact related to infrastructure that could result in fire risk would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 2 would be subject to the same risks of landslides as the proposed project, which could be similarly exacerbated due to fire. However, Alternative 2 would result in greater erosion potential than the proposed project due to the on - site agricultural activities. However, due to Alternative 2’s reduced construction scope, Alternative 2 would result in less ground disturbing activities and therefore less potential to result in slope instability post -fire. Alternative 2 would include construction site BMPs to minimize erosion during construction activities in accordance with Chapter 15.09 of the City’s Municipal Code. During operation, agricultural practices on-site would be subject to the Central Coast Region Water Quality Control Board’s General Wast e Discharge Requirements for Discharges from Irrigated Lands (Order No. R3-2021-0040) which requires that land managers for agricultural lands implement BMPs to ensure surface water discharges from irrigation do not contribute to substantial erosion on -site As with the proposed project, construction would implement measures such as the use of spark arresters on equipment or the halting of hot work during times when fire risk is high to minimize fire risk. Alternative 2 would result in the use of farm equipm ent on-site which would increase operational fire risk compared to the proposed project; however, the use of such equipment would occur in accordance with California Public Resources Code Section 4442 which mandates the use of spark arrestors 238
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
205 | P a g e
on machinery which uses an internal combustion engine. As with the proposed project, Alternative 2 would include implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1 to minimize geotechnical risks associated with slope instability during construction and operation. Accordingly, Alternative 2’s impacts related to the risk of slope instability exacerbated by fire risk would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Based on the above, Alternative 2’s impacts related to emergency evacuation and response and utility infrastructure installation would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Alternative 2’s impacts related to fire risk and pollutant exposure would be greate r than the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Alternative 2’s impacts related to the risk of slope instability exacerbated by fire risk would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-31 -- 6-32.)
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 2: By-Right Development , on the following grounds, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to meet most of the Project objectives; and (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to air quality (criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, odors), biological resources (wildlife corridors/wildlife movement); geology and soils (erosion), greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials (transport, use and disposal of hazardous materials; wildland fire), hydrology a nd water quality (operational impacts related to water quality, polluted runoff, erosion, and conflict with water quality plans; groundwater), noise (operational noise impacts and groundborne vibration impacts), transportation and traffic (conflicts with transportation plans and policies), utilities (water supply, solid waste), wildfir e (fire risk and pollutant exposure, slope instability).
3. Alternative 3: Mixed-Use Alternative
Description: This alternative would include the development of 56 multifamily residential units (such as duplexes, triplexes, or other medium -density residential buildings) rather than single -family, as well as the addition of commercial and daycare space within the sa me development footprint as the project. The multifamily residences would allow for increasing the residential density on a portion of the site to accommodate the same number of proposed units as the proposed project as well as a neighborhood market, works pace, and daycare totaling approximately 12,000 square feet to serve the on -site residences. The neighborhood market would consist of a small grocery store designed to serve the local residential area.
The workspace would provide flexible workspace for re sidents, including one coworking space and four private offices, that would be available for use by the 239
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
206 | P a g e
project residents. These commercial facilities would result in approximately 24 employees. Alternative 3’s development would be designed in compliance w ith a 35-foot height limitation, enforced within Table 17.07.030 of the City’s Municipal Code for medium -density residential development. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the land cover amount would be similar to that of the project, with an increased scope of development activities within the same project footprint as the proposed project. Alternative 3’s construction equipment staging and worker parking would occur entirely on -site. Utility infrastructure required for Alternative 3 wo uld be installed underground. Alternative 3’s construction equipment staging and worker parking would occur entirely on-site. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 6-7.)
Impacts:
a. Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Alternative 3 would involve the construction of 56 multi -family residential units in the form of medium-density residential buildings as well as commercial space and a daycare space within the same development footprint as the proposed project.
Alternative 3’s residential units would be constructed at a taller height than the proposed project’s residences as the height limitation for Alternative 3 would be increased to 35 feet, compared to a maximum building height of 25 feet applicable to the proposed project. This increased height could result in more obstruct ion of foothills and mountains compared to the proposed project, which would be a greater impact compared to the proposed project. Adherence to height and massing requirements enforced within the City Municipal Code would ensure the design of on-site structures would limit building height and massing in accordance with the medium-residential zone and would therefore minimize the obstruction of views of surrounding mountains and foothills. Overall, Alternative 3 would have greater impacts on scenic vistas co mpared to the proposed project, but impacts would remain less than significant. The project site is not visible from a scenic highway. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have no impact on scenic resources within a State scenic highway.
Both the proposed project and Alternative 3 would be designed for consistency with the development regulations of the applicable zoning district utilized for consistency evaluation pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have the same imp act related to the potential to result in conflicts with the applicable zoning governing scenic quality (e.g., height, massing, and setback requirements, etc.) as the proposed project. Like the proposed project, impacts related to conflicts with applicable zoning governing scenic quality would be less than significant. Given Alternative 3 would include multi -family housing and commercial uses in the same development footprint as the proposed project, Alternative 3 would introduce a greater amount of new sou rces of light and glare as the proposed project. As with the proposed project, construction of Alternative 240
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
207 | P a g e
3 would not occur during evening or nighttime hours in accordance with Section
17.39.070 of the City’s Zoning Code and would not require nighttime li ghting.
Lighting installed as part of Alternative 3 would be designed in compliance with City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy VH 4.12 requirement for dark sky compliant lighting fixtures for exterior lighting. Alternative 3 would introduce a similar amount of potential glare compared to the proposed project including glass surfaces and car windows, which could be screened with landscaping. Overall, Alternative 3’s impacts related to light and glare would be greater compared to the propos ed project but would remain less than significant.
Based on the above, Alternative 3’s impacts related to scenic vistas and light and glare would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not result in impacts related to a State scenic highway. Alternative 3 would result in the same impacts related to conflicts with applicable zoning governing scenic quality which would be less than significant. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-33 -- 6-34.) b. Air Quality
Based on the City’s average 2.59 persons per household estimated by the DOF, the introduction of 56 residential units would result in the addition of approximately 145 new residents to Goleta (DOF 2025). Unlike the proposed project, Alternative 3 would also induce additional indirect growth from employees at the neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare. The City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Final EIR utilizes a growth rate of one job per 500 square feet of commercial floor area to estimate growth from employment (City of Goleta 2006a).
Accordingly, the neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare facilities totaling 12,000 square feet could result in approximately 24 additional employees to Goleta. In a conservative scenario where all projected employees and their families were to relocate to Goleta, based on the City’s average 2.59 persons per household (DOF 2025), there would be an indirect population growth of 103 residents from the commercial uses. In tota l, Alternative 3 could result in a population growth of 248 residents, which is 103 residents greater than the proposed project. Due to the increased population, Alternative 3 has a greater potential to conflict with growth projections used in the 2022 Ozone Plan compared to the proposed project. The SBCAG growth projections estimate that the population in Goleta would increase from 32,892 residents to 34,700 residents by 2050, an increase of 1,808 residents (SBCAG 2019). Growth of 248 residents would therefore not exceed SBCAG growth projections. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s growth would be within SBCAG growth projections and therefore would not conflict with the 2022 Ozone Plan. Alternative 3’s impacts related to conflicts with an air quality management pl an would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities compared to the proposed project. Accordingly, Alternative 3 would have a longer 241
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
208 | P a g e
construction schedule as the proposed project and would result in more overall criteria air pollutant emissions during construction compared to the proposed project. However, given that, as with the proposed project, construction of Alternative 3 would occur in complia nce with the Condition of Approval requiring the use of Tier 4 construction equipment, Alternative 3’s construction would also not exceed SBCAPCD thresholds for ozone precursors. Alternative 3 would include residential and commercial uses which are not con sidered to be uses which produce substantia air pollutants. Alternative 3 would therefore not exceed SBCAPCD thresholds for ozone precursors or particulate matter during operation.
Alternative 3’s impacts related to release of criteria air pollutants would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3 would be located on the same project footprint as the proposed project and would therefore be located same distance from sensitive receptors as the proposed project; however, Alternative 3’s increased development activities would result in a greater potential to introduce substantial pollutant concentrations near sensitive receptors. As with the proposed project, construction of Alternative 3 would include the use of Tier 4 emissions standards required as a Condition of Approval which would minimize exhaust emissions from nonroad diesel engines and would occur in compliance with SBCAPCD Rule 323.1, Rule 329, and Rule 345 to minimize the amount of volatile orga nic compound, reactive organic compound, and fugitive dust emissions on -site during construction. Alternative 3 would consist of similar operations as the proposed project, with the addition of a neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare, each of which a re not uses that would generate substantial pollutant concentrationssuch as manufacturing uses or factories. Alternative 3’s impacts related exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities compared to the proposed project and would therefore a greater amount similar odors during construction. These odors would be interm ittent, temporary, and would dissipate rapidly with distance from in -use construction equipment. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3’s residences and commercial development would not include facilities considered by SBCAPCD to have the potential to cause odor impacts. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to odors would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Overall, based on the above, Alternative 3’s air quality impacts would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6- 33 -- 6-34.)
c. Biological Resources
242
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
209 | P a g e
Alternative 3 would be located on the same site and disturb the same footprint as the proposed project. As such, it would have the same potentia l to directly and indirectly affect special -status plant and wildlife species on -site as the proposed project. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and BIO-1 through BIO-6 to reduce potential impacts to special -status plant and wildlife species to a less than significant level.
Alternative 3’s impacts related to special-status plant and wildlife species would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 3 would develop the same project footprint as the project and would therefore have the same potential to result in direct and indirect impacts to arroyo willow thicket, black sage – California sagebrush scrub, and eucalyptus grove that serves as raptor roosting habitat ESHA. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -3, BIO-4, and BIO-7 to reduce potential impacts to arroyo willow thicket, black sage – California sagebrush scrub, and eucalyptus grove that serves as raptor roosting habitat ESHA to a less than significant level. Alternative 3’s impacts related to ESHA would be similar to proposed project and would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -3 and BIO -4 to reduce potential construction impacts related to the removal of riparian habitat which may be a jurisdictional resource.
During operation, Alternative 3 would result in similar uses household hazardous materials or other hazardous materials such as pesticides as the proposed project, which would occur in accordance with Section 17.030.060 of the City’s Municipal Code which prohibits the use of insecticides, herbicides, artificial fertilizers, or other toxic chemical substances within and adjacent to ESHA, which surrounds El Encanto Creek. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s operation would result the same impacts to wetlands as the proposed project, w hich would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 3 would result in additional overall construction noise compared to the proposed project which could result in temporary disruption of wildlife movement.
Accordingly, Altern ative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 to reduce potential impacts to wildlife movement related to construction noise to a less than significant level. Alternative 3 would introduce a greater amount of new sources of light and gla re compared to the proposed project, but lighting would be installed in accordance with City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy VH 4.12 requirement for dark sky compliant lighting fixtures for exterior lighting which would not result in a substantial barrier to wildlife movement. Alternative 3 would result in slightly increased human presence at the project site compared to the proposed project due to the addition of a neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare; however, this increased hum an 243
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
210 | P a g e
presence would not substantially impede wildlife movement as the project site is not designated as a wildlife corridor, and no fencing or structures would block access to the creek. Accordingly, although Alternative 3’s impact on wildlife corridors and wildlife movement would be greater than the proposed project, Alternative 3’s impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 3 would occupy the same project footprint as the proposed project and would therefore have a similar potential to conflict with City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policies CE 1.6, CE 1.9, CE 2.3, CE 5.3, and CE 9.5, and the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan. Alternative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -3, BIO-4, BIO-7, and BIO -8. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would remain inconsistent with Policies CE 1.9 and 2.3; however, these inconsistencies are related to policy -level misalignments and the environmental impacts of development within ESHA a nd Streamside Protection Area buffers would be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the abovementioned mitigation measures, and thus would not result in a significant impact on the environment. Alternative 3’s impact related to conflicts with local policies and ordinances protecting biological resources would be similar to proposed project and would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not be located in an area subject to an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Alternative 3 would have no impact related to conflicts with these plans, which would be the same level of impact compared to the proposed project.
Based on the above, Alternative 3 would have a similar impact on special -status plant and wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, wetlands, and conflicts with local policies or ordinances protec ting biological resources which would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 3 would have a greater impact on wildlife corridors and wildlife movement, but this impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incor porated. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have no impact related to conflicts with an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan with mitiga tion incorporated. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-34 -- 6-35.)
d. Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would occur within the same project footprint as the proposed project and would therefore not create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as no historical resources are located on -site. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have no impact on historical resources. 244
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
211 | P a g e
Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities within the same project footprint. The taller residential structures may require additional excavation for deeper foundational support compared to the proposed project and would therefore have greater potential to encounter unknown archaeological resources as the proposed project. Mitigation Measures CUL -1 through CUL3 would continue to be required which would m inimize potential impacts to unanticipated discoveries of archaeological resources by requiring archaeological monitoring, a cultural resources sensitivity meeting for construction personnel, and implementation of appropriate procedures for evaluation and treatment of any discoveries made during construction. Alternative 3’s impacts would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities within the same project footprint. The taller residential structures may require additional excavation for deeper foundational support compared to the proposed project and would therefore have greater potential to encounter unknown human remains as the proposed project. As with the proposed project, in the event of unanticipated discovery of human remains, the construction contractor would comply with State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and human remains would be preserved i n accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. Alternative 3’s impacts related to human remains greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have no impact on historical resources. Alternative 3’s impacts to archaeological resources would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 3’s impacts to human remains would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 6-
36.)
e. Geology and Soils
Alternative 3 would be located on the same site as the proposed project. There is no Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone located on the site. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have no impact involving fault rupture, which would be the same level of impact as the proposed project.
The project site is located in a region of high seismic activity, with the potential for large seismic events that could generate strong ground shaking. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1, which requires incorporation of geotechnical recommendations into grading and building plans. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1 would reduce potential impacts due to groundshaking to a less than significant level through incorporation of structural integrity recommendations. Because Alternative 3 would increase the 245
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
212 | P a g e
amount of and people that would be introduced on-site compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would increase the proposed project’s impacts related to seismic ground shaking, but Alternative 3’s level of impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 3 would be subject to the same negligible liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, and collapse risks as the proposed project. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requiring recommendations from the project-specific geotechnical reports to be put into grading and building plans. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce p otential impacts due to landslides on the project site to a less than significant level through incorporation of slope stability recommendations. Because Alternative 3 would increase the amount of people that would be introduced on -site compared to the pro posed project, Alternative 3 would increase the proposed project’s impacts related to liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, and collapse risks, but Alternative 3’s level of impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 3 would be subject to the same landslide risks as the proposed project.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1 to incorporate slope stability recommendations into grading and building p lans. Because Alternative 3 would increase the amount of people that would be introduced on -site compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would increase the proposed project’s impacts related to landslides, but Alternative 3’s level of impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities within the same project footprint as the proposed project and would therefore have increased potential for erosion of on -site soils. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3’s construction activities must obtain coverage from the Construction Stormwater General Permit which would require implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and BMPs for erosion control . As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include implementation of stormwater infrastructure to treat and discharge stormwater consistent with the requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, including erosion control, during operation. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not substantially increase the rate of runoff on the site compared to existing conditions with installation of stormwater control infrastructure. Alternative 3’s impact would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would locate development on soil with high to critical expansion potential of soils. The construction contractor would be required to compl y with the California Building Code, including the use of non - expansive fill material, to minimize the potential for structural hazards associated 246
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
213 | P a g e
with soil expansion. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would require implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requiring recommendations from the project specific geotechnical reports to be put into grading and building plans.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts due to expansive soils on the project site to a less than significant level through incorporation of structural integrity recommendations into the project, which would ultimately minimize the potential for expansive soils to result in risks to life or property. Because Alternative 3 would increase the amount of people that would be introduced on -site compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would increase the proposed project’s impacts related to expansive soil, but Alternative 3’s level of impact would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 3 would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Alternative 3 would result in no impact, which would be the same level of impact as the proposed project. Alternative 3 would result in an incre ased scope of development activities within the same project footprint as the proposed project.
The taller residential structures may require additional excavation for deeper foundational support compared to the proposed project and would therefore have greater potential to encounter unknown paleontological resources. Alternative 3 would require the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2 to reduce potential construction impacts to paleontological resources and unique geologic features to a less than sig nificant level by requiring a Worker Environmental Awareness Program training, monitoring, and setting forth procedures for the recovery, identification, and curation of fossils discovered during construction. Alternative 3’s impacts related to paleontolog ical resources and unique geologic features would be greater compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Based on the above, Alternative 3’s would have no impact related to earthquake faults and septic tanks, the same as the proposed project. Alternative 3’s impacts related to liquefaction, lateral spreading, subsidence, collapse, and erosion would be increased compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Alternative 3’s impacts related to groundshaking, landslides, expansive soil, and paleontological resources would be increased compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-37 -- 6-38.)
f. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities and longer construction schedule compared to the proposed project and would therefore emit a greater amount of GHG emissions during construction compared to the proposed project. Alternative 3’s multi-family residential development would 247
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
214 | P a g e
produce less GHG emissions during operation compared to the proposed project due to the decrease in energy required for heating, cooling, and lighting more compact residences compared to the proposed project’s single-family residences (United States Energy Information Administration 2013). In addition, Alternative 3 would include a neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare as mixed -use space, encouraging residents to use on-site amenities which would minimize GHG emissions from vehicle trips. Given Alternative 3’s reduction in operational GHG emissions compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3’s impacts related to GHG emission would be reduced compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include design features to promote renewable energy use, energy efficiency, water efficiency, and reductions in vehicle travel, all of which contribute to the creation of minimal GHG emissions.
Alternative 3 would include mixed -use development and affordable housing in compliance with SBCAG 2050 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategy policies. In addition, Alternative 3 would incorporate water efficient fixtures in residences and the neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare to reduce water consumption for landscaping, plumbing, and irrigation consistent with the latest Title 24 Green Building Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Alternative 3 would plac e residential development and commercial development within proximity to existing transit and bicycle facilities on Cathedral Oaks Road, encouraging bicycling as an alternative form of transportation. Alternative 3 would include the continuation of the exi sting Class I trail that extends east of the project site and runs parallel to Cathedral Oaks Road, consistent with the City’s bikeways plan map. Alternative 3’s buildings would not utilize natural gas and would be constructed in accordance with the energy reduction standards set forth in CALGreen and the Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Accordingly, Alternative 3 would be consistent with applicable GHG reduction plans. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to conflicts with GHG reduction plans wou ld be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
Based on the above, Alternative 3’s GHG emissions impacts would be reduced compared to the proposed project due to the implementation of mixed -use development on the project site.
Alternative 3’s impacts related to conflicts with GHG reduction plans should be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-38 -- 6-39.)
g. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 3 would resu lt in an increased scope of development activities within and would therefore require use of a greater amount of hazardous materials during 248
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
215 | P a g e
construction. Hazardous materials used during construction of Alternative 3 would be handled in accordance with the same regulations as the proposed project, such as the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, and California Code of Regulations Title 22. These regulations prescribe measu res for the safe transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials to reduce risk of spills.
Construction of Alternative 3 would also occur in compliance with a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to reduce potential spills. Any use of househo ld hazardous materials or other hazardous materials such as pesticides during operation would occur in compliance with existing hazardous materials regulations established by United States Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s impact related to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include demolition of the existing on-site residence, garage, and barn, which have the potential to contain ACM and LBP. Alternative 3 would result in the same potential impact regarding the release of ACM and LBP from demolition of existing buildings. However, Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities within and would therefore require use of a greater amount of hazardous materials during construction. Mitigation Measures HAZ -1 and HAZ -2 would continue to be required, which would reduce pot ential hazardous material impacts associated with accidental releases of hazardous materials during demolition to a less than significant level. Alternative 3 would result in more structures on-site and therefore greater potential for radon exposure; howev er, as with the proposed project, in accordance with Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy SE 1.9, radon testing would be required and, if on -site radon levels exceed the United States Environmental Protection Agency recommended threshold, as a Condition of Approval, the City would require the design of homes to comply with the standards for reducing radon in single -family residences implemented by the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists and American National Standards Inst itute. Operation of Alternative 3 would involve minimal transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials similar to the proposed project. Given the increased scope of development activities during construction, Alternative 3’s impact related to the acci dental release of hazardous materials would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Construction of Alternative 3 would occur the same distance from South Coast Montessori as the proposed p roject. However, Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities within and would therefore require use of a greater amount of hazardous materials during construction. Alternative 3’s construction activities would have the potent ial to create a significant hazard 249
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
216 | P a g e
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, which would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -1 and HAZ -2.
Alternative 3’s impact related to handling hazardous materials within 0 .25-mile of a school would be greater than the proposed project and would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 3 would be located on the same site as the proposed project which is not located on a site listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would occur related to listed hazardous materials sites, which would be the same level of impact as the proposed project.
Alternative 3 would be located on the same site as the proposed project which is not located within the noise or safety contours of the Santa Barbara Airport. No impact related to excessive noise or safety hazards due to proximity to an airport would occur, which would be the same level of impact as the proposed project.
Alternative 3 would in clude construction within Cathedral Oaks Road for utility installation and therefore would have similar potential to interfere with emergency response or evacuation of Cathedral Oaks Road during construction as the proposed project, which would be minimized with implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3’s operations would not introduce activities that could impede or interfere with the Santa Barbara County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Pla n or emergency evacuations on Cathedral Oaks Road. Alternative 3’s impact related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be similar to the proposed project and would re main less than significant.
Alternative 3 would be located within the same fire hazard severity zones as the proposed project and therefore be exposed to the same fire risks as the proposed project. However, because Alternative 3 would result in more deve lopment compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have greater potential to exacerbate fire risk during construction. As with the proposed project, construction of Alternative 3 would not include unique activities that could exacerbate fire ris k, such as storage of high quantities of flammable liquids and fuels. Construction would occur in compliance with California Public Resources Code Sections 4442, 4427, 4428, and 4431, and California Fire Code Section 3312 to minimize the potential for wildland fire. Alternative 3’s structures would result in similar fire risks as the proposed project, which would be minimized with adherence to the standards in the California Fire Code, California Building Code, and California Code of Regulations Title 14. A s with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include a Construction Traffic Management Plan which would minimize disruptions to Cathedral Oaks Road, including in the event of emergency evacuation.
Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to wildland fire would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant. 250
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
217 | P a g e
Based on the above, Alternative 3’s impacts related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be greater than the proposed project but would rema in less than significant. Alternative 3’ impact related to upset or accident of hazardous materials and emissions of hazardous materials near schools would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorpor ated. Impacts related to emergency response plans would be similar to the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Impacts related to wildland fires would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Like the proposed project, no impacts related to hazardous materials sites or airport hazards would occur. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-39 -- 6-40.)
h. Hydrology and Water Quality
Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities within the same project footprint as the proposed project and would therefore have increased potential to degrade water quality compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include demolition of the existing on-site residence, g arage, and barn which could discharge ACB and LBP to on - site soils where they could be transported off -site in stormwater runoff. Mitigation Measures HAZ1 and HAZ -2 would be required and would minimize the potential for the accidental release of ACB and LB P. Construction of Alternative 3 would comply with the Construction Stormwater General Permit, including the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and BMPs to minimize the introduction of pollutants during construction activities. In ad dition, adherence to the City’s Municipal Code would ensure construction activities would minimize substantial runoff water. Alternative 3’s construction impacts related to water quality degradation, erosion, and the introduction of substantial polluted runoff and exceedances of stormwater capacity would be increased compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 3 would be required to include stormwater infrastructure to treat and discharge stormwater consistent with the requirements of the Central Coast Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board during operation which would ensure construction activities would minimize substantial runoff water post - construction and adequately treat stormwater prior to discharge in El Encanto Creek or the City’s storm drain system. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not substantially increase the rate of runoff on the site compared to existing conditions with installation of stormwater control infrastructure. Alternative 3’s operational impacts related to water quality degradation, erosion, and the introduction of substantial polluted runoff and exceedances of stormwater capacity would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant. 251
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
218 | P a g e
Alternative 3 would occur on the same site as the proposed project which has limited infiltration potential and would include as similar amount of impervious surfaces as the proposed project within the same development footprint. Based on the site’s limited infiltration potential, Alternative 3 would not substantially decrease groundwater infiltration rates on -site or result in substantial interference to groundwater recharge. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be subject to GWD review prior to issuance of a Can and Will Serve Letter which would ensure that Alternative 3 could receive water from GWD, which supplies water partially from the Goleta Groundwater Basin. Alternative 3 would be subject to the same GWD regulat ory measures as the proposed project requiring water conservation during times of drought. As described in the Utilities and Service Systems discussion below, Alternative 3 would result in the same water demand as the proposed project. Alternative 3’s impact related to substantially decreasing groundwater supplies or interfering with groundwater recharge would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3’s stormwater infrastructure w ould be sized to collect and detain stormwater and release it at a controlled rate to ensure discharge runoff rates would not exceed existing conditions for the 100-year flood event consistent with the requirements of the Central Coast Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project site is not located within a flood hazard zone and Alternative 3 would therefore not place structures in a floodplain in a manner that could increase flooding. Alternative 3’s impact related to on - or off-site flooding would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3 would occur on the same site as the proposed project and therefore would be located outside of a flood hazard zone. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3’s stormwater infrastructure would discharge stormwater flows from the site so they would not increase compared existing conditions, the proposed project would not alter off-site flooding or drainage. Like the proposed project, no impact related to impeded or redirected flood flows would occur.
Alternative 3 would occur on the same site as the proposed project and therefore would be located outside of a flood hazard zone, tsunami inundation zone, and seiche zone and therefore would not risk pollutant release due to inundation within these zones. Like the proposed project, no impact would occur.
Given the increased scope of development activities within the same project footprint as the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have increased potential to conflict with the Basin Plan compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, Alte rnative 3 would adhere to the requirements of the Construction Stormwater General Permit, and Chapter 13.04 and Chapter 15.09 of the City’s Municipal Code to minimize water quality impacts, and would require Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, and HAZ-2, to reduce potential water quality impacts 252
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
219 | P a g e
to a less than significant level. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s impacts related to conflicts with the Basin Plan would be increased compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
As described above, Alternative 3 would not adversely impact groundwater supplies. As described in the Utilities and Service Systems discussion below, Alternative 3 would result in reduced water demand compared to the proposed project. Accordingly, Alternative 3 would not interfere with the management of the Basin in accordance with the Wright Judgement. Alternative 3’s impact related to conflicts with the Wright Judgement or GWD’s Groundwater Management Plan would be reduced compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
Based on the above, Alternative 3’s impacts related to water quality, polluted runoff, erosion, and conflict with water quality plans or groundwater management plans would be increased compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Impacts related to groundwater would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3’s impact related to on- or off-site flooding would be reduced compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant. As with the proposed project, no impacts related to flood hazard zones and release of pollutants from inundation would occur. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-41 -- 6-42.) i. Land Use and Planning
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not divide an established community because Alternative 3 would include development on an underutilized parcel in Goleta and would not include any components such as new roads or highways which would divide existing communities. Alternative 3’s impact related to the physical division of an established community would be the same as the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be consistent with the City’s zoning standards in accordance with the Builder’s Remedy and California Density Bonus Law. Given that Alternative 3 would occur within the same project footprint as the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have simil ar potential to be inconsistent with City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy CE
1.6, CE 1.9, CE 2.3, CE 5.3, and CE 9.5. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be designed to be consistent with Policy CE 2.2 regarding encroachment into the Streamside Protection Area buffer. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include implementation Mitigation Measures BIO -1 through BIO-8. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3, GEO-1, GEO -2, HAZ -1, H AZ-2, and NOI -1 would ensure Alternative 3’s consistency with other applicable City of Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan policies, similar to the proposed project. Alternative 3’s impact related to land 253
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
220 | P a g e
use plans and policies would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Alternative 3’s impact on the physical division of an established community would be the same as the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3’s impact related to land use plans and policies would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 6-42.)
j. Noise
Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities within the same project footprint as the proposed project and therefore would result in increased overall construction noise at nearby sensitive receptors as the proposed project. Alternative 3 would also require implementation of Mi tigation Measure NOI-1 to ensure construction noise levels do not exceed 65 dBA construction noise standards. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s construction noise impact would be greater than proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigati on incorporated.
Alternative 3 would include additional use of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units compared to the proposed project associated with the neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare. However, as with the proposed project, operational noise associated with these units would not exceed City noise thresholds because a typical HVAC unit generates a noise level of 68 A-weighted decibels at 3.28 feet (Carrier 2007). This noise level would attenuate to 38 A - weighted decibels at a distan ce of 100 feet, which is the distance to the nearest residences, with no obstructions or barriers to the noise. This distance is below the City’s 65 A -weighted decibels community noise equivalent level threshold.
Accordingly, Alternative 3’s stationary ope rational noise impact would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3 could increase vehicle trips on-site compared to the proposed project as Alternative 3 would include mixed -use facilities that re sidents within Goleta could utilize. Typically, a doubling of traffic volumes is required to result in a noticeable increase in traffic noise. Average daily trips along Cathedral Oaks Road in the vicinity of the project site is approximately 8,900. Given t he small -scale nature of the mixed-use facilities totaling 12,000 square feet, Alternative 3’s mixed use facilities would not generate double the existing trips required to increase traffic noise to a noticeable level. Alternative 3’s operational traffic n oise impact would be increased compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities, including additional excavation for deeper building foundations, compared t o the 254
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
221 | P a g e
proposed which would result in an overall increased duration of groundborne vibration during construction; however, Alternative 3 the same distance to vibration sensitive receptors as the proposed project, and construction equipment required for Alternative 3 is anticipated to be similar to the type of equipment required for the proposed project which would not generate substantial groundborne vibration.
Accordingly, vibration levels would not exceed the Federal Transit Administration’s groundborne vi bration threshold. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3’s operational activities would not include railroads or subways or other projects known to generate excessive groundborne vibration.
Alternative 3’s groundborne vibration impacts would be simi lar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be located outside of the noise contours of the Santa Barbara Airport.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have no impact r elated to excessive airport noise.
Based on the above, Alternative 3’s construction noise impacts would be greater compared to the proposed project but remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 3’s operational noise and constr uction groundborne vibration impacts would be greater compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Like the proposed project, Alternative 3 would have no impact related to airport noise. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 6-43.) k. Transportation and Circulation
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would not include elements that would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Alternative 3 would add the same extension of the Class I trail consistent with Policy TE 1.1.
Alternative 3 would incorporate the same amount of affordable housing and bicycle facilities as the proposed project and would encourage active and alternative transportation to a greater extent than the proposed project because Alternative 3 would include mixed-use development (i.e., neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare) that could be accessed by residents by walking or biking. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3’s propo sed driveways would be subject to review and approval by the City and SBCFD which would minimize the potential for vehicle to pedestrian and vehicle to cyclist conflicts. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would result in temporary lane, bicycle route, or sidewalk closures on Cathedral Oaks Road for utility installation, the impacts of which would be minimized with implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan.
Accordingly, Alternative 3’s impacts related to conflicts with transit, roadw ay, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
255
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
222 | P a g e
Alternative 3 would require greater construction activities compared to proposed project and therefore would generate similar short -term VMT increases as the proposed project. This construction-related VMT increase would be temporary and would not have a lasting effect on the overall transportation network or long -term VMT patterns in the area. Alternative 3 would occur on the same projec t site as the proposed project. The City’s adopted Resolution 20 -44 is utilized to assess potential impacts related to VMT. As Alternative 3 would be a mixed -use project, each component (i.e., commercial and residential) is evaluated separately consistent with the guidance for mixed-use projects in Resolution 20-44. The City has identified areas where operation of a work -based project would be presumed to have a less than significant impact on increases in VMT. The project site is within the work-based screening area; therefore, Alternative 3’s commercial component would be presumed to have a less than significant impact related to VMT. Given that Alternative 3 would include neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare on the same project site as residential uses, Alternative 3’s per resident VMT generation is anticipated to be less than the proposed project because residents would not have to travel as far to reach these commercial destinations.
Accordingly, Alternative 3 would result in a lower per resident VMT compared to the project, but it may still exceed the City thresholds even after the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA-1. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impact related to conflicts with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) would be less than the proposed project but would remain significant and unavoidable.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include access points on Cathedral Oaks Road that would be aligned with Royal Linda Drive and King Daniel Lane and would be designed to provide clea r visibility and minimize potential offset intersection conflicts. in accordance with SBCFD and City requirements. Alternative 3’s circulation design would be subject to review and approval from SBCFD and the City which would minimize potential for transportation design hazards. Alternative 3 would not present new conflicts with incompatible uses, and Alternative 3 would incorporate sidewalks and frontage improvements, including the same continuation of the Class I trail parallel to Cathedral Oaks Road, which would result in the same enhancements to pedestrian and bicycle safety. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s impacts to increased hazards would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3’s construction equipment staging and worker parking would occur entirely on-site which would minimize the potential for construction related vehicles and equipment to result in inadequate emergency access. Alternative 3 would also include implementation of the same Construction Traffic Management Plan as a Condition of Approval to minimize disruptions on Cathedral Oaks Road. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would be designed in accordance with all applicable SBCFD standards to maintain adequate emergency access. As with the proposed project, SBCFD and the City would 256
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
223 | P a g e
review and approve Alternative 3’s design, which would ensure Alternative 3 would provide adequate egress for emergency access. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impacts to emergency access would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
Based on the above, Alternative 3’s impacts related to conflicts with transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant. Alternative 3 would result a lesser impact related to VMT compared to the proposed project which would remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts as the proposed project related to tran sportation hazards and emergency access which would remain less than significant. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-44 -- 6-45.) l. Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities within the same project footprint as the proposed project. The taller residential structures may require additional excavation for deeper foundational support compared to the proposed project and would therefore have greater potential to result in impacts to unknown tribal cultural re sources. As with the proposed project, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-3 would be required to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources of Native American origin by requiring construction monitoring and procedures and final disposition of any unanticipated discoveries of such resources. Alternative 3’s impact related to tribal cultural resources would be the same as the proposed project and remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Alternative 3’s impact related to tribal cultural resources would be increased compared to the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (Revised Draft EIR, p. 6-45.) m. Utilities and Service Systems
Given Alternative 3’s increased development, Altern ative 3 would require the installation of additional utility infrastructure compared to the proposed project for the additional mixed -use buildings. As described below, Alternative 3 would not necessitate additional water supply, wastewater facilities, or solid waste facilities.
As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 could be adequately served with the existing electricity supplies provided by Southern California Edison or Central Coast Community Energy. Alternative 3 would include stormwater infrastructure in compliance with Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements, thereby adequately controlling the flow of stormwater such that additional infrastructure would not be required. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s utility development woul d not necessitate the construction or relocation of additional utility infrastructure Accordingly, Alternative 3’s impact related to the relocation or construction of utility infrastructure would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
257
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
224 | P a g e
Based on the water demand rate of 0.22 AFY per medium -density residential residence from the County’s 2024 Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual water demand rate, Alternative 3’s residences would result in an annual water demand of approximately 12.3 AFY.3 In addition, Alternative 3 would include a neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare which, based on a water demand rate of 0.23 AFY per 1,000 square feet of commercial space from the County’s 2024 Environmental Thresholds an d Guidelines Manual, Alternative 3’s water demand from the neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare would be approximately 2.8 AFY. Assuming irrigation requirements for landscaping would be similar to that of the proposed project, Alternative 3’s total water demand would be 30.27 AFY, which would be 9.54 AFY less than the proposed project.
Accordingly, Alternative 3 would not generate water demand exceeding GWD’s projected supplies. Alternative 3’s impact on water supply would be reduced compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3’s wastewater generation for the residences would be 0.01, the same as the proposed project; however, Alternative 3 would include additional wastewater generation from the neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare.
This wastewater generation is calculated consistent with the wastewater generation factor of 100 gallons per day per 1,000 square feet of habitable space for commercial and industrial development used in the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Final EIR (City of Gol eta 2006b). Accordingly, wastewater generation from the neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare would be 1,200 gallons, or 0.001 MGD. The total wastewater generation from Alternative 3 would be approximately 0.011 MGD. Although Alternative 3’s wastewater demand would result in a slight increase compared to the proposed project, Alternative 3’s wastewater generation would be within the 0.93 MGD capacity of the wastewater treatment plant available to Goleta West Sanitary District customers. Therefore, Alt ernative 3’s impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3 would involve demolition of the same structures as the proposed project and therefore would resu lt in the same solid waste generation from demolition as the proposed project, which would be 194 tons of debris. Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities compared to the proposed project and therefore would result in an increased amount of construction solid waste generation as the proposed project. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed the proposed project’s residential development would have a similar total floor area as the proposed project (163,920 square fe et) and would include an additional 12,000 square feet of commercial space. Based on a solid waste generation factor of 4.38 pounds per square foot for construction, construction of Alternative 3 would result in 385 tons of debris, approximately 27 tons greater than the proposed project. Alternative 3’s demolition and construction activities would 258
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
225 | P a g e
generate a total of 579 tons of debris which, with a 65 percent demolition and construction waste recycling required by CalGreen Title 21 Part 11 Section 4.408.1 and Chapter 8.10 of the Goleta Municipal Code, would be reduced to 203 tons which would not exceed the City’s project specific demolition and construction threshold of 350 tons. During operation, Alternative 3’s residences would result in the same gross solid waste generation rate of 138 tons per year for the residences as the proposed project. However, based on a waste generation factor of the total square footage of these facilities multiplied by 0.0057, consistent with the County’s 2024 Environmental Thr esholds and Guidelines Manual, Alternative 3 would include an additional 68 gross tons of solid waste per year from operation of the neighborhood market, workspace, and daycare. Alternative 3’s total gross solid waste generation would be 206 tons per year, which, with a 50 percent diversion rate, would be reduced to 103 tons per year. This amount of solid waste is greater than the proposed project but does not exceed the City’s project-specific threshold of 196 tons per year. Therefore, Alternative 3’s impa cts related to solid waste would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Based on the above, Alternative 3’s impacts on water supply would be the same as the proposed project and would remain less than significant. Alt ernative 3’s impacts on utility infrastructure, wastewater generation, and solid waste would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant. ( FEIR, pp. 6-45 -- 6-47.)
n. Wildfire
Alternative 3 would be located on the same pr oject site and would therefore be located in the same high and very high fire hazard severity zones as the proposed project. Alternative 3 would include construction within Cathedral Oaks Road for utility installation and therefore would have similar poten tial to interfere with emergency response or evacuation of Cathedral Oaks Road as the proposed project, which would be minimized with implementation of a Construction Traffic Management Plan. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3’s operations would not introduce activities that could impede or interfere with emergency evacuations on Cathedral Oaks Road. Alternative 3’s impact related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan would be similar to the proposed project and would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3 would result in an increased scope of development activities within the same project footprint as the proposed project and therefore would result in increased fire risk during construction compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, construction of Alternative 3 would be carried out in accordance with CFC Chapter 9, Section 3312 to require a water supply system onsite prior to the start of c onstruction. Alternative 3’s structures would be designed in accordance with applicable CFC, California Building Code, California 259
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
226 | P a g e
Residential Code, and City General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan requirements for fire safety. As with the proposed project, Alte rnative 3 would be subject to review by SBCFD to ensure the proposed project design adheres to SBCFD development standards for adequate ingress and egress, fire hydrant spacing and water flow to the site, installation of a stored water protection system on -site, adequate fire sprinkler systems, and defensible space. Alternative 3’s impact related to fire risk or pollutants from wildfire would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3 would require the installation of additional utility infrastructure on the project site compared to the proposed project which could result in additional fire risk. However, this utility infrastructure would be underground similar to the proposed project which would minimize fire risk. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would maintain a maximum 100 -foot buffer zone near the riparian area on the southwestern border of the project site to further reduce spread of wildfire to adjacent la nd. Alternative 3 would occur in compliance with the defensible space requirement set forth in the SBCFD development standards, Chapter 49 of the CFC, and Section 51182 of the California Government Code to minimize fire risk. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s i mpact related to infrastructure that could result in fire risk would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant.
Alternative 3 would introduce a greater amount of development to the project site compared to the proposed project, thereby resulting in an increased risk related to landslides and erosion compared to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would include construction site BMPs to minimize erosion during construction activities in accordance with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and Chapter 15.09 of the City’s Municipal Code. As with the proposed project, construction would implement measures such as the use of spark arresters on equipment or the halting of hot work during times when fire risk is high to minim ize fire risk. As with the proposed project, Alternative 3 would include implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 to minimize geotechnical risks associated with slope instability during construction and operation. Accordingly, Alternative 3’s impacts rel ated to the risk of slope instability exacerbated by fire risk would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Based on the above, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts related to emergency evacuation and response as the proposed project, which would remain less than significant. Alternative 3’s impacts related to fire risk and pollutant exposure and utility infrastructure installation would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant. Alternative 3’s impacts related to the risk of slope instability exacerbated by fire risk would be greater than the proposed project but would remain less than significant with mitigation incorporated. (FEIR, pp. 6-47 -- 6-48.)
260
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
227 | P a g e
Finding: The City Council rejects Alternative 3 Mixed-Use Alternative , on the following ground s, each of which individually provides sufficient justification for rejection of this alternative: (1) the alternative fails to avoid or reduce the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts relating to transportation and traffic (VMT) ; and (2) the alternative would result in increased impacts relating to aesthetics (scenic vistas, light and glare), air quality, biological resources (wildlife corridors/wildlife movement), cultural resources (archaeological resources, human remains), geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials (transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials; wildland fire), hydrology and water quality (degradation of water quality and conflicts with the Basin Plan), noise (construction and operational noise and construction groundborne vibration) , tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems (new or expanded utility infrastructure, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation), wildfire (fire risk and pollutant exposure, and utility infrastructure, slope instability).
E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a proposed Proj ect shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. Based on the alternatives analysis contained within the Revised Draft EIR, the By-Right Development alternative is identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative.
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) provides that, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.
This discussion identifies the environmentally superior alternative by assessing the degree to which each alternative avoids or minimizes environmental impacts. In some cases, an alternative will avoid or minimize one or more impacts identified for the proposed project but then introduce one or more new impacts. Therefore, selection of the environmentally superior alternative requires an overall assessment of the changes in the number and type of significant impacts. The CEQA Guidelines do not define a specific methodology for determining the environmentally superior alternative.
For the purp oses of this analysis, the project alternatives have been compared within each issue area to the proposed project, and a determination has been made as to whether the potential environmental effects of each alternative would be reduced, increased, or is similar in comparison to the proposed project. For the purpose of this EIR, each impact is equally weighted. Decision makers and the community in general may choose to emphasize one issue or another, which could lead to differing conclusions regarding environmental superiority.
The No Project Alternative (Alternative 1) would result in the fewest adverse environmental effects when compared to the proposed project because no development 261
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
228 | P a g e
activities would occur and therefore no environmental impacts would occur compared to existing condition. Therefore, Alternative 1 would be considered environmentally superior.
However, Alternative 1 would not fulfill any project objectives. As stated above, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) provides that, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. The environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives considered is Alternative 2 (By -Right Development) because this alternative would result in a less than significant VMT impact, compared to significant and unavoidable for the proposed project. Alternative 2 would have less potential than the proposed project to result in impacts related to aesthetics (scenic vistas, scenic quality, and light and glare), biological resources (special -status species, riparian habitat, jurisdictional features, and conflicts with local policies), cultural resources (archaeological resources and human remains), geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials (emergency response and evacuation), land use and planning (conflicts with land use plans), transportation (VMT and emergency access), tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems (utility infrastructure installation and wastewater), and wildfire.
However, as Alternative 2 would include fewer residential units compared to the proposed project and would not include active transportation improvements, it would fail to meet the following project objectives:
Develop up to 56 residential units on underutilized land located within Goleta. Provide housing opportunities for extremely low income, lower income, and moderate income level persons to support the City in complying with its Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements.
Improve accessibility and encourage active transportation for bicycles and pedestrians in Goleta.
In addition, Alternative 2 would only partially meet the following project objective as Alternative 2 would only inclu de one residential unit with the remaining 12 units restricted to farmworker housing:
Provide residential development in Goleta to fulfill the housing stock envisioned in the City’s adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element.
Compared to the proposed project, Alt ernative 3 (Mixed -Use Alternative) would result in increased impacts related to aesthetics (scenic vistas and light and glare), air quality, biological resource (wildlife movement), cultural resources (archaeological resources and human remains), geology a nd soils, hazards and hazardous materials (transport, use, and disposal and upset of hazardous materials and wildland fire), hydrology and water quality (degradation of water quality and conflicts with the Basin Plan), noise (construction and operational noise and construction groundborne vibration), 262
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
229 | P a g e
tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems (new or expanded utility infrastructure, wastewater generation, and solid waste generation). However, Alternative 3 would not increase the impact conclusions of any of these environmental topics or result in any new significant and unavoidable impacts compared to the proposed project.
Alternative 3 would result in similar, or slightly reduced, impacts to all other issue areas compared to the proposed project. Alternative 3 would meet all of the project objectives. (Revised Draft EIR, pp. 6-48 -- 6-49.)
SECTION IX.
ADOPTION OF STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a), the City Council must balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the Project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the specific benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, those environmental effects may be considered acceptable.
Having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the mitigation measures; having considered the entire administrative record on the project; the City Council has weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation in regards to transportation/traffic (VMT – project specific and cumulative). While recognizing that the unavoidable adverse impact is significant under CEQA thresholds, the City Council nonetheless finds that the unavoidable adverse impact that will result from the Project is acceptable and outweighed by specific social, economic and other benefits of the Project.
In making this determination, the factors and public benefits specified below were considered. Any one of these reasons is sufficient to justify approval of the Project. Thus, even if a court were to conclude that not every reason is supported by substantial evidence, the City Council would be able to stand by its determination that each individual reason is sufficient. The substantial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which are incorporated by reference into this section, and in the documents found in the Records of Proceeding.
The City Council therefore finds that for each of the significant impacts which are subject to a finding under CEQA Section 21081(a)(3), that each of the following social, economic, and environmental benefi ts of the Project, independent of the other benefits, outweigh the potential significant unavoidable adverse impact and render acceptable each and every one of these unavoidable adverse environmental impacts:
1. Develop up to 56 residential units on underutilized land located within Goleta.
2. Provide residential development in Goleta to fulfill the housing stock envisioned in the City’s adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element. 263
Exhibit A to Attachment 1
CEQA Findings and SOC
Shelby Residential Project
230 | P a g e
3. Provide housing opportunities for extremely low income, lower income, and moderate income level persons to support the City in complying with its Regional Housing Needs Allocation requirements.
4. Improve accessibility and encourage active transportation for bicycles and pedestrians in Goleta.
5. Design residences to incorporate green building measures to encourage the use of energy and water efficient technology.
264
Exhibit B to ATTACHMENT 1
SHELBY FINAL EIR and Appendices
Given the size of the above-referenced document, the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is on file with the Goleta Planning and Environmental Review Department or can be accessed at this link:
https://www.cityofgoleta.org/your-city/planning-and-environmental-review/ceqa- review/shelby-residential-development-project.
265
EXHIBIT C to ATTACHMENT 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
266
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shelby Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the Shelby Residential Project
The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Shelby Residential Project (proposed project) identifies mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 requires a public agency to adopt a reporting or monitoring program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to a proposed development. As stated in California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6:
“…the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.”
Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during implementation of the proposed project, shall be defined as part of adopting a Final EIR.
The mitigation monitoring table below lists those mitigation measures that will be required as part of approval of the proposed project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The project applicant will be responsible for implementing the measures, and the various City of Goleta departments will have the primary responsibility of monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures. Implementation responsibilities are detailed in the table below. Parties who are involved in fulfilling the requirements of the mitigation measures herein include the applicant, the applicant’s project design engineer, the construction contractor, City staff, and independent third parties contracted by the City and paid for by the applicant (e.g., qualified biologists, abatement contractors, qualified environmental professionals), the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, and the California Department of Public Health.
267
City of Goleta
Shelby Residential Project
2 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
Biological Resources
BIO-1: Special-Status Plant Surveys and Avoidance
Prior to the start of construction activities, including vegetation removal, a City-approved, qualified biologist (retained by the project applicant) shall conduct a spring special-status plant survey within the areas of proposed ground disturbance. The survey shall be conducted during the appropriate season (March–April) and in suitable habitat to detect rare annual plant species (ocellated Humboldt lily [Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum] and black-flowered figwort [Scrophularia atrata]) and additional individuals of Santa Barbara honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata var. subspicata) that may not have been observed during previous surveys conducted on June 20, July 11, July 21, August 22, November 3, and November 5, 2025 as part of the Biological Assessment Report for the Shelby Residential Development Project (Watershed Environmental, Inc. 2025). The survey shall be conducted in accordance with the CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines (2001), CDFW Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities (2018), and the USFWS General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines (Cypher 2002). Reference sites shall be visited to confirm detectability of target species prior to initiating the survey. Within 24 hours of completing the spring survey, the qualified biologist shall prepare and submit a brief letter report documenting the survey methods and results to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, for review and approval.
A second pre-construction special-status plant survey shall be conducted by the qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of vegetation removal and construction activities. The biologist shall prepare a brief letter report summarizing the survey results within 24 hours of completing the survey and submit it to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, for review and approval. If construction has not commenced within two years of the most recent survey, the special-status plant survey shall be repeated prior to the start of construction. If special status plant species are detected during the spring and/or pre-construction special status plant surveys, the project applicant shall implement Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Retaining a City-approved, qualified biologist
to conduct both the spring and pre-
construction special-status plant surveys.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Ensuring construction and vegetation
removal activities do not begin until both
survey results have been reviewed and
approved by the Planning and
Environmental Review Director (or
designee).
▪ Incorporating any required avoidance
measures resulting from survey findings
into construction and vegetation removal
plans.
The City-approved qualified biologist is
responsible for:
▪ Visiting reference sites to confirm
detectability of target species prior to
initiating surveys.
▪ Conducting the spring special-status plant
survey during the appropriate March–
April window.
▪ Conducting the second pre-construction
special-status plant survey no more than
two weeks prior to vegetation removal
and construction.
▪ Preparing and submitting brief letter
reports summarizing survey methods and
findings within 24 hours of each survey’s
completion.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing and approving the survey
reports prior to initiation of vegetation
removal or construction activities.
The spring and pre-construction
special-status plant surveys shall
be conducted by the qualified
biologist prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance for the grading
permit. The qualified biologist
shall prepare and submit a brief
letter report summarizing the
results of each survey to the City
of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director
within 24 hours of completing
the survey. If construction has
not commenced within two
years of the most recent survey,
the special-status plant survey
shall be repeated prior to the
start of construction.
The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
survey results and maintain
documentation on file.
BIO-2: Rare Plant Protection Plan
Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a City-approved, qualified biologist to prepare a Rare Plant Protection Plan for review and approval by the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee. The Rare Plant Protection Plan shall focus on special-status species with potential to occur on-site (Santa Barbara honeysuckle, ocellated Humboldt lily, and black-flowered figwort) and shall include:
• Establishment of avoidance buffers for special-status plant species and habitat that supports special-status plants outside of the project’s disturbance area. • Specifications for temporary rare plant protection fencing (minimum 4 feet tall, metal posts spaced no more than 8 feet apart).
• Locations of fencing depicted on grading plans.
The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Retaining a City-approved, qualified
biologist to prepare the Rare Plant
Protection Plan.
▪ Incorporating all required fencing,
signage, and avoidance buffers into
grading plans.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Ensuring construction activities do not
begin until the fencing, signage, and
The Rare Plant Protection Plan
shall be finalized by the qualified
biologist and approved by the
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance for the grading
permit. The qualified biologist
shall oversee the construction
contractor’s installation of
fencing and signage.
The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
Rare Plant Protection Plan and
restoration plan, maintain
documentation on file, and conduct
periodic inspections to ensure
compliance with fencing, signage, and
restoration requirements.
268
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shelby Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 3 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
• “Rare Plant Protection Zone – Keep Out” signage posted at 20-foot intervals. • Maintenance requirements to ensure fencing remains upright and effective throughout construction.
The qualified biologist shall inspect the fencing and signage and establish avoidance buffers prior to the start of construction and shall submit written confirmation to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, that the fencing has been installed in accordance with the approved plan.
avoidance buffers have been installed and
verified by the qualified biologist.
▪ Maintaining fencing and signage in good
condition throughout construction in
accordance with the approved plan.
The City-approved qualified biologist is
responsible for:
▪ Preparing the Rare Plant Protection Plan
addressing special-status plant species,
fencing specifications, signage, and
maintenance requirements.
▪ Inspecting installation of rare plant
protection fencing and signage prior to
the start of construction.
▪ Establishing and marking avoidance
buffers consistent with the approved plan.
▪ Submitting written confirmation to the
Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, verifying proper
installation of fencing and signage.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing and approving the Rare Plant
Protection Plan prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading permit.
▪ Confirming that avoidance buffers,
fencing, and signage are shown on grading
plans.
▪ Conducting periodic site inspections to
verify compliance with the approved Rare
Plant Protection Plan.
The qualified biologist shall
establish avoidance buffers prior
to the start of construction and
maintain the buffers throughout
the duration of construction
activities.
BIO-3: Habitat Restoration and Rare Plant Mitigation
Prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit, the project applicant shall retain a City- approved, qualified biologist to prepare a Habitat Restoration Plan consistent with the provisions of Goleta Municipal Code Section 17.30.030(D) to restore and mitigate impacts to native vegetation communities and special-status plant species. Restoration and mitigation shall occur on the project site if feasible. The plan shall provide for:
• Restoration of temporarily disturbed native vegetation (including black sage – California sagebrush scrub, arroyo willow thicket, and eucalyptus grove) at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
• Mitigation for permanent impacts to black sage – California sagebrush scrub, arroyo willow thicket, and eucalyptus grove at a minimum 3:1 ratio. • Mitigation for removal of rare plant species, including Santa Barbara honeysuckle (Lonicera subspicata var. subspicata), ocellated Humboldt lily (Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum) and black-flowered figwort (Scrophularia atrata) at a minimum 10:1 ratio. • All plant materials used for restoration and mitigation shall be locally sourced from the Goleta or Devereux Slough watersheds or adjacent watersheds. The plan shall specify:
• Quantity, species, and container size of plant materials to be installed. • Annual performance standards for vegetation growth, cover, and survival. • Success criteria requiring a minimum of 85 percent native vegetation cover and/or rare plant survival after five years.
The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Retaining a City-approved, qualified
biologist to prepare the Habitat
Restoration Plan.
▪ Ensuring all restoration and mitigation
areas, ratios, and plant sourcing
requirements are incorporated into
project plans.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Implementing restoration and mitigation
activities consistent with the approved
Habitat Restoration Plan.
▪ Maintaining restoration areas, including
irrigation and weed control, as specified in
the plan.
The City-approved qualified biologist is
responsible for:
▪ Preparing the Habitat Restoration Plan.
The Habitat Restoration Plan
shall be submitted to the City of
Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, for review and
approval prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance for the grading
permit. Restoration and
mitigation planting shall occur
during the first planting season
following completion of
construction in impacted areas.
Rare plant mitigation shall be
implemented concurrently with
native vegetation restoration.
The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
Habitat Restoration Plan and maintain
documentation on file. The qualified
biologist shall conduct biological
monitoring in accordance with the
approved plan and submit status
reports to the City of Goleta’s Planning
and Environmental Review Director for
five years following installation. The
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall conduct periodic
inspections to verify compliance with
restoration goals, including vegetation
cover, species composition, and rare
plant survival.
269
City of Goleta
Shelby Residential Project
4 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
• Maintenance activities to support plant establishment and long-term viability. • Frequency of biological monitoring (by the qualified biologist) and reporting requirements (to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director). ▪ Identifying appropriate restoration and
mitigation areas and determining final
planting quantities and species.
▪ Conducting biological monitoring at the
frequency specified in the plan.
▪ Preparing and submitting monitoring
reports to the Planning and Environmental
Review Director, or designee, according to
the approved reporting schedule.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing and approving the Habitat
Restoration Plan prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading permit.
▪ Reviewing required monitoring reports
submitted by the qualified biologist.
▪ Conducting periodic inspections to verify
compliance with the approved Habitat
Restoration Plan and success criteria.
BIO-4: Biological Monitoring and Worker Education
Prior to initiation of construction activities, the project applicant shall retain a City-approved, qualified biologist familiar with special-status plant and wildlife species with the potential to occur in the project work area. The qualified biologist shall be present on-site daily during grading and vegetation removal. The monitor shall be responsible for the following:
• Ensure that procedures for verifying compliance with biological resource mitigation measures are followed.
• Lines of communication and reporting methods.
• Guiding the construction contractor in marking/flagging construction area limits. • Conducting construction crew Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training.
• Authority to stop non-emergency work.
• Action to be taken in the event of non-compliance.
• Conducting daily wildlife clearance surveys prior to any grading, turf removal, other vegetation removal.
• Inspecting ESHA fencing around sensitive habitats.
• Preparing monitoring summaries of special-status species’ presence, or the lack thereof, on the project site during grading or vegetation removal.
All construction personnel shall attend a WEAP training conducted by the qualified biologist prior to commencement of construction activities. The construction contractor(s) shall be responsible for ensuring that all new personnel receive the training after construction is initiated. The WEAP shall include a description of a special-status species potentially present in the area, jurisdictional habitats present proximate to the project site, information on sensitive habitats to be avoided, and specific measures that shall be implemented to protect special- status species. Special-status plant species addressed in the WEAP training shall include, at a minimum, Santa Barbara honeysuckle, ocellated Humboldt lily, and black-flowered figwort.
Species-status wildlife species addressed in the WEAP, at a minimum, shall include western red bat.
The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Retaining a City-approved, qualified
biologist to serve as the on-site biological
monitor during grading and vegetation
removal.
▪ Ensuring that all construction personnel
attend WEAP training prior to starting
work.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Ensuring that all construction personnel
complete WEAP training.
▪ Complying with all biological protection
measures and adhering to guidance from
the qualified biologist.
▪ Clearly marking construction area limits as
directed by the qualified biologist.
The City-approved qualified biologist is
responsible for:
▪ Conducting daily on-site monitoring
during grading and vegetation removal.
▪ Providing WEAP training to all
construction personnel and maintaining
training and attendance (sign-in sheet)
documentation.
▪ Conducting daily wildlife clearance
surveys and inspecting Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) fencing
around sensitive habitats.
▪ Stopping non-emergency work if
biological resources are at risk.
The qualified biologist shall be
present on-site daily during
grading and vegetation removal.
This measure shall be
incorporated into the grading
plans and the WEAP shall be
available on-site during
construction. The qualified
biologist shall submit a
monitoring summary to the City
of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, within 30 days of
completing each phase of
construction.
Records of construction worker WEAP
participation shall be kept on file with
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director for the
duration of construction. Monitoring
summaries shall be kept on file with
the City for the duration of
construction.
270
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shelby Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
▪ Preparing monitoring summaries
documenting special-status species
observations (or lack thereof) during
construction.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing monitoring summaries
submitted by the qualified biologist.
▪ Conducting periodic site inspections to
verify compliance with biological resource
protection measures.
▪ Confirming that WEAP training
documentation is maintained and
available upon request.
BIO-5: Bat Roost Avoidance and Protection
To avoid disturbance to western red bats (Lasiurus blossevillii), ground disturbance and tree removal shall occur outside of the bat maternity season (April 1 to August 31). If ground disturbance or tree removal must occur during this period, the project applicant shall retain a City-approved, qualified biologist to conduct two nighttime acoustic bat surveys no more than two weeks prior to tree removal within the disturbance footprint, plus a 300-foot buffer.
Surveys shall be conducted using ultrasonic microphones capable of detecting bat echolocation calls and shall last a minimum of one hour each. Survey conclusions shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, prior to initiation of construction.
If bat activity is detected, the qualified biologist shall conduct a daytime visual inspection of trees for signs of active roosts, including guano, insect carcasses, or direct observation of bats.
If any active roosts are found, the City-approved biologist shall establish a 100-foot buffer. The construction contractor shall ensure that no ground disturbance or tree removal occurs within the buffer until the City-approved biologist confirms the breeding season has concluded or the roost is no longer active and removes the buffer. If work within the buffer is necessary, a City- contracted biological monitor (funded by the project applicant) shall monitor the active roost full-time during construction activities within the buffer to ensure project activities are not indirectly impacting roosting bats.
The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Retaining a City-approved, qualified
biologist to conduct nighttime acoustic
bat surveys when work must occur during
the maternity season.
▪ Funding a City-contracted biological
monitor if construction must occur within
an established bat buffer.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Ensuring no ground disturbance or tree
removal occurs within a 100-foot buffer
around active roosts unless the buffer has
been lifted or adjusted by the qualified
biologist.
▪ Complying with all biological monitor
instructions during construction activities
within established buffers.
The City-approved qualified biologist is
responsible for:
▪ Conducting two nighttime acoustic bat
surveys within the disturbance area plus a
300-foot buffer.
▪ Conducting daytime visual inspections for
active roosts when bat activity is
detected.
▪ Establishing a 100-foot buffer around any
active roosts.
▪ Confirming when roosts are no longer
active or when the maternity season has
concluded, and removing the buffer
accordingly.
▪ Submitting bat survey conclusions to the
Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, for review and
approval prior to construction.
Within 24 hours of completing
the surveys (and prior to
initiation of tree removal
activities), the qualified biologist
shall prepare a brief report
summarizing the methods and
results of the acoustic and visual
bat surveys and submit it to the
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee.
The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
bat survey results prior to
commencement of tree removal
activities and maintain documentation
on file. The City of Goleta’s Planning
and Environmental Review Director
shall conduct periodic inspections to
ensure that tree removal activities
comply with seasonal restrictions and
avoidance measures for active bat
roosts.
271
City of Goleta
Shelby Residential Project
6 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
The City-contracted biological monitor (funded
by the applicant) is responsible for:
▪ Conducting full-time monitoring of active
roosts during construction if work must
occur within the established buffer.
▪ Ensuring construction activities do not
indirectly disturb roosting bats.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing and approving the bat survey
conclusions prior to initiation of
construction.
▪ Conducting periodic site inspections to
verify compliance with bat protection
measures and monitoring requirements.
BIO-6: Pre-construction Nesting Bird Surveys and Avoidance To avoid construction impacts to nesting birds and raptors, the construction contractor shall conduct vegetation removal and initial ground disturbance outside the bird and raptor breeding season, which is typically February 1 through September 1 but can vary based on local and annual climatic conditions. If construction begins within the breeding season, then not more than seven days before demolition, ground disturbance, and/or vegetation removal commences, a bird and raptor preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a City-approved, qualified biologist (retained by the project applicant) within the disturbance footprint, plus a 300-foot buffer. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of bird species known to occur in southern California.
The City-approved biologist shall conduct the preconstruction nesting bird and raptor surveys during the time of day when bird species are active and for a sufficient duration to reliably conclude presence/absence of nesting birds and raptors within the 300-foot buffer. The City- approved biologist shall submit a summary of the nesting bird and raptor survey results to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee. Survey conclusions shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, prior to initiation of construction. If no bird nests are observed no further mitigation is required.
If an active nest of species protected by the California Fish and Game Code (§ 3503) or Migratory Bird Treaty Act are found within 300 feet of the disturbance footprint, the City- approved biologist shall flag their locations and map their locations on an aerial photograph of the disturbance footprint at a scale no less than 1”=200’ and/or recorded with the use of a Global Positioning System unit. If active raptor nests are detected, the map shall include topographic lines, parcel boundaries, adjacent roads, known historical nests for protected nesting species, and known roosting or foraging areas, as required by the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy CE 8.3. The buffer shall be 300 feet in compliance with the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy CE 8.4. If the 300-foot buffer is infeasible, the City-approved biologist may reduce the buffer distance as appropriate, depending upon the species and the proposed work activities. If any active non-raptor bird nests are found, the City-approved biologist shall establish a suitable buffer area (varying from 25 to 300 feet), depending on the species. The construction contractor shall ensure that no ground disturbance occurs within the buffer until the City-approved biologist confirms that the breeding/nesting is completed and all the young have fledged, and removes the buffer. If work within the buffer is necessary, a City-contracted biological monitor (funded by the project applicant) shall monitor the active nest full-time during construction activities within the buffer to ensure project activities are not indirectly impacting protected nesting birds and raptors. If work ceases for more than 30 days, a new nesting bird survey shall be conducted in accordance with this measure.
The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Retaining a City-approved, qualified
biologist to conduct preconstruction
nesting bird and raptor surveys during the
breeding season.
▪ Funding a City-contracted biological
monitor if construction must occur within
an established nest buffer.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Scheduling vegetation removal and
ground disturbance outside the breeding
season whenever feasible.
▪ Ensuring no vegetation removal, ground
disturbance, or construction activities
occur within an established buffer unless
the buffer is lifted by the qualified
biologist.
▪ Ensuring that all construction personnel
are informed of nest buffer requirements
and comply with all avoidance measures.
The City-approved qualified biologist is
responsible for:
▪ Conducting preconstruction nesting bird
and raptor surveys within seven days prior
to work beginning during the breeding
season.
▪ Preparing nest location mapping and
documentation consistent with City of
Goleta Policy CE 8.3.
▪ Establishing appropriate buffers for active
nests based on species and site
conditions.
The survey shall be conducted
no more than seven days prior
to commencement of any
demolition, grading, and/or
vegetation removal activities.
Survey conclusions shall be
reviewed and approved by the
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, prior to the
commencement of construction
activities that could disturb
suitable nesting habitat, such as
demolition, grading, and/or
vegetation removal. This
measure, and any buffer
requirements, shall be
incorporated into the grading
plans.
The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review any biological
survey reports and conduct periodic
site inspections to verify compliance
with survey recommendations in the
field. The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall conduct periodic spot
checks to ensure that construction
does not occur within the buffer during
construction.
272
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shelby Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 7 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
▪ Confirming when nests are no longer
active and removing buffers.
▪ Submitting survey summaries to the
Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, for review and
approval.
The City-contracted biological monitor (funded
by the project applicant) is responsible for:
▪ Monitoring active nests full-time if
construction must occur within an
established buffer.
▪ Ensuring construction activities do not
indirectly disturb nesting birds or raptors.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing and approving nesting bird and
raptor survey conclusions prior to
initiation of construction.
▪ Conducting periodic site inspections to
verify compliance with established nest
buffers and monitoring requirements.
BIO-7: Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Construction methods shall include hand-trimming of vegetation rather than removal where feasible. The project applicant shall retain a City-approved, qualified biologist who shall install temporary construction fencing between the ESHA area that would be disturbed (during installation of the new storm drain pipe, construction of the new bike path along Cathedral Oaks Road, grading in the southwestern corner of the project site to construct the detention basin, and grading and building construction within eucalyptus grove along El Encanto Creek) and the adjacent ESHA to be protected. The fencing shall be a minimum of 4 feet tall, attached to metal fence posts spaced no more than 8 feet apart, and shall include “Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area – Keep Out” signage posted at 20-foot intervals. The fencing and signage shall be installed prior to the start of construction activities and shall be maintained in an upright and functional condition for the duration of construction in these areas. No construction activities shall occur in the fenced ESHA designated to be protected.
The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Retaining a City-approved, qualified
biologist to oversee installation of
temporary ESHA protection fencing.
▪ Ensuring that construction plans
incorporate all ESHA protection
requirements, including fencing, signage,
and work-area limitations.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Using hand-trimming methods instead of
vegetation removal where feasible.
▪ Ensuring that no construction activities
occur within fenced ESHA areas
designated for protection.
▪ Installing and maintaining fencing and
signage in functional condition for the
duration of construction.
The City-approved qualified biologist is
responsible for:
▪ Overseeing installation of temporary ESHA
protection fencing and signage consistent
with required specifications.
▪ Verifying proper placement of fencing
between disturbance areas and adjacent
ESHA.
Specification for hand-trimming
of vegetation, as well as the
location and specifications of the
temporary construction fencing,
shall be included in the final
construction plans and reviewed
by the City of Goleta’s Planning
and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, prior to
issuance of Zoning Clearance for
the grading permit. Fencing and
signage shall be installed prior to
any ground disturbance and
maintained throughout the
duration of construction
activities in proximity to ESHA.
The qualified biologist shall oversee
installation of the fencing and signage
prior to the start of construction and
confirm proper installation by writing
to the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director. The
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director shall
conduct periodic inspections to ensure
vegetation is hand-trimmed where
feasible and fencing remains in place
and in good condition throughout
construction.
273
City of Goleta
Shelby Residential Project
8 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
▪ Conducting periodic inspections to ensure
fencing remains upright and effective
throughout construction.
▪ Communicating any required corrections
or maintenance to the project applicant
and construction contractor.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Verifying that ESHA protection fencing has
been installed prior to the start of
construction.
▪ Conducting site inspections to ensure
compliance with ESHA protection
requirements throughout construction.
BIO-8: Tree Protection Measures
The construction contractor shall implement the following tree protection measures to ensure that impacts to protected trees, including native coast live oak trees outside of the project site, are minimized to the extent feasible or avoided, consistent with the City of Goleta’s General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Policy CE 9.5, the City’s Urban Forest Management Plan, and Goleta Municipal Code Chapter 15.09 (Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control), prior to the start of project construction. The following tree protection measures shall be included within the project construction plans, including the grading and landscaping plans. All measures below shall be conducted by or under the direct supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) certified arborist retained by the project applicant:
Prior to Construction
• A certified arborist or qualified biologist under the supervision of the certified arborist shall monitor any ground disturbance, vegetation removal, and fencing installation activities that have a potential to impact the protected trees. • Temporary fencing such as snow fencing, not less than 3 feet high with tree protection signs shall be erected around the three protected trees to be preserved that have a potential to be impacted during construction. The protective fence shall be installed at the protected zone boundary of each tree, which is defined as the critical root zone. The contractor shall maintain the fence to keep it upright, taut and aligned during active construction. Fencing shall be in place and inspected by a City approved biologist prior to the start of activities with the potential to impact protected trees. Fencing shall be removed only after all construction activities with the potential to impact the protected trees are complete. • A pre-construction meeting shall be held between all contractors (including grading, tree removal/pruning, builders, etc.) and the project arborist. The meeting shall focus on instructing the contractors on tree protection practices. All equipment operators and spotters, assistants, or those directing operators from the ground shall provide written acknowledgement of their receiving tree protection training.
This training shall include information on the location and marking of the protected trees, the necessity of preventing damage, and the discussion of work practices that will accomplish such.
Protection and Maintenance During Construction
• Contractors shall avoid heavy equipment operations, grade changes, ponding water, and fill or compaction within the protected tree zone unless where specifically approved and under the supervision of a certified arborist or qualified biologist in direct communication with the certified arborist.
• Contractors shall ensure that damage to the tree be avoided to the extent feasible when transporting or moving construction materials and working within or adjacent to the protected zone). If contact with the tree crown is unavoidable, affected The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Retaining an ISA-certified arborist to
supervise and implement tree protection
measures.
▪ Ensuring that all tree protection
requirements are incorporated into
project construction plans.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Implementing all tree protection
measures during construction as directed
by the certified arborist.
▪ Installing and maintaining protective
fencing around trees throughout
construction.
▪ Avoiding activities within the protected
tree zone unless specifically approved by
the certified arborist.
▪ Conducting irrigation and mulch
maintenance in accordance with arborist
recommendations.
The ISA-certified arborist (and qualified
biologist under their supervision) is responsible
for:
▪ Monitoring ground disturbance,
vegetation removal, and fencing
installation near protected trees.
▪ Overseeing installation of and inspecting
tree protection fencing prior to
construction.
▪ Conducting pre-construction contractor
training and maintaining training
documentation.
▪ Supervising trenching, pruning, and all
work with potential to affect protected
trees.
The project applicant shall
submit the construction plans
that include the tree protection
measures to the City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental
Review Director for review and
approval prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance for the grading
permit.
The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
construction plans to ensure this
measure is included. The City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental
Review Director, or designee, shall
approve the arborist prior to Zoning
Clearance for the grading permit.
274
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shelby Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 9 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
branches may be pruned by a qualified arborist under supervision of a certified arborist and shall adhere to industry standards.
• Except where specifically approved in writing beforehand, all trenching shall be done outside of the fenced protected zone. Where trenching is necessary in areas that contain roots from retained trees, contractors should use trenching techniques that include the use of either a root pruner or an Air-Spade to limit root impacts. A certified arborist or qualified biologist in direct communication with the certified arborist shall ensure that all pruning cuts be clean and sharp to minimize ripping, tearing, and fracturing of the root system. Use of both root-pruning and Air-Spade equipment shall be accompanied only by hand tools to remove soil from trench locations. The trench should be made no deeper than necessary, and when possible, alternatives to trenching should be utilized.
• The contractor shall be responsible for irrigating (deep watering) the trees in the summer and fall irrigation as necessary and determined by a certified arborist. One irrigation cycle shall thoroughly soak the root zones of the trees to a depth of two feet. The soil shall be allowed to dry out between watering to avoid keeping consistently wet soil. Soil moisture shall be checked with a soil probe before irrigating. The area within three feet of the trunk shall never be soaked, especially in summer months.
• If any protected trees are damaged to the point where continued viability is threatened, as determined by a certified arborist, the tree shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio with like species grown from locally obtained seed. Replacement shall occur on site as feasible, or off site (within the same watershed) if on site replacement is not feasible. Replacement trees shall be monitored for a period of five years.
Maintenance After Construction
• The contractors shall ensure that the mulch is kept a minimum one foot away from the trunk base and no more than 8 inches deep to avoid creating conditions favorable to the establishment and growth of decay-causing fungal pathogens. ▪ Determining if tree damage requires
replacement and directing replacement
and monitoring if necessary.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Verifying installation of tree protection
fencing prior to construction.
▪ Conducting periodic site inspections to
ensure compliance with tree protection
measures.
▪ Confirming replacement tree installation
and monitoring compliance if required.
Cultural Resources
CUL‑1: Archaeological Monitoring
Prior to ground disturbance activities, the project applicant shall retain an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (qualified archaeologist) and has experience in California prehistoric and historic resources (experience within City of Goleta or Santa Barbara County preferred). The project applicant shall provide proof of retainment of the qualified archaeologist to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit. The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a Cultural Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan, conduct archaeological monitoring, and address any inadvertent discoveries identified during project implementation (refer to Mitigation Measure CUL-4). The City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall review and approve the Plan prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance for the grading permit. The Plan shall outline archaeological and Native American resource monitoring protocols, as well as a program for treatment and mitigation in the case of an inadvertent discovery of cultural resources during project-related ground-disturbance. The Plan shall also provide for the proper identification, evaluation, treatment, and protection of any cultural resources in accordance with CEQA throughout the duration of the project. The Plan shall be incorporated and referenced in all grading and construction plans intended for use by the construction contractor(s).
The qualified archaeologist shall manage archaeological monitoring during initial ground disturbance activities, defined as construction-related earth moving of sediments from their place of deposition. This definition excludes movement of sediments after they have been initially disturbed or displaced by project-related construction. The qualified archaeologist shall oversee and establish monitoring efforts as needed (increase, decrease, or discontinue monitoring frequency) based on the observed potential for construction activities to encounter cultural deposits or material. The qualified archaeologist shall ensure all daily monitoring logs The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Retaining a qualified archaeologist
meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s
Professional Qualification Standards.
▪ Providing proof of archaeologist retention
to the Planning and Environmental Review
Director prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading permit.
▪ Ensuring that the Cultural Resource
Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery
Plan is incorporated into all grading and
construction plans.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Including all archaeological monitoring
requirements on demolition, grading, and
construction plans.
▪ Providing site access and coordination for
archaeological monitoring throughout
ground-disturbing activities.
▪ Adhering to all procedures identified in
the Cultural Resource Monitoring and
Inadvertent Discovery Plan.
Prior to ground disturbance, the
project applicant shall retain a
qualified archaeologist. The
qualified archaeologist shall
create a Plan, conduct
monitoring, and address any
discoveries during project
construction. Proof of
retainment shall be provided to
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director
prior to the issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading
permit. The Plan shall outline
monitoring protocols and
treatment for any discovered
cultural resources, ensuring
compliance with CEQA. The Plan
shall be referenced in all grading
and construction plans. The City
of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, shall review and
approve the Plan prior to the
The qualified archaeologist shall
manage monitoring during initial
ground disturbance, adjusting efforts
(decrease, increase, or terminate)
based on the potential to encounter
cultural deposits. Daily monitoring logs
shall be maintained. The qualified
archaeologist shall prepare an
archaeological monitoring report,
documenting compliance and
monitoring efforts, and shall submit
the archaeological monitoring report to
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, for review, within 60 days
following completion of ground
disturbance. The qualified
archaeological shall submit the final
archaeological monitoring report to the
City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director and the
Central Coast Information Center.
275
City of Goleta
Shelby Residential Project
10 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
are maintained. The requirement for archaeological monitoring shall be noted on all demolition and grading plans. The qualified archaeologist shall prepare an archaeological monitoring report within 60 days following completion of ground disturbance, and shall submit the archaeological monitoring report to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, for review. The archaeological monitoring report shall document compliance with approved cultural resource mitigation measures, include all monitoring efforts, and include an appendix with the daily monitoring logs. The qualified archaeological shall submit the final archaeological monitoring report to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director and the Central Coast Information Center.
The qualified archaeologist is responsible for:
▪ Preparing the Cultural Resource
Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery
Plan and submitting it for City review and
approval.
▪ Conducting archaeological monitoring
during initial ground disturbance and
adjusting monitoring frequency as
appropriate.
▪ Maintaining daily monitoring logs and
documenting all monitoring activities.
▪ Preparing and submitting an
archaeological monitoring report within
60 days of completing ground
disturbance.
▪ Submitting the final archaeological
monitoring report to the Planning and
Environmental Review Director and the
Central Coast Information Center.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing and approving the Cultural
Resource Monitoring and Inadvertent
Discovery Plan prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance for the grading permit.
▪ Verifying that monitoring requirements
are included on demolition and grading
plans.
▪ Reviewing the archaeological monitoring
report upon completion of
ground-disturbing activities.
▪ Conducting periodic site inspections to
confirm compliance with archaeological
monitoring requirements.
issuance of Zoning Clearance for
the grading permit.
CUL-2: Worker Environmental Awareness Program Training
All construction personnel and monitors who are not trained archaeologists shall be briefed regarding unanticipated discoveries of archaeological resources prior to the start of construction activities as part of a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training.
A basic presentation shall be prepared and presented by the qualified archaeologist, or their designee, to inform all construction personnel working on the project about the archaeological sensitivity of the area. The purpose of the WEAP training is to provide specific details on the kinds of archaeological materials that may be identified during construction and explain the importance of and legal basis for the protection of significant archaeological resources. Each worker shall also learn the proper procedures to follow in the event archaeological resources or human remains are uncovered during ground-disturbing activities. These procedures include work curtailment or redirection, and the immediate contact of the qualified archaeologist and if appropriate, Native American representative. If new construction personnel are added to the project, the crew foreman shall ensure the new personnel receive the WEAP training before starting work. The necessity of training attendance shall be stated on all demolition, grading, or construction plans and the project applicant shall maintain records demonstrating construction worker WEAP participation. The project applicant shall submit the records of construction worker WEAP participation to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director prior to construction activities and as needed after the addition of new personnel.
The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Retaining the qualified archaeologist to
prepare and conduct WEAP training.
▪ Maintaining documentation of WEAP
attendance and submitting these records
to the Planning and Environmental Review
Director prior to construction and as new
personnel join the project.
▪ Ensuring WEAP requirements are included
on all demolition, grading, and
construction plans.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Ensuring that all personnel, including new
personnel added after construction
begins, receive WEAP training prior to
beginning work.
This measure shall be
incorporated into the grading,
demolition, and construction
plans and the WEAP shall be
available on-site during
construction.
Records of construction worker WEAP
participation shall be kept on file with
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director for the
duration of construction.
276
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shelby Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 11 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
▪ Following the procedures outlined during
the WEAP training in the event of an
inadvertent discovery.
The qualified archaeologist, or designee, is
responsible for:
▪ Preparing and presenting WEAP training
to all construction personnel and
monitors.
▪ Providing instruction on archaeological
sensitivity, identification of potential
resources, and appropriate response
procedures.
▪ Remaining on call to respond to potential
discoveries reported by construction
personnel.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing WEAP participation records
submitted by the project applicant.
▪ Conducting periodic inspections to verify
that WEAP documentation is maintained
and that workers on-site have completed
the required training.
CUL‑3: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources
If unanticipated cultural resources are discovered during project-related ground disturbance, the following procedures shall be implemented:
• The construction contractor(s) shall halt work within 50 feet of the find and notify the qualified archaeologist. Temporary fencing must be erected (e.g., orange temporary fence) to prevent damage to the resource along the 50-foot buffer. The qualified archaeologist retained pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-1 shall immediately evaluate the resource.
• If the resource is determined to be potentially significant, then the qualified archaeologist, project applicant, Native American monitor (if resources are Native American in origin), and City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall meet to discuss the significance of the find. At the meeting, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence by the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resource. • Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resource(s) shall be consistent with the Plan prepared pursuant to Mitigation Measure CUL-2. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project design, in-place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils, and/or re-burial within the immediate vicinity so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity. If avoidance is infeasible, then treatment shall be implemented pursuant to the Plan. The City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall make the final determination based on the provisions of CEQA with respect to archaeological resources and recommendations of the qualified archaeologist. • Further ground disturbance, including but not limited to grading and trenching, shall not resume within the area of the discovery until the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, has determined the appropriate mitigation has been implemented pursuant to the Plan and the qualified archaeologist has notified the construction contractor(s) to resume work. Work shall The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Ensuring temporary work stoppage
procedures are implemented if cultural
resources are discovered.
▪ Coordinating meetings between the
qualified archaeologist, Native American
monitor (as applicable), and the Planning
and Environmental Review Director.
▪ Funding any required data recovery
efforts and associated documentation.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Halting all work within 50 feet of an
unanticipated discovery and notifying the
qualified archaeologist immediately.
▪ Installing temporary fencing around the
50-foot buffer area to protect the
discovery site.
▪ Ensuring no ground disturbance resumes
within the buffer until authorized by the
qualified archaeologist and the Planning
and Environmental Review Director.
▪ Allowing work to continue outside the
buffer only under archaeological
monitoring if required.
The qualified archaeologist is responsible for:
If unanticipated cultural
resources are discovered during
ground disturbance, the
construction contractor(s) shall
halt work within 50 feet of the
find and contact the qualified
archaeologist. The qualified
archaeologist shall evaluate the
resource immediately. If the
resource is potentially
significant, the qualified
archaeologist, project applicant,
Native American monitor (if
applicable), and City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental
Review Director, or designee,
shall meet to decide on
appropriate mitigation.
Treatment and avoidance shall
follow the Plan from Mitigation
Measure CUL-2. The City of
Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, shall make the final
determination based on CEQA
provisions. Ground disturbance
shall not resume in the area until
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall review and approve the
data recovery plan (if applicable). The
qualified archaeologist shall submit
documentation to the California
Historical Resources Information
System. The qualified archaeologist
shall provide evidence of compliance to
the City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director and the
California Historical Resources
Information System upon completion.
277
City of Goleta
Shelby Residential Project
12 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
be allowed to continue outside of the 50-foot buffer area and shall be monitored by additional archaeological monitors, if necessary.
• If the resource proves to be eligible for the CRHR and significant impacts to the resource cannot be avoided via project redesign, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare a data recovery plan tailored to the physical nature and characteristics of the resource, pursuant to the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C). The data recovery plan shall identify data recovery excavation methods, measurable objectives, and data thresholds to reduce any significant impacts to cultural resources related to the resource. The City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall review and approve the treatment plan and archaeological testing as appropriate. The qualified archaeologist shall submit the resulting documentation to the regional repository of the California Historical Resources Information System pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3)(C).
• The qualified archaeologist shall provide evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director and the appropriate California Historical Resources Information System Information Center upon completion of the data recovery plan detailing the significance of the resource and treatment findings. ▪ Immediately evaluating any discovered
cultural resource.
▪ Determining whether the resource may
be significant.
▪ Recommending appropriate treatment
measures consistent with the approved
Plan.
▪ Preparing and implementing a data
recovery plan if avoidance is infeasible
and the resource is CRHR-eligible.
▪ Submitting all required documentation to
the California Historical Resources
Information System and the Planning and
Environmental Review Director.
▪ Notifying the contractor when work may
safely resume.
The Native American monitor (if applicable) is
responsible for:
▪ Participating in the evaluation and
treatment decision-making process when
Native American resources are
discovered.
▪ Providing recommendations for
appropriate cultural handling, treatment,
or avoidance.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Participating in treatment decision-
making and providing concurrence on
significance and mitigation.
▪ Determining when appropriate mitigation
has been implemented before authorizing
resumption of work.
▪ Reviewing and approving any data
recovery plans and treatment
documentation.
or designee, has verified that
mitigation is implemented. Work
outside the 50-foot buffer shall
continue with additional
monitoring if necessary.
Geology and Soils
GEO‑1: Geotechnical Design
The applicant’s project design engineer shall incorporate the recommendations within of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project into the project’s grading and building plans. These include, but are not limited to, requiring existing fill and soft material to be excavated to firm native soil, the use of cut pads for compaction control, and the use of piers for stability of the residences. The applicant shall submit the grading and building plans to the Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for the grading and building permits for the project. The applicant shall also retain a licensed geotechnical professional approved by the Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee prior to the start of construction. The licensed geotechnical professional shall be responsible for ensuring proper implementation of the recommendations within the final Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project and providing a report to the Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee certifying the recommendations below have been incorporated into project design and throughout construction prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy.
The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Retaining a licensed geotechnical
professional approved by the Planning
and Environmental Review Director, or
designee.
▪ Ensuring that all recommendations
contained in the final Geotechnical
Investigation are incorporated into the
grading and building plans.
▪ Submitting grading and building plans to
the Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, for review and
approval.
Grading and building plans shall
be submitted for review and
approval by the Planning and
Environmental Review Director,
or designee, before the City
issues Zoning Clearance for the
grading and building permits.
The Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee
shall approve the licensed
geotechnical professional prior
to the start of construction. The
licensed geotechnical
professional shall submit the
Once during the grading phase of
construction, the Planning and
Environmental Review Director or
designee shall visit the project site to
confirm with the licensed geotechnical
professional that the construction
contractor is implementing the
applicable geotechnical
recommendations.
278
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shelby Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 13 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
The project design engineer is responsible for:
▪ Incorporating all required geotechnical
recommendations into project design,
grading plans, and building plans,
including excavation to firm native soil,
compaction control using cut pads, and
pier stabilization as applicable.
▪ Coordinating with the licensed
geotechnical professional to verify proper
integration of geotechnical
recommendations.
The licensed geotechnical professional is
responsible for:
▪ Reviewing project design and grading and
building plans for consistency with the
final Geotechnical Investigation.
▪ Providing oversight during construction to
ensure geotechnical recommendations
are implemented correctly.
▪ Preparing and submitting a report to the
Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, certifying proper
implementation of all geotechnical
recommendations prior to issuance of a
certificate of occupancy.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing and approving the grading and
building plans to verify that they
incorporate all required geotechnical
recommendations.
▪ Reviewing the geotechnical professional’s
certification report prior to issuing the
certificate of occupancy.
▪ Conducting periodic inspections as
needed to verify compliance with
geotechnical requirements.
report to the Planning and
Environmental Review Director
or designee certifying the
recommendations have been
incorporated prior to the
issuance of a certification of
occupancy.
GEO‑2: Paleontological Resources Mitigation
Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to excavation, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP 2010), who shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources.
Selection of the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall be subject to review and approval by the City.
Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered. The names of all construction personnel who have received this training shall be recorded and provided to the City upon request.
Paleontological Monitoring and Salvage. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor with experience with collection and salvage of paleontological The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Retaining a Qualified Professional
Paleontologist meeting SVP (2010)
standards and obtaining City approval of
the selection.
▪ Ensuring that all WEAP training
requirements and paleontological
monitoring measures are included in
construction plans.
▪ Funding all required paleontological
monitoring, fossil salvage, and reporting
activities.
The Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee
shall approve the Qualified
Professional Paleontologist prior
to the issuance of a Zoning
Clearance for a grading permit.
The qualified professional
paleontologist shall conduct
WEAP training prior to the start
of ground-disturbing activities
and submit a signed form to the
Planning and Environmental
Review Director within 24 hours
The Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee shall
review and approve the form provided
by the qualified professional
paleontologist certifying WEAP training
was completed. The Planning and
Environmental Review Director or
designee shall confirm the Qualified
Professional Paleontologist or
designated paleontological resource
monitor observed grading and drilling
activities. The Planning and
Environmental Review Director or
279
City of Goleta
Shelby Residential Project
14 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
resources and who meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010) for a Paleontological Resources Monitor.
Paleontological monitoring shall occur during ground-disturbing activities that would disturb previously undisturbed sediments greater than two feet deep (e.g., grading, excavation, drilling of greater than two feet in diameter) throughout the entire project site. Monitoring shall consist of twice-per-week monitoring visits. Based on geological observations or the construction schedule, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be increased or reduced in frequency or ceased entirely, and such decisions shall be subject to review and approval by the City.
In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all construction activity within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall evaluate the find. If the fossil(s) is (are) not scientifically significant, then construction activity may resume. If it is determined that the fossils may be scientifically significant, the following shall occur:
• Fossil Salvage. The fossil shall be salvaged (excavated and collected) to protect it from damage/destruction. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontological monitor with minimal disruption to construction. Larger fossils may require more extensive salvage operations. After fossil salvage is complete, construction activity within the area may resume.
• Fossil Preparation and Curation. Fossils shall be identified to the lowest (most- specific) possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a fossil repository per SVP (2010) standards, such as the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, along with all pertinent data, photos, and/or maps required by the repository.
• Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground-disturbing activities (or preparation and curation of fossils, if necessary), the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the paleontological mitigation program’s results. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods employed; an overview of project geology; and, if applicable, an analysis of the recovered fossils, including physical description, taxonomic identification, and scientific significance. The report shall be submitted to the City and, if fossil curation occurred, the designated fossil repository.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Ensuring all personnel attend
paleontological WEAP training prior to
beginning work.
▪ Notifying the paleontological monitor
immediately upon discovery of potential
fossils.
▪ Halting all work within 50 feet of a fossil
discovery until cleared by the Qualified
Professional Paleontologist.
▪ Allowing work to continue outside the
50-foot buffer only with monitoring, if
required.
The Qualified Professional Paleontologist is
responsible for:
▪ Directing all paleontological mitigation
measures, including WEAP training, field
monitoring, fossil evaluation, and salvage.
▪ Adjusting monitoring frequency based on
field conditions, subject to City approval.
▪ Conducting or overseeing fossil
identification, preparation, and curation in
accordance with SVP (2010) standards.
▪ Preparing and submitting the final
paleontological mitigation report to the
City and the designated fossil repository.
The paleontological monitor is responsible for:
▪ Conducting twice-per-week monitoring
during ground disturbance deeper than
two feet.
▪ Identifying potential fossil discoveries and
notifying the Qualified Professional
Paleontologist.
▪ Assisting with fossil salvage under the
direction of the Qualified Professional
Paleontologist.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing and approving the Qualified
Professional Paleontologist selected by
the project applicant.
▪ Reviewing any recommended
modifications to monitoring frequency.
▪ Reviewing the final paleontological
mitigation report and verifying
compliance with all paleontological
mitigation requirements.
following the completion of
WEAP training. The Qualified
Professional Paleontologist or
designated paleontological
resource monitor shall observe
grading and drilling activities
throughout undistributed
construction areas on-site on a
twice-per-week monitoring
schedule. If a fossil is discovered,
the qualified professional
paleontologist shall submit the
Final Paleontological Mitigation
Report to the Planning and
Environmental Review Director
or designee within 90 days of
completion of salvage and
preparation. If curation
occurred, the qualified
professional paleontologist shall
also submit the Final
Paleontological Mitigation
Report to the Santa Barbara
Museum of Natural History.
designee shall review and approve the
Final Paleontological Mitigation Report,
if applicable.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ‑1: Asbestos‑Containing Materials Abatement
280
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shelby Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 15 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
Prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance associated with the demolition permit, the project applicant shall prepare an asbestos abatement plan addressing the items/topics listed below.
The asbestos abatement plan shall be reviewed and approved by SBCAPCD. Proof of SBCAPCD approval shall be provided to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee. During project construction and demolition activities, the project applicant shall follow the measures outlined in the asbestos abatement plan, which shall be undertaken by properly trained and licensed asbestos contractors currently registered with Cal/OSHA and/or OSHA (herein referred to as “abatement contractors”). Abatement contractors shall be selected and vetted by the project applicant and reviewed by SBCAPCD ten working days prior to starting demolition as part of the Notification for Renovation and Demolition Form ENF-28 submittal. Project-specific requirements to be addressed in the asbestos abatement plan include the following:
• Disturbance activities shall be performed only by abatement contractors using appropriate controls to prevent fiber emissions during the removal process. This may include, but is not limited to, the use of wet methods (water mist), negative pressure containment, high efficiency particulate air filtration, and other engineering controls, as deemed appropriate, to keep fibers from being dispersed in accordance with current federal, state, and local regulations.
• Presumed asbestos containing roofing materials shall be sampled by abatement contractors prior to demolition to determine proper handling and disposal requirements.
• Windows with trace (defined as less than 1 percent) asbestos in putty shall be removed intact to avoid disturbance of the putty, if possible. Other materials with trace asbestos shall be point counted to determine the asbestos concentrations; if asbestos concentrations are not determined, these materials shall be managed as ACMs.
• Workers performing removal shall be properly protected to prevent exposure, including the use of respiratory protection with high efficiency particulate air filtration, protective suits, or other protective equipment deemed necessary by abatement contractors.
• Disturbance of greater than 100 square feet of any ACMs or asbestos-containing construction materials must be performed by trained and licensed abatement contractors.
• Asbestos containing waste materials must be properly contained and transported for off-site disposal at a permitted landfill or disposal facility. Friable asbestos with greater than 1 percent asbestos content is considered hazardous waste per current federal and state regulations and must be transported and disposed of using proper manifest documentation. Non-friable asbestos is categorized as non-hazardous, asbestos containing waste and can typically be disposed to the local Class III landfill with prior approval from landfill operators. As noted, materials with less than 1 percent total asbestos can be disposed of as construction debris if proper lab analysis is provided.
• Proper removal techniques must be followed to prevent the dissemination of asbestos fibers. All required notification and permitting shall be administered by the abatement contractor, and proper completion shall be verified by the City’s Director of Planning and Environmental Review.
• If suspect materials are found during site work, the area shall be isolated, and any suspect materials tested to confirm or deny the presence of asbestos, lead, or other hazards, as determined appropriate by the abatement contractor.
The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Preparing the asbestos abatement plan
and submitting it to the Santa Barbara Air
Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) for
review and approval.
▪ Providing proof of SBCAPCD approval to
the Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee.
▪ Selecting and vetting licensed abatement
contractors and ensuring SBCAPCD review
ten working days prior to demolition.
▪ Ensuring that all measures within the
approved asbestos abatement plan are
implemented during demolition and
construction.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Ensuring disturbance of ACMs is
completed only by licensed and properly
trained abatement contractors.
▪ Implementing all asbestos control
methods, worker protection measures,
and waste disposal procedures identified
in the approved abatement plan.
▪ Halting work and isolating areas if suspect
materials are encountered during site
work until testing and clearance are
completed.
The licensed asbestos abatement contractor is
responsible for:
▪ Conducting removal activities using
appropriate engineering controls to
prevent asbestos fiber emissions.
- Sampling presumed asbestos-containing
materials and conducting point counting
where required.
▪ Providing proper worker protection,
including respiratory protection and
protective clothing.
▪ Managing, containing, transporting, and
disposing of asbestos-containing waste
materials at approved facilities consistent
with federal, state, and local regulations.
▪ Administering all required notifications
and permits and providing the City with
verification of proper completion.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing proof of SBCAPCD approval
prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance.
▪ Verifying proper completion of
notification and permitting requirements.
The project applicant shall
prepare the asbestos abatement
plan, obtain SBCAPCD’s
approval, and contract with an
abatement contractor prior to
the issuance of Zoning Clearance
associated with the demolition
permit.
The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall verify SBCAPCD has
approved the asbestos abatement plan
prior to the issuance of Zoning
Clearance. The City of Goleta’s
Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, shall spot-check
compliance with the asbestos
abatement plan during demolition
activities and verify compliance
documentation following the proposed
project’s demolition activities.
281
City of Goleta
Shelby Residential Project
16 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
▪ Conducting periodic inspections to ensure
compliance with the approved asbestos
abatement plan.
The SBCAPCD is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing and approving the asbestos
abatement plan.
▪ Reviewing abatement contractor
qualifications as part of the Notification
for Renovation and Demolition Form ENF
28. HAZ‑2: Lead‑Based Paint Abatement
Prior to the issuance of Zoning Clearance associated with the demolition permit, the project applicant shall prepare an LBP abatement plan. This plan can be combined with the plan required in Mitigation Measure HAZ-1. The LBP abatement plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee.
Approval of the LBP abatement plan by the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee, shall be based on the plan’s demonstrated compliance with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and California Division of Occupational Safety and Health requirements. The plan shall clearly identify the use of certified abatement contractors, describe lead-safe work practices (e.g., containment, wet methods, dust suppression), and outline procedures for waste segregation, characterization, and disposal in accordance with hazardous waste thresholds. The plan shall also include site-specific measures to prevent off-site migration of lead dust or debris, and provide documentation of California Department of Public Health notification and contractor qualifications.
During proposed project construction and demolition activities, the project applicant shall follow the measures outlined in the LBP abatement plan. These requirements shall be undertaken by properly trained contractors that utilize lead-safe work practices (or “abatement contractors”). Abatement contractors shall be selected and vetted by the project applicant and reviewed by the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director.
Prior to abatement, the applicant shall notify the California Department of Public Health of lead-based abatement activities through submittal of California Department of Public Health Form 8551, and provide evidence of the notification to the City of Goleta’s Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee. Project-specific requirements of the LBP abatement plan include the following:
• Any disturbance by abatement contractors that might generate dust or create a lead exposure hazard shall be performed by lead-trained workers using lead-safe work practices. Lead safe work practices include appropriate containment, wet methods, and use of hand tools or similar methods that will minimize the generation of airborne dust emissions and potential lead hazards.
• To prevent lead exposure hazard due to the generation of lead dust and debris, lead-painted components (e.g., windows, doors, baseboards) or similar lead-containing items shall be removed intact and segregated from the overall waste stream by abatement contractors.
• Pursuant to California Code of Regulations Title 22, Section 66261.24(a)(2)(A), lead-containing waste is classified as hazardous waste if total lead concentration exceeds 1,000 milligrams per kilogram (or parts per million) or if soluble lead concentration exceeds 5.0 milligrams per liter. Proper waste characterization testing or waste profiling shall be conducted prior to disposal of lead containing waste. If practicable, lead wastes shall be segregated to minimize the volume of possible hazardous waste. If lead-containing and non-lead waste materials are comingled during demolition, composite samples of representative waste shall be analyzed by a certified lab to determine proper disposal requirements.
The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Preparing the lead-based paint (LBP)
abatement plan and submitting it to the
Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, for review and
approval.
▪ Providing documentation of CDPH Form
8551 notification prior to the start of
abatement activities.
▪ Selecting and vetting certified abatement
contractors and ensuring their review by
the City.
▪ Ensuring implementation of all measures
contained in the approved LBP abatement
plan.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Ensuring all LBP disturbance activities are
performed only by certified and properly
trained abatement contractors.
▪ Following all lead-safe work practices,
including containment, wet methods, dust
suppression, and intact removal of
lead-painted components.
▪ Segregating lead-containing components
and preventing commingling where
feasible.
▪ Isolating work areas and halting work if
unidentified suspect materials are
encountered until proper testing is
completed.
The certified LBP abatement contractor is
responsible for:
▪ Conducting all removal and disturbance
activities using lead-safe work practices in
compliance with CDPH and Cal/OSHA
regulations.
▪ Completing required waste
characterization testing and segregating
waste as feasible.
The project applicant shall
prepare the LBP abatement plan,
notify the California Department
of Public Health, and contract
with an abatement contractor
prior to the issuance of Zoning
Clearance associated with the
demolition permit.
The City of Goleta’s Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, shall approve the LBP
abatement plan and verify the
California Department of Public Health
has been notified prior to the issuance
of Zoning Clearance. The City of
Goleta’s Planning and Environmental
Review Director, or designee, shall
check the abatement contractor’s
monitoring log to ensure
project-specific recommendations are
enacted during proposed project
demolition activities.
282
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shelby Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 17 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
▪ Ensuring proper profiling, handling, and
disposal of lead-containing waste
consistent with hazardous waste
regulations.
▪ Providing proof of certification and CDPH
notification, as required.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing and approving the LBP
abatement plan prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance.
▪ Reviewing evidence of CDPH notification
before demolition or abatement begins.
▪ Conducting periodic inspections to verify
compliance with the approved LBP
abatement plan.
The California Department of Public Health is
responsible for:
▪ Receiving and processing Form 8551
notification prior to abatement.
▪ Verifying contractor certifications and
regulatory compliance as required.
Noise
NOI‑1: Construction Noise Reduction
The construction contractor shall prepare and submit a Construction Noise Control Plan to the City of Goleta Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a grading permit/demolition permit. The Construction Noise Control Plan shall specify the noise reduction measures to be implemented during project construction that uses heavy-duty equipment within 450 feet of residences and the golf course (measured from the center of the site) to ensure noise levels do not exceed 65 dBA at nearby sensitive receivers. The measures specified in the Construction Noise Control Plan shall be included on the building and grading plans and shall be implemented by the construction contractor during construction. The Construction Noise Control Plan may include, but would not be limited to, the following to reduce construction noise below the City’s 65 dBA construction noise standard. Construction noise control measures may be combined as necessary to demonstrate that such measures would reduce construction noise below the City’s noise standard. The construction contractor shall provide proof in the Construction Noise Control Plan that the chosen measures would reduce construction noise below the City’s 65 dBA construction noise standard:
• Prior to use of any construction equipment, the contractor shall fit all equipment with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less effective than as originally equipped by the manufacturer. • Installation of temporary sound barriers/blankets to break the line of sight between construction equipment and sensitive receivers within 450 feet of the project site.
The barriers shall be constructed with a solid material that has a density of at least
1.5 pounds per square foot with no gaps from the ground to the top of the barrier. • Staging and delivery areas shall be located as far as feasible from existing residences and the golf course. To the extent consistent with applicable safety regulations, trucks operating with reverse motions alarms shall be outfitted with SAE J994 Class D or equivalent alarms (ambient-adjusting, or “smart alarms” that automatically adjust the alarm to 5 dBA above the ambient near the operating equipment), or The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Ensuring the construction contractor
prepares and submits the Construction
Noise Control Plan for City review and
approval.
▪ Incorporating all required noise-control
measures into project construction
documents.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Preparing the Construction Noise Control
Plan identifying specific measures that will
reduce noise to below 65 dBA at sensitive
receivers.
▪ Installing and maintaining all
noise-reduction measures, including
mufflers, air-intake silencers, and
temporary sound barriers or blankets.
▪ Locating staging and delivery areas as far
from residences and the golf course as
feasible.
▪ Installing ambient-adjusting backup
alarms or using human spotters consistent
with safety requirements.
▪ Posting a construction notification sign
with construction hours and contact
information for noise complaints.
The Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee
shall approve the Construction
Noise Control Plan prior to
issuance of the Zoning Clearance
for the grading
permit/demolition permit. The
measures specified in the
Construction Noise Control Plan
shall be included in the building
and grading plans.
The City shall monitor compliance with
the requirements of the Construction
Noise Control Plan periodically during
construction and shall promptly
investigate and respond to all noise
complaints.
283
City of Goleta
Shelby Residential Project
18 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
switch off back-up alarms and replace with human spotters in compliance with all safety requirements and laws.
• A construction notification sign shall be posted at the job site, clearly visible to the public, that includes permitted construction days and hours, as well as the telephone numbers of the City of Goleta’s and the contractor’s authorized representatives that are assigned to respond in the event of a noise complaint. • If the authorized contractor’s representative receives a complaint, either City code enforcement or a contractor-retained and Goleta-approved noise consultant shall conduct noise measurements at the properties that registered the complaint. The noise measurements shall be conducted for a minimum of one hour to determine if noise levels are compliant with City’s 65 dBA standard. The consultant shall prepare a letter report for code enforcement summarizing the measurements, calculation data used in determining impacts, and potential measures to reduce noise levels to the maximum extent feasible.
▪ Responding to noise complaints and
coordinating with City code enforcement
or a qualified noise consultant to conduct
required one-hour noise measurements
and implement additional noise-reduction
measures as needed.
The qualified noise consultant (if retained) is
responsible for:
▪ Conducting one-hour noise
measurements at properties registering a
noise complaint.
▪ Preparing a letter report summarizing the
measurements, calculation data, and
recommended noise-reduction measures.
▪ Providing the report to City code
enforcement.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing and approving the Construction
Noise Control Plan prior to issuance of
Zoning Clearance.
▪ Confirming that noise-control measures
are included in the grading and building
plans.
▪ Reviewing noise measurement letter
reports submitted in response to
complaints and verifying corrective
actions.
▪ Conducting periodic inspections to verify
compliance with the approved
Construction Noise Control Plan.
Transportation and Circulation
TRA-1: Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction Plan
The applicant shall prepare and submit a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Reduction Plan to the City of Goleta Planning and Environmental Review Director or designee for review and approval prior to issuance of a Zoning Clearance for a grading permit/demolition permit. The VMT Reduction Plan shall specify the VMT reduction measures to be implemented during project design and development. The measures specified in the VMT Reduction Plan shall be included in development plans and implemented during project development. The VMT Reduction Plan may include, but would not be limited to, the following:
• Integrate Affordable and Below Market Rate Housing: Provide 9 percent low-income units (five units), 5 percent moderate-income units, and 5 percent above-moderate (workforce) units for a total of 20 percent income-restricted units. • Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements: Provide a safe path from the project to transit stop, connect pedestrian walkways to existing pedestrian facilities along Glen Annie Road and Cathedral Oaks Road.
• Improve Design of Development: Implement or provide funding for improvements to corridors and crossings for bike networks identified within a 0.5-mile buffer of the project boundary, particularly along Cathedral Oaks Road. • Extend Transit Network Coverage or Hours: Provide a bus stop adjacent to the project site on Cathedral Oaks Road.
The project applicant is responsible for:
▪ Preparing and submitting the VMT
Reduction Plan to the Planning and
Environmental Review Director, or
designee, for review and approval.
▪ Incorporating all selected VMT reduction
measures into project development plans.
▪ Coordinating with local school districts,
transit agencies, and other relevant
entities to implement VMT reduction
measures identified in the approved Plan.
The construction contractor is responsible for:
▪ Implementing any VMT-related site design
features included in the development
plans (e.g., pedestrian pathways, bike
network improvements, bus stop
infrastructure).
The Planning and Environmental
Review Director or designee
shall approve the VMT
Reduction Plan demonstrating
incorporation of all feasible VMT
reduction strategies/measures
into project design prior to
issuance of the Zoning Clearance
for the grading
permit/demolition permit. The
measures specified in the VMT
Reduction Plan shall be included
in the building and grading
plans.
The City shall monitor compliance with
the requirements of the VMT
Reduction Plan periodically during
construction and following project
occupancy and shall promptly
investigate and respond to any non-
compliance issues.
284
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Shelby Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 19 Mitigation Measure Implementation Responsibility Plan Requirement and Timing Monitoring Action Compliance
Verification
Initial
Compliance
Verification
Date
Compliance Verification
Comments
• Implement School Pool Program: Work with school district(s) to create ridesharing program for school children.
▪ Coordinating with the applicant to ensure
completed improvements match those
identified in the approved VMT Reduction
Plan.
The Planning and Environmental Review
Director, or designee, is responsible for:
▪ Reviewing and approving the VMT
Reduction Plan prior to issuance of Zoning
Clearance.
▪ Verifying that VMT reduction measures
are incorporated into the development
plans.
▪ Conducting inspections as necessary to
confirm implementation of approved VMT
reduction measures.
Local transit agencies and school districts (as
applicable) are responsible for:
▪ Coordinating with the applicant on
implementation of transit-related and
school pool program measures, as
identified in the VMT Reduction Plan.
285
City of Goleta
Shelby Residential Project
20 This page intentionally left blank.
286
EXHIBIT D to ATTACHMENT 1
Notice of Determination
287
Exhibit D to Attachment 1
Shelby Residential Project
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION (NOD)
1 To: Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation From: City of Goleta P.O. Box 3044, 1400 Tenth St. Rm. 212 130 Cremona Drive, Suite B Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 Goleta, CA 93117
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Barbara
105 E. Anapamu Street, Room 407
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Subject: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code
Shelby Residential Project Case No. 05-154-VTM-DP-DRB Project Title Application File Number
#2012081019 Supervising Planner Darryl Mimick 805-961-7572 State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Contact/Telephone No.
Mark Lloyd, L & P Consultants 805-962-4611
Project Applicant Contact Telephone No.
7400 Cathedral Oaks, Goleta CA 93117; Santa Barbara County; APN 077-530-019 Project Location (include County)
Project Description:
The project (“Project”) is a qualified housing development project that utilizes the “Builder’s Remedy” protections of the California Housing Accountability Act and includes the following primary components on the Project site:
Demolition of the existing on-site residence, garage, and barn. A subdivision of the existing 14.38 -net acre parcel in to 59 separate lots (via a Vesting Tentative Map).
Construction and occupancy of 56 single -family dwellings on Lot 1 through Lot 56 .
Eleven of the units will be income deed restricted for 55 years. The income restricted units will be in the following cate gories: four residences would be designated for extremely low income, one residence would be designated for lower income, three residences would be designated for moderate income, and three residences would be designated for above-moderate income levels.
Use of Lot 57 through Lot 59 for open space containing landscape and stormwater facilities.
Infrastructure improvements include a looped internal road system with one cul -de- sac, two intersections with Cathedral Oaks Road, and a five -foot-wide interior sidewalk throughout the Project site.
Frontage improvements along Cathedral Oaks Road include two driveway entrances to the Project site, curb and gutter improvements, and continuation of existing Class 1 trail that extends east of the Project site and runs parallel to Cathedral Oaks Road. 288
Exhibit D to Attachment 1
Shelby Residential Project
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION (NOD)
2 This is to advise that the City Council of the City of Goleta has approved the above-described Project on March 17, 2026, and has made the following determinations regarding the above- described project:
1. The Project will have a significant effect on the environment.
2. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this Project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. Mitigation measures were made a condition of the approval of the Project.
4. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the Project.
5. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA Section 15091.
6. The Project does require discretionary approval from a state agency.
This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and rec ord of project approval is available to the general public at the City of Goleta, Planning and Environmental Review Department, 130 Cremona Drive, Suite B, Goleta CA 93117.
Lisa Prasse, AICP March 17, 2026 Current Planning
Manager
Signature (Public Agency) Date Title
Date Received for filing at OPR: _______________________________
Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code
Reference: Sections 21000-21174, Public Resource Code
289
ATTACHMENT 2
A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California approving the Vesting Tentative Map to create 56 residential lots and 3 open space lots For the Shelby Residential Project located at 7400 Cathedral Oaks Road; APN 077-530- 019; Case No. 05-154- VTM
290
City Council Resolution No. 26 - ___
Attachment 2
Vesting Tentative Map
Shelby Residential Project
1 | P a g e
City Council Resolution No. 26- ____
RESOLUTION 26 - ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF GOLETA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE MAP TO CREATE 56 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 3 OPEN SPACE LOTS FOR THE SHELBY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT LOCATED AT 7400 CATHEDRAL OAKS ROAD; APN077-530-019; CASE NO. 05-154- VTM
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, Shelby Family Partnership, L.P. (known as Springville 3 LP as of December 31, 2025), (“Applicant”) applied for a General Plan amendment and rezone from Agricultural to Design Residential at a density 20 units/acre to develop 248 units (“original project”) on a 14.38-acre parcel located at 7400 Cathedral Oaks Road, APN 077-530-019 (“property”); and
WHEREAS, between 2005 and 2011, the original project was revised multiple times (including the reduction of units and density) by the applicant and , on March 3, 2011, the original project’s application for 60 residential units and 4 open space lots was deemed complete; and
WHEREAS, at the time the original project was deemed complete, the application included: 1) General Plan Amendments from Agricultural to Single Family Residential and to remove the site on General Plan Figure OS 3-5; 2) Rezoning the site from AG-II-40 to RS 7000; 3) a Zoning Code Text Amendment to change the minimum lot width from 65 feet to 60 feet applicable to all RS 7000 zoned lots citywide; 4) Vesting Tract Map to create 60 single family lots with 4 open spaces; 5) a Development Plan to allo w the construction of 60 single family homes; and 6) a Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS the City, as the lead agency for the original p roject, reviewed the Project’s environmental impacts in accord with California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.
Resources Code §§21000 et seq., “CEQA”), the regulations promulgated thereunder (14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§15000 et seq., the “CEQA Guideline s”), and the City’s Environmental Review Guidelines (“Goleta Guidelines”); and
WHEREAS the City determined two environmental impact reports (“EIRs”) were necessary – one for the General Plan Amendment that was necessary for the original project at that time, and the second for the original project-specific environmental impacts.
On July 23, 2012, the City issued a Notice of Preparation and held a scoping hearing on August 8, 2012. Draft and Revised Draft EIRs were released for public review in 2013, 2014, and 2015; and
291
City Council Resolution No. 26 - ___
Attachment 2
Vesting Tentative Map
Shelby Residential Project
2 | P a g e
City Council Resolution No. 26- ____
WHEREAS, in approximately 2016, the Project was put on hold due to the Stage II Water Shortage Emergency and water moratorium imposed by Goleta Water District; and
WHEREAS, in 2023, after the Goleta Water District lifted its water moratorium, the Applicant submitted a n SB 330 preliminary application to revise the original project by reducing the number of residential units to 56 and designate 20% of the units as deed - restricted affordable (the revised original project, hereafter, the “Project”). The Applicant submitted the SB 330 preliminary application when the City did not have a certified Housing Element, which the applicant maintained made the Project subject to the Builder’s Remedy and the protections of the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”); and
WHEREAS the Applicant’s use of an SB 330 preliminary application to amend and/or revise the pending development application from 2011 raised novel legal issues.
The disagreement resulted in a lawsuit by the Applicant against the City (Shelby Family Partnership LP v. City of Goleta , Case No. 24CV00548). On February 26, 2025, after briefing and hearing on most of the Applicant’s claims, the Santa Barbara Superior Court ruled in the Ap plicant’s favor. Among other things, the Court ordered the City to accept the SB 330 preliminary application and process the Project and found that the Project is subject to the Builder’s Remedy and the protections of the HAA. Following the Court’s decision, the City and the Applicant settled the litigation. Under the settlement agreement, the City agreed to, among other things, review and process a permit application for the Project; and
WHEREAS the Project is for a Vesting Tract Map to create 56 single family residential lots and 3 open space lots (landscaping and stormwater facilities) and a Development Plan to facilitate the construction of the 56 single family homes. Of the 56 single family homes, 11 will be deed -restricted affordable to house holds at specified income levels for a duration of 55 years. The affordable income-restricted units will be in the following categories: four residences at extremely low-income level, one residence at lower income level, three residences at moderate incom e level, and three residences at above-moderate income levels; and
WHEREAS, as a Builder’s Remedy Project, the Project has been evaluated for consistency with the regulations of the RS-7 zone district. Components of the proposed project that are inconsi stent with the RS -7 zone, w ere evaluated for consistency with California Density Bonus law; and
WHEREAS the Applicant is requesting one concession and four waivers pursuant to State Density Bonus Law; and
292
City Council Resolution No. 26 - ___
Attachment 2
Vesting Tentative Map
Shelby Residential Project
3 | P a g e
City Council Resolution No. 26- ____
WHEREAS the sole concession is to allow the enc roachment into the required 100-foot SPA buffer from El Encanto Creek for approximately 7,786 sq. ft. in area. The encroachment occurs in the rear yards of Lots 1-8, portions of the houses on Lots 1 and 2, and portions of the sidewalk on Lot 38; and
WHEREAS the requested waivers from the RS-7 district standards are to allow: 1) lot widths of less than 65 feet on Lots 1 -9, 20-30, 32-36, 39-40, 47, 58, 51, and 55; 2) reduced rear setbacks of less than 25 feet on Lots 1 -12, 14, 17-19, 21-29,and 31-56; 3) reduced side yard setbacks for second story elements on Lots 5 -9, 20, 22-30,31, 33-37, 40, 43, and 47 -56; and 4) allow the floor area of 35 house s to exceed the maximum permitted floor area. This waiver occurs on Lots 1 -14, 20-23, 25-29, 32, 34,36, 40 -41, 45-46, 48, 50, 52, and 55; and
WHEREAS a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Text Amendment, and Development Agreement are no longer required and/or proposed as part of this Builder’s Remedy project (Gov. Code, § 65589.5 (f)(6)(D)(i)); and
WHEREAS the City prepared a Revised Draft EIR to supersede all prior EIRs , which reflects updates to the Project design, CEQA Guidelines, and local thresholds.
Additionally, the Revised EIR incorporates new analysis related to vehicle miles traveled, energy demands, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire risk; and
WHEREAS the Revised Draft EIR sufficiently analyzes the Project’s potentially significant environmental impacts in addition to three alternatives to the Project, examining the environmen tal impacts of each alternative as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet Project objectives; and
WHEREAS the City prepared a Final EIR and on February 18, 2026, released the Final EIR for public review at least ten (10) days prior to the City’s Planning Commission consideration of the Final EIR and the Project on March 2, 2026. The Final EIR in Resolution No. 26-__ is incorporated herein by reference into this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2026, the Design Review Board conduc ted Preliminary Design Review and recommended Preliminary Design approval; and
WHEREAS, on March 2 , 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the merits of the Project, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
293
City Council Resolution No. 26 - ___
Attachment 2
Vesting Tentative Map
Shelby Residential Project
4 | P a g e
City Council Resolution No. 26- ____
WHEREAS the Planning Commission considered the entire administrative record, Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), Statement of Overriding Considerations, including staff reports and oral and written testimony from interested persons and recommended approval to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2026, the City Council considered the entire administrative record, Final EIR, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), Statement of Overriding Considerations, including staff reports and oral and written testimony from interested persons at a noticed public hearing.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE GOLETA CITY COUNCIL:
SECTION 1. Factual Findings. The City Council finds as follows:
A. The property consists of total 14.38 gross acres. Exhibit B to this Resolution contains the Project General Plan Consistency Analysis.
B. The Project includes a request for a VTM to create 56 residential lots and 3 open space lots to facilitate the construction of 56 single family units. Forty –five of the single-family units will be market rate units. Of the 56 single family homes, 11 will be income deed-restricted for a duration of 55 years. The income-restricted units will be in the following categories: four residences at extremely low -income level, one residence at lower income level, three residences at moderate income level, and three residences at above -moderate income levels . The three open space lots will have landscaping and storm water facilities.
C. The site contains a house, a barn, and detached garage that will all be demolished.
D. The property is upward sloping and has an irregular shape.
E. The property has adequate ingress and egress from Ca thedral Oaks that meets Fire Department requirements.
F. The factual findings in this Section and in the Recitals are based upon substantial evidence found within the entirety of the administrative record.
SECTION 2. Environmental Assessment Findings
Resolution No. ____ recommends certification of Final EI R (SCH # 2012081019), adoption of findings under CEQA, and adoption the MMRP and the St atement of 294
City Council Resolution No. 26 - ___
Attachment 2
Vesting Tentative Map
Shelby Residential Project
5 | P a g e
City Council Resolution No. 26- ____
Overriding Considerations, and among other things, properly assesses the environmental impact of the Project in accordance with CEQA. This Resolution incorporates by reference the environmental findings and analysis set forth in Resolution No. ____ as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 3. Vesting Tentative Map Findings
The Council makes the following findings pursuant to Government Code § § 66473.1, 66473.5, 66474(a-g), and 66474.6 for the VTM (copy of VTM provided as Exhibit A).
Based upon those findings, the City Council determines that the facts would not support findings for denial under Government Code § 66474:
a. A Tentative Map shall provide, to the extent feasible, future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision (SMA § 66473.1)
The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision given the size and shape of the proposed lots. The subdivision will incorporate energy conservation measures into the building design. All new residential buildings must comply with the energy efficiency standards set forth in the Goleta Municipal Code, and with the CalGreen+ Building Code standards.
b. Subdivision must be consistent with general plan or specific plan (SMA § 66473.5 and 66474(a)).
There is no Specific Plan applicable to the project site. The proposed subdivision design and improvements are consistent with the General Plan, as the subdivision is designed to provide adequate access, parking, drainage and utilities to serve the proposed uses.
Additionally, the Project is a Builder’s Remedy project. State law prohibits the City from requiring the project to apply for, or receive approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5 (f)(6)(D)(i). Additionally, as a Builder’s Remedy project, the applicant identif ied a local zoning district that is used as a basis for design consistency. The applicant identified the RS -7 zoning district as the most analogous zone. Per Section 17.070.030, the maximum density in the RS zone districts is 5 dwellings/acre. The project has a density of 3.89 dwellings/acre.
Therefore, the design of the project is consistent with the density allowed with the RS-7 zone district.
295
City Council Resolution No. 26 - ___
Attachment 2
Vesting Tentative Map
Shelby Residential Project
6 | P a g e
City Council Resolution No. 26- ____
As set f orth in the General Plan Consistency analysis (Exhibit B), incorporated herein by reference, this project, including the proposed subdivision , meets the goals and objectives of the General Plan regarding land use (LU 2.4). Finally, as discussed in California Government Code section 65589.5(f)(6)(D)(iii) , any qualifying Builder’s Remedy project “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and i mplementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose.”
c. The design or improvement map of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans (SMA § 66474(b)).
The Project VTM is consistent with the G eneral Plan for the reasons set forth in the General Plan Consistency Analysis (Exhibit B) and as stated in finding b above.
d. The site is physically suited for the proposed type and density of development (SMA § 66474 (c) and (d)).
The site is physically suitable for the type of development , given the topography, its lot size, and access to existing infrastructure. The type of development includes 56 single family residential units on a 14.38-acre site and can accommodate the development including its density of 3.89 units per acre as well as the infrastructure proposed by the Project. The site is located adjacent to existing infrastructure located within the Cathedral Oaks right-of-way. The Project provides a public sidewalk and bike path along the north side of Cathedral Oaks. Moreover, the site is located close to existing public infrastructure that is appropriately sized to accommodate the additional demands of the single-family units, including, without limitation, existing public streets, U.S. Highway 101, utility lines (e.g., water, sewer, gas electricity and communications), and bus service routes.
The project will be required to connect to existing utility services and preliminary services determinations / preliminary condition letters have been provided by Goleta West Sanitary District and Goleta Water District. The applicant will be required to satisfy all requirements for the provision of services prior to issuance of building permits. Elementary and secondary public education facilities are available in the City to serve students from the Project.
Further, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development as a Builder’s Remedy project. State law prohibits the City from requiring the project 296
City Council Resolution No. 26 - ___
Attachment 2
Vesting Tentative Map
Shelby Residential Project
7 | P a g e
City Council Resolution No. 26- ____
to apply for, or receive approval of, a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5 (f)(6)(D)(i). Additionally, as a Builder’s Remedy project, the applicant identif ied a local zoning district that is used as a basis for design consistency. The applicant identified the RS -7 zoning district as the most analogous zone . Per Section
17.070.030, the maximum density in the RS zone districts is 5 dwellings/acre. The project has a density of 3.89 dwellings/acre. Therefore, the design of the project is consistent with the density allowed with the RS-7 zone district.
Lastly, the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development for the reasons set forth in the administrative record including, without limitation, the Final EIR and the Zoning Consistency Analysis (Exhibit C).
e. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat (SMA § 66474(e)).
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are unlikely to cause substantial damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife, or their habitat based on the analysis with the Revised Draft EIR and the findings outlined in Resolution 26-____. For the reasons set forth in the Final EIR and the MMRP, the Project’s environmental impact s will be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible. However, the Project will have Class 1 environmental impacts in areas other than biological resources that require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems (SMA § 66474(f)).
The design of the subdivision, including the single-family residential units , is unlikely to cause serious public health problems. As set forth in the Final EIR , MMRP and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the project’s impact on public health and safety is minimal. Further, the Project proposes to enhance the north side of Ca thedral Oaks with the provision of a public sidewalk and bike path to improve pedestrian safety.
g. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision (SMA § 66474(g)).
The de sign of the subdivision or the type of improv ements will not conflict with 297
City Council Resolution No. 26 - ___
Attachment 2
Vesting Tentative Map
Shelby Residential Project
8 | P a g e
City Council Resolution No. 26- ____
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.
h. The governing body of any local agency shall determine whether discharge of waste from the proposed subdivision into an existing community sewer system would result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by a California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with §13000) of the Water Code (SMA § 66474.6).
Wastewater resulting from the Project would be collected and treated by the Goleta West Sanitary District (“GWSD”). GWSD has sufficient infrastructure to undertake this task. Accordingly, wastewater discharge into the community sewer system will not result in a violation of existing law. Additionally, the Project has adequate water allocation provided by the Goleta Water Distri ct (GWD) through a water allocation agreement between the developer and GWD.
SECTION 4. Actions. The City Council takes the following action:
Approves the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map (provided as Exhibit A) based on the findings contained in Sections 1-3, the General Plan Consistency Analysis (Exhibit B), the Zoning Consistency Analysis (Exhibit C) subject to conditions of approval provided as Exhibit D to this Resolution.
SECTION 5. Reliance on Record. Each and every one of the findings and determinations in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and determinations constitute the independent findin gs and determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole.
SECTION 6. Limitations. The City Council’s analysis and evaluation of the project, including this Resolution, are based on the entire record, including the best information currently available. This includes competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written. It is inevitable that in evaluating a project that absolute and perfect knowledge of all possible aspects of the project will not exist. One of the major limitations on analysis of the project is the City Council’s lack of knowledge of future events. In all instances, best efforts have been made to form accurate assumptions. Somewhat related to this are the limitations on the City's ability to solve what are in effect regional, state, and national problems and issues. The City must work within the political framework within which it exists and with the limitations inherent in that framework.
298
City Council Resolution No. 26 - ___
Attachment 2
Vesting Tentative Map
Shelby Residential Project
9 | P a g e
City Council Resolution No. 26- ____
SECTION 7. Summaries of Information . All summaries of information in the findings, which precedes this section, are based on the substantial evidence in the record.
The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact.
SECTION 8. This Resolution will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent Resolution.
SECTION 9. The City Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Resolution to Shelby Family Partners LP, 690 Lilac Drive, Santa Barbara CA 93108 and, to any other person requesting a copy.
SECTION 10. This Resolution will become effective immediately after adoption.
SECTION 11. The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of March 2026.
__________________________
PAULA PEROTTE
MAYOR
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________ __________________________
DEBORAH LOPEZ ISAAC ROSEN
CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
299
City Council Resolution No. 26 - ___
Attachment 2
Vesting Tentative Map
Shelby Residential Project
10 | P a g e
City Council Resolution No. 26- ____
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ) ss.
CITY OF GOLETA )
I, DEBORAH LOPEZ, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 26- __ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Goleta at a regular meeting held on the __ day of _______, 20 26 by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
(SEAL)
_________________________
DEBORAH LOPEZ
CITY CLERK
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Vesting Map Figure
Exhibit B - General Plan Consistency Analysis
Exhibit C – Zoning Consistency Analysis
Exhibit D – VTM Conditions of Approval
300
EXHIBIT A to ATTACHMENT 2
Vesting Tentative Map
301
EXHIBIT B to ATTACHMENT 2
General Plan Consistency Analysis
308
Planning Commission Resolution 26-___, Exhibit B
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis Shelby Residential Project
P a g e | 1
1 Shelby Residential Project
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan
Consistency Analysis
The project is consistent with the Goleta General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan (GP/CLUP) described below.
1. Land Use Element: This Project is a Builder’s Remedy project under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). As explained in additional detail below, the Builder’s Remedy is a state law provision that prohibits a jurisdiction from denying a qualifying affordable housing project due to inconsistencies with the local zoning and/or general plan if an applicant submitted a preliminary application while the jurisdiction’s housing element was out of substantial compliance with state Housing Element Law (i.e. , uncertified).
The Project is on a 14.38 -acre lot located on Cathedral Oaks Road adjacent to the Glen Annie Golf Course, within the AG-II-40 zone district. While the property’s current general plan designation is Agricultural and its current zoning distr ict is AG -II-40, because this is a Builder’s Remedy project, state law prohibits the City from requiring the project to apply for, or receive approval of, a general plan amendment, specific plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval. (Gov. Cod e, § 65589.5 (f)(6)(D)(i).) Additionally, as a Builder’s Remedy project, the applicant may identify a local residential land use designation that is used as a basis for design consistency. (Id., at (f)(6)(A).) The applicant identified the Single Family Residential (RS) land use designation as the most analogous zone and basis for the project.
With the Development Plan proposed by the applicant, t he project will be consistent with Land Use Element. The project’s residential and open space uses are consistent with the predominantly residential and open land use pattern in the City in general and with residential and open space uses surrounding the project including single -family residential to the south, multi -family residential to the west, and a golf cou rse to the north, east, and west (LU 1.2).
As noted above, the Project is being evaluated for consistency with the RS -7 zoning district’s standards. Features of the Project that deviate from the RS -7 zone’s requirements are justified pursuant to relief provided under State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915). As a Builder’s Remedy project with least 7 percent of units for extremely low-income households, the Project is entitled to, among other things, four concessions and an unlimited number of waivers or reductions of development standards that physically preclude the Project from being constructed by the applicant. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(f)(6)(B)(i)(II), (C)(i), (iv).) The applicant is requesting one concession and four waivers to deviate from the City standards listed below. State law prohibits the City from finding the Project inconsistent with the City’s standards as a result of Density Bonus Law. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(3).) The one concession and four waivers are as follows:
309
Planning Commission Resolution 26-___, Exhibit B
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis Shelby Residential Project
P a g e | 2
2 Concession
1. Encroachment into the required 100 -foot streamside protection area (SPA) buffer of approximately 7,786 square feet (0.18 acres) in the rear yards of Lots 1 through 8, portions of the houses on Lots 1 and 2, and for portions of sidewalk in Lot 38. To compen sate for SPA buffer encroachment, the proposed project design includes 0.21 acres of additional open space provided outside of and adjacent to the edge of the 100-foot SPA buffer on proposed Lot 58.
Waivers
Four waivers from the RS-7 zone district standards:
1. Proposed lot widths of 60 feet (which is less than the 65 feet otherwise required in the RS -7 zone district) on 31 of the 56 proposed residential lots.
2. Proposed rear yard setbacks of 15 feet (which is less than the 25 feet otherwise required in the RS-7 zone district) on 51 of the 56 proposed residential lots.
3. Reduced side yard setbacks (of less than the otherwise required 6.5 feet in the RS-7 zone district) on 32 of the 56 proposed residential lots. The reduction allows for a second story to extend closer to the edge of the property line.
4. The allowed maximum floor area of 35 houses would exceed the maximum allowed floor-area. The exceedances range between 208 to 1,539 additional square feet, depending on the lot. These floor -area exceedances would occur on Lots 1 through 14, 20 through 23, 25 through 29, 32, 34, 36, 40, 41, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, and 55.
The project includes design characteristics, reviewed by the Design Review Board, to ensure development will result in a well -designed community with a sense of place and appropriate scale which are implemented by the Development Plan (LU 1.9). The General Plan establishes the permitted uses, density, and building mass and scale for the project site and is consistent with the standards set forth in Table 2 -1 of the GP/CLUP for residential land uses (LU 2.1, LU 2.2, and LU 2.4). Existing vegetation surrounding the project site on the west, north and portions of the east will screen the project site from adjacent development. Landscaping of open space areas, including a 50-foot wide landscape buffer along Cathedral Oaks Road will provide additional buffer from surrounding residential and recreational uses. The development standards and design requirements of the Development Plan ensure the project is compatible with the character of the immediately surrounding neighborhood (LU 2.3). Additionally, the project will be adequately served by existing public services and infrastructure as is further discussed in the Public Facilities and Transportation Element analyses (LU
1.13 and LU 11.1).
2. Open Space Element: The project is consistent with Open Space Element due to the Builder’s Remedy as pect of the project. Additionally, w hile the project site is 310
Planning Commission Resolution 26-___, Exhibit B
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis Shelby Residential Project
P a g e | 3
3 designated Agriculture in the GP/CLUP, it has not been suitable for agricultural production since 1995 . The project will include approximately 1.4 acres of neighborhood open space including an approximately 0.9 acre open space area at the southwestern corner of the site which will serve as a protective buffer to the creek and riparian habitat along El Encanto Creek, just west of the project site. This open space area will also serve as a stormwate r bioswale and detention/retention basin and provide a passive recreation area for use by project homeowners and their guests.
Sidewalks on both sides of the internal streets within the project site will provide easy and safe access to these neighborhood open spaces. Uses consistent within OS 6.7 within these open space areas ensures that future changes to these areas are limited to appropriate passive recreational and resource protection uses. The project mitigation measures further require that landscap ing within the SPA adjacent to El Encanto Creek be native species from local propagules. A 50-foot-wide greenbelt fronting on Cathedral Oaks Road will enhance the visual appearance of the property from the public roadway and buffer roadway noise from the r esidential uses on the project site (OS 6.5).
A Phase I cultural resources inventory of the project site indicates no significant impacts to cultural resources are likely to occur. Project mitigation measures will ensure appropriate action is taken, consi stent with GP/CLUP policies, should unanticipated cultural resources be discovered (OS 8.1, OS 8.3, OS 8.4, OS 8.5, and OS 8.6). Similarly, project mitigation measures will ensure appropriate action is taken consistent with GP/CLUP policies should any pale ontological resources be encountered during construction (OS 8.7).
3. Conservation Element: The project is consistent with the Conservation Element.
While no special status species are identified and while no portion of the project site is designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) on the Special - Status Species and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas Map (Figure 4 -1) of the GP/CLUP, a site specific study of the property identified two types of ESHAs on or adjacent to the site. Habitat for the Santa Barbara honeysuckle is located on the project site and riparian habitat associated with El Encanto Creek is located off -site, adjacent to the western border (CE 1.1, CE 1.2, CE 1.3, and CE 2.1). Twenty-four individuals of Santa Barbara honeysuckle were mapped on the project site along the southwestern border (CE 8.1 and CE 8.3). Project mitigation measures will ensure ESHA and special-status species are protected consistent with applicable GP/CLUP policies (CE 1.6, CE 1.7, CE 1.8, CE 1.9, CE 1.10, CE 8.2, and CE 8.4).
Policy CE 2.2 generally establishes a SPA buffer of 100 feet on either side of El Encanto Creek. Although the creek in this location is situated within unincorporated Santa Barbara County , the SPA buffer requirements are applicab le. The habitat stream buffers upstream and downstream of the project site are primarily 25 feet or less. The stream side protection buffer from the edge of the riparian corridor is a 100’ minimum setback. However, as a Builder’s Remedy project with least 7 percent of units deemed for extremely low-income households, the Project is entitled to, among 311
Planning Commission Resolution 26-___, Exhibit B
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis Shelby Residential Project
P a g e | 4
4 other things, four concessions and an unlimited number of waivers or reductions of development standards that physically preclude the Project from being constructed by the applicant. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(f)(6)(B)(i)(II), (C)(i), (iv).) The applicant is requesting one concession to encroach into the required 100 -foot streamside protection area (SPA) buffer of approximately 7,786 square feet (0.18 acres) in the rear yards of Lots 1 through 8, portions of the houses on Lots 1 and 2, and for portions of sidewalk in Lot 38. As required by project mitigation measures and consistent with GP/CLUP policies, uses and activities primarily in this area will be limited to fencing to protect the creek , riparian habitat, drainage improvements , construction and maintenance of foot trails, bicycle paths, and similar low -impact facilities for public access except for the uses/activities allowed by the request concession. Only native, locally propagated plants will be allowed in the area between El Encanto Creek and the internal road and invasive species will be prohibited throughout the development.
With these mitigations, the buffer along El Encanto Creek on the project site would be expanded and enhanced and its ongoing protection. Further this area will be protected over the long term through either the recordation of an easement or deed restriction which outlines the limitation of uses allowed in the SPA buffer area (CE 2.1, CE 2.2, CE 2.3, and CE 2.4).
The project, as designed and in compliance with protective development requirements, will protect El Encanto Creek and its associated riparian area (CE 2.5 and CE 2.6). In particular, the development must utilize best management practices for stormwater management including, without limitation, stormwater curb extensions and permeable paving to capture stormwater runoff for biofiltration treatment and sediment collection, will ensure impacts on water quality are minimized (CE 10.1, CE
10.2, CE 10.3, CE 10.4, CE 10.6, CE 10.7). The homeowner’s association for the project must maintain all stormwater management facilities serving the project in compliance with GP/CLUP policy (CE 10.8). Further, any landscaping required for erosion control must use native, noninvasive plants to minimize the need for fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and excessive irrigation (CE 10.9).
The project site has been unsuitable for agricultural production since 1995 (CE 11.1, CE 11.8, and CE 11.10). The project site is located more than 0.5 mile from U.S.
Highway 101 and there are no identified stationary toxic sources near the property (CE 12.1). As mitigated, the project would be consistent with all GP/CLUP policies related to emissions (CE 12.2 and CE 12.3). The project will comply with applicable sustainable green building standards as required by the State building code which facilitation consistency with General Plan Policies . CE 13.1, CE 13.3, CE 15.3, and CE 15.5. In addition, adequate, screen ed trash and recycling storage areas will be provided at each home and the plant palette for the project will favor low-green waste producing plants (CE 15.4).
A few small trees currently exist along Cathedral Oaks Road frontage adjacent to the project site. The project will include landscape improvements within the public road easement and a 50-foot wide greenbelt along Cathedral Oaks Road. This landscaping 312
Planning Commission Resolution 26-___, Exhibit B
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis Shelby Residential Project
P a g e | 5
5 will include a large number of trees. Landscaping in the other open space areas within the project s ite and in the front yards of residential lots will also include trees. The Development Plan requires all trees planted to be at least 15 gallons in size. The City will ensure the tree selection and placement is appropriate to the site and surrounding area and enhances the City’s urban forest (CE 14.1, CE 14.2, CE 14.3, and CE 14.4).
4. Safety Element: The project is consistent with the Safety Element. The project site has an average slope of approximately 7.8 percent and is not located in a fault zone or a 100-year flood zone. Recommended design features are incorporated into the project to counter potential slope instability, erosion and landslides. Moreover, the project must comply with all applicable Building Code requirements (CBC and GMC) (SE 1.3, SE 1.6, SE 1.9, SE 5.2 and SE 5.4). Residential development will exceed the minimum 50-foot setback from El Encanto Creek as generally required in SE 6.6 with the observation of the 100’ SPA buffer with the concession.
All new residences will comply with current California Building Code requirements for fire protection, including the installation of fire sprinklers (SE 7.1, SE 7.2, and SE 7.5).
The project will be adequately served by fire protection services and the Fire Department approved a Fire Protection Plan for the project.
5. Visual and Historic Resources Element: The project is consistent with the Visual and Historic Resources Element. Views from Cathedral Oaks Road, and private views from adjacent developments located to the west and south of the site will be minimally impacted as demonstrated by the photo simulations provided in the aesthetic section of the associated Final EIR found on pages 4.1-18- through 4.1-21, which demonstrate that the views to the mountains are minimally impacted. Looking east and north toward and through the project site, existing landscaping and overgrown vegetation are present that create very limited view of the foothills and mountains beyond. Private viewpoints from multifamily residences west of the site, beyond El Encanto Creek and Northgate Drive, are screened by the existing trees and vegetation along El Encanto Creek and the site is not visible. Additionally, viewpoints from the golf course on the west, north, and east side of the project site are mostly screened by landscaping and topography, but not fully blocked. Most private views of the site are obstructed by existing vegetation. Views from the single-family residential neighborhood to the south will be changed as a result of the project but mitigation restricting the maximum height of structures will minimize this impact (VH 1.8).
While the proposed project would result in some changes to existing views, the design of the project would not result in substantial, adverse changes to identified scenic corridors or resources from public viewpoints in the project vicinity. Mitigation measures have been incorporated to reduce the impact on scenic views to the maximum extent practicable. (VH 1.1, VH 1.2, VH 1.4, VH 2.1, VH 2.2, and VH 2.3).
The project site is adjacent to El Encanto Creek and its riparian corridor. The current extent of th e riparian corridor is limited due to existing development upstream and 313
Planning Commission Resolution 26-___, Exhibit B
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis Shelby Residential Project
P a g e | 6
6 downstream and on the project site. However, the project includes an open space area adjacent to the creek which will expand and enhance the buffer adjacent to the creek which will be visible from public viewing areas on Cathedral Oaks Road (VH
1.1).
Development of the site will be an extension of the existing urban neighborhoods to the south and west (VH 1.5). The project will include a 50 -wide greenbelt along Cathedral Oaks Road to so ften the appearance of the new development from the scenic corridor. All lighting will be conditioned to comply with City regulations for lighting in residential developments and all utilities will be placed underground (VH
4.12 and VH 4.14). Public improvements along Cathedral Oaks will include connection of the Class I trail existing on either side of the property which will enhance the visual character and functionality of the corridor (VH 2.2, VH 2.3, VH 2.4, VH 2.5, and VH
4.10).
There is minimal vege tation and no significant natural landforms on the project site ; the site has an average slope of 7.8 percent. Minimal grading is proposed to prepare the site for infrastructure and structural development. Project development will include the installation of landscaping which will aid in blending the development with the surrounding environment. The circulation and lot configuration along with the development standards, and landscape standards promote high quality design and a sense of place which is implemented by the Development Plan (VH 3.1 and VH 3.2).
The homes will be constructed of high quality, durable materials; scaled appropriately to the lot sizes and overall site; oriented to take advantage of the natural environment, encourage indoor/outdoor liv ing, and maintain solar access; and will comply with CalGreen+ standards of the City’s Green Building regulations (VH 3.4 and VH 4.16).
Landscaping is an integral part of the project design. Native, drought -tolerant vegetation is strongly encouraged, turf areas are limited, and invasive plants are prohibited (VH 4.9). The project will include adequate parking and amenities for residents, provide for safe pedestrian and bicycle circulation within and between neighborhoods, respect existing natural features o n and surrounding the site, and provide well-defined community open space areas (VH 3.3, VH 3.5, and VH 3.6).
Signage must comply with existing City zoning regulations for signage in residential areas (VH 3.7 and VH 4.13). Design review is required before project construction to ensure appropriate plant selections that minimize view blockage and ensure the design of structures is of high quality, compatible with surrounding development, and enhances the visual character of the City overall (VH 1.6, VH 2.2, VH 2.3, VH 2.4, VH
3.1, VH 3.2, VH 4.1, VH 4.3, VH 4.9, VH 4.10, and VH 4.15).
6. Transportation Element: The project is consistent with the Transportation Element. The project will include a looped road which intersects with Cathedral Oaks Road. Driveways are not allowed onto Cathedral Oaks Road (TE 3.3). Internal streets will include two 12-foot travel lanes with eight-foot parking/landscape curb extensions 314
Planning Commission Resolution 26-___, Exhibit B
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis Shelby Residential Project
P a g e | 7
7 on either side. Lane widths appropriate to the residential neighborhood and adequate for emergency access with parking and curb extensions along the travel lanes will encourage appropriate speeds within the neighborhood (TE 1.2, TE 1.4, TE 3.6, TE
3.7, and TE 6.7). Sidewalks on both sides of the internal streets will accommodate safe pedestrian movement throughout the project site. The internal sidewalks will also connect to improvements along Cathedral Oaks Road, which include the provision of sidewalk and 10-foot wide Class I riding and pedestrian path on either side of the property to comple te the missing linkage (TE 3.9, TE 10.4, and TE 13.5). Street lighting is required to comply with the neighborhood character and be consistent with the policies of the Conservation Element (TE 6.8). As discussed in the Conservation Element analysis, development features ensure appropriate drainage and protection of water quality (TE 6.3).
Two off-street parking spaces located in a garage will be required for each residential unit. Additional driveway space on each lot will also be available for off-street parking of at least two vehicles. This will ensure there is adequate parking to serve the project (TE 9.1, TE 9.2, and TE 9.3).
The traffic study prepared for the project estimated that the project generated 15.9 VMT per resident, which exceeds the County t hreshold of 14.9 VMT per resident.
Therefore, the proposed project would potentially be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b). This impact would be potentially significant, however with implementation of the assumed VMT reductions stated in the traffic study could potentially be reduced to 12.75 VMT per resident, which would be below the City thresholds.
The July 30, 2025 , Traffic and VMT Assessment prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) is provided as Appendix J to the Shelby Final EIR SCH #2012081019, is on file with the City and is incorporated by reference. Table 4 of the July 30, 2025, ATE report indicates that the project is anticipated to generate a total of 477 average daily trips (ADT) with 37 AM peak hour trips and 47 PM peak hour trips. Further the ATE report indicates that the project will not affect the nearby intersections to reduce level of service (LOS) to below LOS C in keeping with General Plan Policy TE 4.1.
The developer must also pay traffic impact fees to fund transportation improvements to ensure adequate levels of service system wide (TE 14.1).
6. Public Facilities Element: The project is consistent with the Public Facilities Element.
The permittee must pay developm ent impact fees as required by GMC Title 1 7. The project is designed to comply with fire safety design standards identified in the California Fire Code, as adopted by the GMC, and the Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District’s development standards (PF 3.4). The project would not result in any significant new demands on the sheriffs or fire protection services but would contribute impact fees to assist with administrative facilities and fire facilities which will improve emergency response times to the project area (PF 3.2, PF 3.3, and PF 3.8). 315
Planning Commission Resolution 26-___, Exhibit B
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis Shelby Residential Project
P a g e | 8
8 The project is designed to encourage a secure, safe, and crime-free environment with adequate lighting and homes with front doors facing the street (PF 3.9).
The project will not adversely affect the water supply. The Goleta Water District (GWD) confirmed the property has received a Preliminary Water Determination Letter and a Preliminary Condition Letter..
The Goleta West Sanitary District confirmed that sanitation services are available to serve the project (PF 4.2). Environmental analysis confirmed the project would add a less than significant number of students to existing public schools (PF 5.2).
Additionally, the developer is required to pay school impact fee s as required by the Goleta Union School District and Santa Barbara Unified School District (PF 5.7). All utility providers confirmed that they can serve the project and all utilities will be placed underground (PF 6.1 and PF 6.2). The permittee will fund the cost to construct new utility infrastructure for the project and connect to existing utility facilities (PF 9.2, PF
9.3, and PF 9.7)
7. Noise Element: The project is consistent with the Noise Element. The project’s single- family residential use is compatible with the surrounding single-family and multi-family residential and golf course uses (NE 1.1). Neighborhood noise sources are generally intermittent and while they could generate noise in excess of 65 dBA CNEL at times, basic construction techniques re quired by the California Residential Code (CRC) would reduce interior noise levels to 45 dBA (NE 1.2 and NE 1.5). Further, there is over 250 feet between the project site and the multi-family residential development to the west and the 20-foot-wide landscaped open space area along Cathedral Oaks Road will buffer traffic noise from the residential uses on the project site. Vegetation on the perimeter of the adjacent golf course will also buffer noise between the two properties (NE 1.3, NE 2.1, NE 7.1 and NE 7.2). The street design, and landscaped curb extensions , will help to ensure reasonable vehicle speeds within the project, thereby reducing traffic noise impacts (NE 2.7). The homeowner’s association must maintain streets within the project site which will ensure traffic-generated noise within the project site from potholes, bumps, and other roadway damage will be minimized (NE 2.8).
Short-term construction noise during project construction will be mitigated with the implementation of standard conditions su ch as limiting construction hours, requiring properly maintained equipment, restricting idling equipment, and routing construction traffic to avoid neighborhood streets, as well as implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1 from the EIR (NE 6.4 and 6.5).
8. Housing Element: The project includes a Vesting Tentative Map and Development Plan for the 56 new single-family residences. The project is consistent with the 2023- 2031 Housing Element. The project will provide 56 family homes of which 11 units will be income deed restricted for a duration of 55 years. The income restricted units will be in the following categories four residences at extremely low -income level, one 316
Planning Commission Resolution 26-___, Exhibit B
General Plan/Coastal Land Use Plan Consistency Analysis Shelby Residential Project
P a g e | 9
9 residence at lower income level, three residences at moderate income level, and three residences at above -moderate income levels. Based on the nature of the units, the project will contribute to the mix of housing choices within the City and be available to the local workforce (HE 3.1, HE 4.2). Project open space improvements including walking trails; sidewalks; and private outdoor areas on residential lots will make the development desirable for families and children (HE 5.5). Initial development and future renovations, additions, and other improvements require City approval to ensure the site and building design is consistent with the design principles articulated in the City’s design review requirements and that the project will create and maintain a sense of place compatible with surrounding uses (HE 9.1 and HE 9.2). As discussed in the Conservation Element analysis, the project complies with the City’s Green Building regulations (HE 9.4 and HE 9.5). Pursuant to project description with the inclusion of the income restricted un its, the permittee will provide different affordability types consistent with the need for affordable housing in the City (HE 11.1, HE 11.2, HE 11.3, HE 11.4, and HE 11.5)
317
EXHIBIT C to ATTACHMENT 2
Zoning Consistency Analysis
318
1 Planning Commission Resolution 26- ___
Exhibit C, Zoning Consistency Analysis
Shelby Project
1 | P a g e
ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS FOR
SHELBY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BASED ON RS 7000 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS1
CASE NO. 05-154-VTM-DP-DRB
ZONING
REQUIREMENTS
PROPOSED PROJECT CONSISTENCY WITH
STANDARDS
Front Yard Setback
applicable to
Internal Street
frontages:
Twenty (20) feet from
right-of-way line for
structures.
The structures and
balconies are setback a
minimum of 20 feet from
the property lines.
Yes
Side Yard Setbacks:
10 percent of lot
which 6.5 feet.
All of the ground floor
portions of the houses
comply with the required
setback. Thirty-two of the
56 lots provide a reduced
side yard setback for
second story elements as
shown on page 9 of this
Exhibit.
Yes, with waiver pursuant to relief
provided under State Density Bonus
Law (Gov. Code, § 65915).
Rear Yard Structure
Setback:
25-foot rear yard
setback for primary
buildings.
Fifty one of the 56
residences have a rear yard
setback of 15 feet. The
proposed rear setback on
each lot is provided on
page 7 of this Exhibit.
Yes, with waiver pursuant to relief
provided under State Density Bonus
Law (Gov. Code, § 65915).
1 As a Builder’s Remedy project, the applicant identified a local zoning district that is used as a basis for design consistency. The applicant identified the RS-7 zoning district as the most analogous zone. 319
2 Planning Commission Resolution 26- ___
Exhibit C, Zoning Consistency Analysis
Shelby Project
2 | P a g e
Parking: 2 covered
spaces per
residence.
All residences will contain a
covered two car garage.
Yes
Building Height
limit: Maximum
height of 25 feet.
Maximum height of the
residences range from 18
feet to 23 feet 9 inches.
Yes
Minimum Lot Area:
The RS-7 zone
district is a minimum
of 7,000 square feet.
All 59 lots are over 7,000
square feet as measured to
the centerline of the
adjacent streets.
The net areas located
behind the sidewalk of the
residential lots range
between 5,910 to 13,50 sq.
ft.
Yes
Minimum Lot Width:
65 feet.
Lot widths range from 56.91
feet to 142.66 feet as
shown on page 5 of this
Exhibit.
Yes, with waiver pursuant to relief
provided under State Density Bonus
Law (Gov. Code, § 65915).
320
3 Planning Commission Resolution 26- ___
Exhibit C, Zoning Consistency Analysis
Shelby Project
3 | P a g e
Density:
Maximum Density is
5 du/acre with no
minimum density.
The Project’s density is
3.89 units/acre.
Yes
Streamside
Protection Buffer:
100’ setback
Encroachment into the
required 100-foot
streamside protection area
(SPA) buffer of
approximately 7,786 square
feet (0.18 acres) in the rear
yards of Lots 1 through 8,
portions of the houses on
Lots 1 and 2, and for
portions of sidewalk in Lot
38. The structure of Lot 1 is
75 away from the SPA
boundary line.
(see page 4 of this Exhibit)
Yes, with a concession
pursuant to relief provided under
State Density Bonus Law (Gov.
Code, § 65915).
Maximum Allowable
Floor Area:
Floor area of 35 houses
exceeds the maximum
permitted floor area from
208 to 1,539 sq. ft. These
floor area exceeds occur on
Lots 1 through 14, 20,
through 23, 25 through 29,
32, 24, 26, 40, 41, 45, 46,
48, 50, 52, and 55.
The floor area of 21 houses
meets the maximum
allowable floor area.
Yes, with a waiver pursuant to relief
provided under State Density Bonus
Law (Gov. Code, § 65915).
321
4 Planning Commission Resolution 26- ___
Exhibit C, Zoning Consistency Analysis
Shelby Project
4 | P a g e
SPA BUFFER REDUCTION
LOT NUMBER AMOUNT OF SPA BUFFER
REDUCTION
1 2,051 SF
2 1,279 SF
3 751 SF
4 761 SF
5 622 SF
6 902 SF
7 728 SF
8 61 SF
38 631 SF
TOTAL 7,786 SF
322
5 Planning Commission Resolution 26- ___
Exhibit C, Zoning Consistency Analysis
Shelby Project
5 | P a g e
LOT WIDTH REDUCTION
LOT NUMBER LOT WIDTH
REDUCTION
Y/N
LOT WIDTH of LESS
THAN
65'
1 Y 60.00'
2 Y 60.00'
3 Y 60.00'
4 Y 61.00'
5 Y 62.00'
6 Y 60.00'
7 Y 60.00'
8 Y 60.00'
9 Y 60.00'
10 N n/a
11 N n/a
12 N n/a
13 N n/a
14 N n/a
15 N n/a
16 N n/a
17 N n/a
18 N n/a
19 N n/a
20 Y 60.00’
21 Y 60.00’
22 Y 60.00’
23 Y 60.00’
24 Y 61.50’
25 Y 60.00’
26 Y 60.00’
27 Y 60.00’
28 Y 60.00’
29 Y 60.00’
30 Y 64.14’
31 N n/a
32 Y 62.03’
33 Y 62.29’
34 Y 61.50’
35 Y 61.50’
323
6 Planning Commission Resolution 26- ___
Exhibit C, Zoning Consistency Analysis
Shelby Project
6 | P a g e
36 Y 61.50’
37 N n/a
38 N n/a
39 Y 64.10'
40 Y 64.50'
41 N n/a
42 N n/a
43 N n/a
44 N n/a
45 N n/a
46 N n/a
47 Y 64.02'
48 Y 64.03'
49 N n/a
50 N n/a
51 Y 61.09
52 N n/a
53 N n/a
54 N n/a
55 Y 60.00'
56 N n/a
324
7 Planning Commission Resolution 26- ___
Exhibit C, Zoning Consistency Analysis
Shelby Project
7 | P a g e
REAR SETBACK REDUCTION
LOT NUMBER REAR SETBACK
REDUCTION
Y/m
REAR SETBACK
PROPOSED IF
LESS THAN 25'
1 Y 15.0'
2 Y 19.2'
3 Y 19.2'
4 Y 15.0'
5 Y 15.0'
6 Y 15.0'
7 Y 19.2'
8 Y 15.0'
9 Y 19.2'
10 Y 21.8'
11 Y 18.9'
12 Y 21.9'
13 N n/a
14 Y 15.1'
15 N n/a
16 N n/a
17 Y 16.5'
18 Y 16.1'
19 Y 24.5'
20 N n/a
21 Y 19.2'
22 Y 15.0'
23 Y 15.0'
24 Y 16.4'
25 Y 15.0'
26 Y 19.2'
27 Y 19.2'
28 Y 15.0'
29 Y 19.2'
30 N n/a
31 Y 19.3'
32 Y 15.0'
33 Y 15.1'
34 Y 15.0'
35 Y 15.0'
36 Y 15.0'
325
8 Planning Commission Resolution 26- ___
Exhibit C, Zoning Consistency Analysis
Shelby Project
8 | P a g e
37 Y 15.0'
38 Y 19.2'
39 Y 15.0'
40 Y 15.0'
41 Y 19.2'
42 Y 15.0'
43 Y 15.0'
44 Y 19.3'
45 Y 15.0'
46 Y 19.2'
47 Y 15.0'
48 Y 15.0'
49 Y 15.0'
50 Y 15.0'
51 Y 15.0'
52 Y 15.0'
53 Y 19.2'
54 Y 15.0'
55 Y 15.0'
56 Y 19.6'
326
Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-___, –
EXHIBIT C to Attachment 2 (and 3)
Shelby Residential Project
9 REDUCED SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR 2nd STORY PORTIONS
LOT NUMBER SECOND STORY SIDE
YARD SETBACK
REDUCTION
YIN
2ND STORIES SIDE
YARD PROPOSED IF
LESS TFAN
6.5'
1 N n/a
2 N n/a
3 N n/a
4 N n/a
5 Y FACE(7.1') EAVE(5.5')
6 Y FACE(7.5') EAVE(6.0')
7 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
8 Y FACE(7.5') EAVE(6.0')
9 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
10 N n/a
11 N n/a
12 N n/a
13 N n/a
14 N n/a
15 N n/a
16 N n/a
17 N n/a
18 N n/a
19 N n/a
20 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
21 N n/a
22 Y FACE(7.5') EAVE(6.0')
23 Y FACE(7.5') EAVE(6.0')
24 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
25 Y FACE(7.5') EAVE(6.0')
26 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
27 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
28 Y FACE(7.5') EAVE(6.0')
29 N n/a
30 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
31 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
327
Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-___, –
EXHIBIT C to Attachment 2 (and 3)
Shelby Residential Project
10 32 N n/an
33 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
34 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
35 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
36 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
37 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
38 N n/a
39 N n/a
40 Y FACE(7.4') EAVE(5.7')
41 N n/a
42 N n/a
43 Y FACE(7.7') EAVE(6.0')
44 N n/a
45 n/a
46 N n/a
47 Y FACE(7.8') EAVE(6.3')
48 Y FACE(7.1') EAVE(5.5')
49 Y FACE(6.7') EAVE(5.3')
50 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
51 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.7')
52 Y FACE(7.1') EAVE(5.7')
53 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
54 Y FACE(6.8') EAVE(5.2')
55 Y FACE(7.3') EAVE(5.7')
56 Y FACE(6.5') EAVE(5.0')
328
EXHIBIT D to ATTACHMENT 2
Vesting Tentative Map Conditions of Approval
329
Exhibit D, Attachment 2
VTM Conditions of Approval
Shelby Residential Project
City Council Reso. 26-___ 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
SHELBY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
CASE No. 05-154-VTM
In addition to all applicable provisions of the Goleta Municipal Code (“GMC”), Springville 3 LP (formerly Shelby Family Partnership, LP and hereinafter referred to as “Shelby” or “Permittees”) owner of the parcel with APN 077-530-019, commonly known as 7400 Cathedral Oaks Road, agrees to the following conditions for the City’s approv al of Case No. 05-154-VTM (“Project Conditions”).
Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from the context, the construction of words and phrases used in these Project Conditions use the definitions set forth in the GMC.
For purposes of these Pro ject Conditions, the term “Director” refers to the Planning and Environmental Review Director, or designee.
AUTHORIZATION
1. This Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) authorizes Permittees to subdivide the parcel with APN 077-530-019 in accordance with Exhibit A attached to Resolution No. 26- ___. The VTM subdivides the existing 14.38-acre parcel into 59 separate lots. While the property’s current General Plan designation is Agricultural and its current zoning district is AG40, because this is a Builder’s Remedy project, state law prohibits the City from requiring the project to apply for, or receive approval of, a General Plan amendment, Specific Plan amendment, rezoning, or other legislative approval. (Gov.
Code, § 65589.5 (f)(6)(D)(i). Additionally, as a Builder’s Remedy project, the applicant identified a local zoning district that is used as a basis for design consistency. The applicant identified the RS-7 zoning district as the most analogous zone . The subdivision enables a Development Plan for the construction and occupancy of 56 single-family dwellings on Lots 1 through Lot 56 inclusive of landscaping and lighting.
Eleven (11) units are deed-restricted as affordable units for at least 55 years. Of the 11 units, four residences are to be designated for extremely low-income households, one residence will be designated for lower income households, three residences w ill be designated for moderate income h ouseholds, and three residences w ill be designated for above -moderate income households. Use of Lots 57 through Lot 59 will be for open space containing landscape and stormwater facilities. The subdivision also includes private streets to serve the develop ment. The streets, landscaping, lighting and the common areas are the responsibility of the future Homeowner’s Association (HOA).
As noted, the Project was evaluated for consistency with the RS -7 zoning district’s standards. Features of the Project that deviate from the RS-7 zone’s requirements are justified pursuant to relief provided under State Density Bonus law (Gov. Code, § 65915). As a Builder’s Remedy project with least 7 percent of units for extremely low- income households, the Project is entitled to, among other things, four concessions 330
Exhibit D, Attachment 2
VTM Conditions of Approval
Shelby Residential Project
City Council Reso. 26-___ 2
and an unlimited number of waivers or reductions of development standards that physically preclude the Project from being constructed by the applicant. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(f)(6)(B)(i)(II), (C)(i), (iv).)
One concession and four waivers have been requested to deviate from the City standards listed below. State law prohibits the City from finding the Project inconsistent with the City’s standards as a result of Density Bonus law. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(j)(3).) The one concession and four waivers are as follows:
Concession
1. Encroachment into the required 100 -foot streamside protection area (SPA) buffer of approximately 7,786 square feet (0.18 acres) in the rear yards of Lots 1 through 8, portions of the houses on Lots 1 and 2, and for portions of sidewalk in Lot 38. To compensate for SPA buffer encroachment, the proposed project design includes 0.21 acres of additiona l open space provided outside of and adjacent to the edge of the 100-foot SPA buffer on proposed Lot 58.
Waivers
Four waivers from the RS-7 zone district standards:
1. Proposed lot widths of 60 feet (which is less than the 65 feet otherwise required in the RS -7 zone district) on 31 of the 56 proposed residential lots.
2. Proposed rear yard setbacks of 15 feet (which is less than the 25 feet otherwise required in the RS-7 zone district) on 51 of the 56 proposed residential lots.
3. Reduced side yard setbacks (of less than the otherwise required 6.5 feet in the RS-7 zone district) on 32 of the 56 proposed residential lots. The reduction allows for a second story to extend closer to the edge of the property line.
4. The allowed maximum floor area of 35 houses would exceed the maximum allowed floor area. The exceedances range between 208 to 1,539 additional square feet, depending on the lot. These floor area exceedances would occur on Lots 1 through 14, 20 through 23, 25 through 29, 32, 34, 36, 40, 41, 45, 46, 48, 50, 52, and 55.
2. All construction, improvements, implementation and/or other actions taken pursuant to this approval must be in substantial conformance with this approval. Any deviations not in substantial compliance must be reviewed and approved by the City of Goleta (City). The City must determine whether any deviation substantially conforms to this approval. Any deviation determined to not be in substantial conformance with this approval requires the Applicant to seek additional approval, permits, or other action by the City. Any deviation from this approval made without the above-described review and approval of the City is a violation of this approval. 331
Exhibit D, Attachment 2
VTM Conditions of Approval
Shelby Residential Project
City Council Reso. 26-___ 3
3. In accordance with Section 16.02 -040 (A) of the GMC, t his VTM will expire three (3) years after approval, unless before the expiration, a final map has been recorded, or a time extension has been applied for by the Permittees. The decision-maker with jurisdiction over the project may, upon good cause shown, grant a time extension as permitted by law . If the Permittees request a time extension, the project may be revised to include updated language to standard conditions and/or may include revised/additional conditions which reflect changed circumstances or additional identified project impacts. Any new fees imposed , and the rates of existing fees will be those in effect at the time of the extension request.
4. Any proposed deviations from the exhibits, project description or Project Conditions must be submitted to the Director of Planning and Environmental Review for review and approval by an appropriate decision maker. Any unapproved deviations from the project approval will constitute a violation of the permit approval. The exhibits associated with this permit include the plans labeled “Exhibit A to Resolution No. 26- ____” and herein incorporated by reference.
5. When exhibits and/or written Project Conditions are in conflict, the written Project Conditions must prevail.
6. Permittees agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from and against any claim, action, damages, costs (including, without limitation, attorney’s fees), injuries, or liability, arising from the City’s approval of the Project, including but not limite d to, certification of the FEIR, adoption of the MMRP, adoption of Statement of Overriding Consideration (“SOC”), approval of the Vesting Tentative Map (“VTM”), approval of the Development Plan, and approval of any associated Zoning Clearance, Map Clearance or associated post -discretionary approvals, except for such loss or damage arising from the City’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. Except as described in this section, the obligation to indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City shall arise when the City is named in any suit, or when any claim is brought against it by suit or otherwise, whether the same is groundless or not, arising out of the City’s approval of the Project, including but not limited to, certification of the FEIR, adoption of the MMRP, adoption of the SOC, approval of the VTM, approval of the Development Plan, and approval of any associated Zoning Clearance, Map Clearance, or post -discretionary approvals. Permittees agree to defend the City (with legal counsel selected by City) and will indemnify the City for any judgment rendered against it or any sums paid out in settlement or otherwise. For purposes of this section “the City” includes the City of Goleta’s elected officials, appointed officials, officers, and employees, and agents.
7. All costs associated with post -entitlement condition clearance and effectuation of agreements as required by these Conditions are borne by Permittees.
8. Post-Entitlement Phase Permits. After the entitlement process has been completed, all post -entitlement phase permit applications will be reviewed and processed in accordance with Government Code section 65913.3. “Post-entitlement phase permits” 332
Exhibit D, Attachment 2
VTM Conditions of Approval
Shelby Residential Project
City Council Reso. 26-___ 4
shall have the same meaning as provided in Government Code section 65913.3(k)(3)(A) and includes, among other things, building permits, permits for minor or standard offsite improvements, demolition permits, and permits for minor or standard excavation and grading. For purposes of the Project and these conditions of approval, the entitlement process will be co nsidered complete only after all of the following occurred:
a. Map Clearance Issuance including all required agreements to be fully executed in the Vesting Tentative Map Conditions of Approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MITIGATIONS
9. The Permittees must comply with all mitigation measures identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project, Exhibit A to City Council Commission Resolution No. 26- ____. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared as par t of the environmental review of the project and is attached as Exhibit C to City Council Resolution No. 26- _____. The mitigation measures of the MMRP are incorporated into these conditions of approval by reference. All mitigation measures and condition s of approval must be listed on the plans submitted for plan check and the plans for which a building permit is issued.
AGENCY REQUIREMENTS
All letters mentioned below are attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference:
10. Santa Barbara County Fire Department (SBCFD): Permittees must comply with all conditions and requirements outlined in the October 6, 2025 Santa Barbara County Fire Department letter, and the Shelby Safety & Wildlife Fire Protection Plan, approved on November 4, 2025, or as updated in the future to the satisfaction of the SBCFD as applicable to facilitate recordation of a Vesting Final Tract Map and to the extent permitted by law, including, but not limited to, Government Code sections 65941.1 and 65589.5.
11. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (APCD). Permittees must comply with all conditions and re quirements outlined in the August 27, 2025 Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District letter or as updated in the future as applicable, to the satisfaction of the APCD as applicable to facilitate recordation of a Vesting Final Map and to the extent permitted by law, including, but not limited to, Government Code sections 65941.1 and 65589.5.
12. Goleta Water District (GWD). Permittees must c omply with the conditions and requirements, as outlined in the February 18, 2026 Preliminary Conditions Letter or as updated in the future if applicable, to the satisfaction of the GWD as applicable and 333
Exhibit D, Attachment 2
VTM Conditions of Approval
Shelby Residential Project
City Council Reso. 26-___ 5
to the extent permitted by law, including, but not limited to, Government Code sections 65941.1 and 65589.5 . including securing water service connections prior to the issuance of building permits
13. Goleta West Sanitary District (G WSD). Permittees must co mply with all the conditions and requirements outlined in the October 16, 2025 Goleta West Sanitary District letter or as updated in the future as applicable, to the satisfaction of the GWSD as applicable to facilitate recordation of a Vesting Final Map and to the extent permitted by law, including, but not limited to, Government Code sections 65941.1 and 65589.5. .
CITY DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS – Public Works Department
14. Prior to City Council approval of the Final Map, the applicant must:
a. Submit for review and approval to the Public Works Director or d esignee the Public Improvement Plan (PIP) on Cathedral Oaks along the property frontage.
The PIP shall be prepared by a Registered Engineer.
b. Provide an Engineers Estimate prepared by a Registered Engineer for the PIP. c. Provide a Performance Bond and a Payment and Materials Bond, or equivalent City approved security, in the amount of 100% of the Engineers Estimate for each
d. Provide a signed Subdivision Improvement Agreement , approved to form by the City Attorney, that includes, but is not limited to, a, b, and c above.
15. Prior to the recordation of a Final Map:
Permittees shall submit a draft Final Map for review and approval by the Public Works Director that conforms to the State Subdivision Map Act and the City’s Municipal Code beginning with Chapter 16 “Subdivisions”. The Map shall include the following:
a. Set all survey monuments as shown on the Final Map in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code Section 16.05.010 and in compliance with Section 8772 of the California Business and Professions Code. The location, size and type of all monuments shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the City Surveyor before approval of the map.
b. When monuments are to be set after map recordation, the applicant shall furnish to the City a cash deposit, in an amount approved by the City Surveyor, guaranteeing the payment of the cost of setting such monuments.
c. All new Monuments shall be set in accordanc e with Condition No. 33 of the Development Plan.
334
Exhibit D, Attachment 2
VTM Conditions of Approval
Shelby Residential Project
City Council Reso. 26-___ 6
d. Identify existing public easements to remain as well as existing public easements to be abandoned.
i. For any public easement to be abandoned, the applicant shall provide proof of “notice to abandon” to any affected public agency and utility provider.
ii. For any public right of way easement to be abandoned, the applicant shall show on the Final Tract Map the locations of utility easement reservations if requested by the utility providers
e. Show on the Map all easements as shown on the approved Final Tract Map.
Identify existing public easements to remain as well as existing public easements to be abandoned in the manner prescribed in Section 66499.20.2 of the Subdivision Map Act. Each easement shall be identified as being a public or private easement and state which parcel(s) benefit(s) from said easement, where applicable.
f. Permittees agree to dedicate to the City, at no cost or expense to the City, an easement for public roadway purposes, (see Condition g below) including but not limited to the right to construct, maintain, and repair public facilities located on in the Easement described and depicted on the Map. Permittees must execute the Irrevocable Offer to Dedicate Easement shall be e xecuted by Permittees prior to Map recordation. The City is under no obligation to accept the Offer to Dedicate Easement or accept within any time frame. Until the City accepts the Offer to Dedicate Easement, all maintenance costs of the Easement shall be borne by Permittees and any liability associated with injuries to third parties and damage in the Easement area shall remain with Permittees until the City accepts the Offer to Dedicate Easement.
g. Map Specific Requirements:
i. The Final Map shall depict a 20 -foot easement that will be offered for dedication to the City for public road purposes along the southern property line for the future widening of Cathedral Oaks Road.
ii. The map must note that for the purpose of future ADU applications , front setbacks shall be measured from the back of the sidewalk and not the lot line (which is in the center of a private street). This information must also be included in the CC&Rs prepared and recorded for the project.
iii. The map must note that access to Cathedral Oaks from Lots 30 -37, 58 and 59 for vehicular and pedestrian is prohibited. This information must also be included in the CC&Rs prepared and recorded for the project.
335
Exhibit D, Attachment 2
VTM Conditions of Approval
Shelby Residential Project
City Council Reso. 26-___ 7
iv. Reference the area on Lot 58 to be preserved via covenant as non - buildable open space in recognition of the streamside protection buffer from El Encanto Creek. The storm water and other facilities as shown on the Development Plan are the allowed improvements on this lot.
16. Prior to the recordation of the final map and subject to City approval as to form and content, the Permittee/Subdivider shall include all the of these conditions of approval, including agreements and plans associated with or required by these conditions of approval, on a separate informational sheet to be recorded with the final map. All of the conditions of approval shall be printed on the grading and/or building plans and shall be graphically illustrated as required by the City. For any subsequent development on any tracts created by the final map, each set of plans accompanying a Zoning Clearance shall contain these conditions.
17. If the Zoning Clearance to allow rough grading permits is issued before the Final Map is recorded, then the applicant must:
a. Comply with the requirements to secure a Zoning Clearance for rough grading (see Conditions Nos. 24-35 adopted as part of the associated Development Plan Resolution) including all applicable mitigations measures, stormwater measures, and erosion control me asures etc. before issuance of the rough grading Zoning Clearance;
b. Secure approval of a hydroseeding plan and temporary irrigation for the site from the Planning and Environmental Review Director in case the Project does not proceed after rough grading has commenced before issuance of rough grading Zoning Clearance;
c. Provide to the City a cash deposit equal to 110% of the costs associated with the implementation of the hydroseeding/temporary irrigation plan before issuance of rough grading Zoning Clearance . Permittee will be entitled to a return of the cash deposit upon City’s determination that construction funding has been secured or upon issuance of building permits;
d. Install all public improvements within the Cathedral Oaks Right of Way within 1 year o f the i ssuance of the Grading Permit. If grading starts after the recordation of the Final Map, then the public improvements shall be installed in accordance with Condition No.48 of the Development Plan. e. Secure the construction site with a minimum 6-foot-high fence. The fence must be covered with material approved by the Planning and Environmental Review Director to minimize dust leaving the site before issuance of rough grading Zoning Clearance.
Planning and Environmental Review
336
Exhibit D, Attachment 2
VTM Conditions of Approval
Shelby Residential Project
City Council Reso. 26-___ 8
18. Prior to the recordation of the Final Map, the Permittees must prepare and secure approval from the City of Goleta and execute the following documents :
a. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the Homeowner’s Association (HOA ). The HOA will be responsible for all maintenance and liability associated with the common facilities and improvements within the subdivision including but not limited to the stormwater facilities (including outfall into El Encanto Creek), the internal streets, the street lighting, the landscaping in common areas located on Lots 57 -59 etc. Additionally, the CC&Rs must include the topics listed in Condition Number 12 (f) above. All expenses associated with the development, City review, and recordation of the CC&Rs are the sole responsibility of Permittees.
b. Enter into a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with performance securities, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to maintain required landscaping and water-conserving irrigation systems for at least a 3 -year period after completion. All expenses associated with the development, City review, and recordation of the Landscape Maintenance Agreement are the sole responsibility of the Permittee.
c. Enter into an agreement with the City regarding compliance monitoring and submit the fees to cover full costs of compliance monitoring. All costs associated with the development, review, and execution of the compliance monitoring contract is the sole responsibility of the Permittee.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
19. Affordable Housing Units:
a. Eleven units of the fifty-six (56) units shall be deed-restricted as affordable units for at least 55 years. Of the 11 affordable units, four units must be designated for extremely low -income households, one unit must be designated for low-income households, three units must be designated for moderate income households, and three units must be designated for above-moderate income households. The affordable units shall be located and disbursed throughout the Project in accordance with Exhibits 1 and 2 of that certain Conditional Settlement Agreement and Release entered into by the City and Shelby in connection with Santa Barbara County Superior Court Case No. 24CV00548.
b. Prior to Final Map Recordation (in accordance with the Conditions of Approval for the Vesting Tentative Map), Shelby shall execute and record an Agreement to Provide Affordable Housing (“Agreement”) for the provision of affordable units. The Agreement at a minimum must:
i) Specify that the 11 affordable rate units shall remain affordable for at least 55 years. As an ownership project, each purchaser of an affordable unit will be required to execute and record on title a Resale 337
Exhibit D, Attachment 2
VTM Conditions of Approval
Shelby Residential Project
City Council Reso. 26-___ 9
Restrictive Covenant. Upon each subsequent sale of a below-market rate unit, a new Resale Restrictive Covenant will be required, with a new 55-year term, unless preempted by state or federal programs.
ii) In accordance with the City’s Affordable Housing Policies and Procedures Manual, i nclude a marketing plan with provisions for a public lottery for the initial sale of affordable units. Eligibility for prospective purchasers of the affordable units shall be determined by the City of Goleta or its designee at Applicant/Permittee's expense.
iii) Specify that all purchasers of the affordable units will be required to sign a Primary Residence Statement, agreeing to reside in the unit at least 10 months of each calendar year.
iv) Specify that the maximum sales price for the initial sale of the 11 affordable units shall comply with the following: (1) for the four extremely low income units, the maximum sales price shall not exceed an “affordable housing cost” for extremely low income households as determined by the City in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 50052.5(b)(1); and (2) for the remaining seven affordable units, the maximum sales price shall not exceed the maximum levels for low, moderate and above -moderate income households (as applicable) for inclusionary units established by the City Council, consistent with the provisions of the City’s Affordable Housing Policies and Procedures Manual.
c. Construction of the affordable units must be concurrent with the construction of the market rate units, and the affordable units must be located through the project site in accordance with Condition 19 (a) above.
Issuance of the Certification of Occupancy for the affordable units must be in proportion with the issuance of the Certificates of Occupancy of the market rate units at a 20% affordable to 80% market unit ratio T he availability of the affordable units must be as follows:
Completion of
Affordable Units
Timing of
Completion of
Market Rate Units
Percent Number of
Affordable Units
1 Prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the 4th
Market Rate Unit
9%
338
Exhibit D, Attachment 2
VTM Conditions of Approval
Shelby Residential Project
City Council Reso. 26-___ 10
2 Prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the
8th Market Rate Unit
18%
3 Prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the
12th Market Rate Unit
27%
4 Prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the
16th Market Rate Unit
36%
5 Prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the
21st Market Rate Unit
45%
6 and In lieu fee
balance
Prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the
25th Market Rate Unit
55%
7 Prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the
29th Market Rate Unit
64%
8 Prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the
33rd Market Rate Unit
73%
9 Prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the
37th Market Rate Unit
82%
10 Prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of
Occupancy for the
41st Market Rate Unit
91%
11 Prior to the issuance
of the Certificate of
100%
339
Exhibit D, Attachment 2
VTM Conditions of Approval
Shelby Residential Project
City Council Reso. 26-___ 11
Occupancy for the
45th Market Rate Unit
d. Prior to Zoning Clearance approval, Condition 19 (c) shall be included in the Agreement to Provide Affordable Housing and the phasing of the provision of the affordable units shall be printed on all grading and building plans.
e. Prior to Final Map Recordation, the Applicant/Permittee shall enter into and record an Agreement to Provide Affordable Housing, which shall include a model Restrictive Covenant and Preemptive Right. The Covenant shall be executed and recorded by each purchaser of a below -market rate unit at initial sale and for each subsequent transfer . The Agreement shall be entered into and recorded on title. The units shall remain affordable for a minimum period of fifty -five (55) years. In addition, the running of the covenant shall be tolled during any period of violation.
20. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map the Permittees shall pay all applicable City Development Impact Fees (DIFs) due and payable at that time. Other DIFs are payable under separate timing as outlined in the Conditions of Approval for 05-154- DP.
This condition also serves as notice pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d) that the City of Goleta is DIFs by way of the approval of these Conditions of Approval and the Permittees have 90 days after the imposition of the fees to protest fees.
As specified herein, the Permittees must pay the fees provided in the chart below in full no later than at the time specified in the chart. The category of fee indicated in the chart’s first column (Fee) was in effect when the Project’s SB 330 preliminary application was submitted in November 2023. (Gov. Code, 65589.5(o)(1).) The chart’s second column (Rate) depicts the rates that were in effect w hen the preliminary application was submitted plus subsequent automatic annual adjustments based on an independently published cost index that was referenced in the enactment establishing the fee. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(o)(2)(A).) The chart’s second and thi rd columns (Rate and Estimated Fee) are estimates and the actual amount of the fees due and payable by Permittees to the City will be different than the estimates listed in the chart. For each fee, Permittees must pay the rate that is in effect at the time of payment, which will be equal to the rate that was in effect in November 2023 plus any and all subsequent automatic annual cost index -based adjustments. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5(o)(2)(A).) At the Permittees’ discretion, the Permittees may choose to pay 340
Exhibit D, Attachment 2
VTM Conditions of Approval
Shelby Residential Project
City Council Reso. 26-___ 12
the below listed fee at any time, but no later than the time frame specified in the chart below. Payment of DIFs are due and payable prior to map recordation.
FEE RATE*
(*FY 23/24
rate plus
annual
automatic
cost index
increases
from FY
24/25 and
25/26)
ESTIMATED
FEE *
(*This is an
example and
reflects the
amount that
would be paid if
the fee was paid
in FY 25/26. The
actual amount
due and payable
will be the FY
23/24 rate plus
any and all
subsequent
automatic cost
index increases
from FY 23/24 to
the time of
payment)
TIME
DUE
AGENCY
Quimby (56 Units) $20,084
per unit
$1,124,704 Map
Recordation
City
TOTAL __ $1,124,704 __ __
By signing this document, the undersigned certifies that he has read, understood, and agrees to the Project Conditions listed in this document.
Glynne Couvillion, President for Springville 3 LP Date
341
Exhibit i to EXHIBIT D to ATTACHMENT 2
Agency Letters/ Conditions
342
Memorandum
D
ATE: 10/06/2025
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Darryl Mimick
Planning and Environmental Review
City of Goleta
Chris Olmstead, Captain
Santa Barbara County Fire Department
APN: 077530019 Permit: 25FDR-00123 Project: 05-154-VTM & 05-154-DP Site: 7400 CATHEDRAL OAKS RD GOLETA, CA 93117
Project: Shelby Residential Subdivision and Development – 64 Lots on 14.38 Net Acres with 60 Sing The above project is located within the jurisdiction of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department.
The Fire Prevention Division must be notified of any changes to the project proposal.
All standard fire department conditions and current codes shall apply at time of development.
A change in the project description may cause conditions to be imposed.
Condition: Fire Codes Resolution Action: General
All standard fire department conditions and current codes shall apply at time of development.
Condition: FPC Required Resolution Action: Prior to Building Permit issuance Fire Protection Certificates (FPCs) shall be required for each structure requiring a building permit.
Condition: Address Required Resolution Action: Prior to Building Permit issuance Recorded addressing for this project is required by the fire department.
Condition: Road Name Required Resolution Action: General A road name shall be required for this project.
Condition: Defensible Space Resolution Action: General Defensible space, vegetation management, and weed abatement shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the presently adopted Santa Barbara County Fire Code and applicable standards. • Fire Department inspection required.
• The minimum amount of defensible space is one hundred (100) feet or to the property line, whichever is nearer.
• Zone 0: is the five (5) feet immediately surrounding a structure. 343
• Zone 1: is five (5) feet from the structure to thirty feet from the structure on a horizontal plane. • Zone 2: is thirty (30) feet to one hundred feet surrounding the structure on a horizontal plane. • Zone 3 (Access Zone): is intended to protect roadways and measured ten (10) feet from both sides of the roadway on a horizontal plane.
• Refer to SBCFD Defensible Space Standard on website https://sbcfire.com/development-standards/ Condition: Defensible Space Resolution
Action: Prior to Occupancy Clearance
The project has 15 feet rear setbacks from certain residential structures to the project property line. This does not allow for the full Zone 1 defensible space 30 feet spacing. The project is located within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. While the current adjacent property use is a maintained golf course, there is nothing to ensure this will remain a golf course or will be continually maintained in a good state.
To mitigate the lack of a full 30 feet of Zone 1 clearance, the perimeter wall in the areas where the 30 feet cannot be obtained, shall be constructed of a solid noncombustible material such as a full height block wall. This will help reduce the radiant heat and ember impact.
Condition: Defensible Space Resolution Action: Prior to Occupancy Clearance Due to the location of the project being in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a maintenance agreement shall be included with the CC&Rs to establish and maintain defensible space and vegetation managements requirements with the common areas and open spaces. Additional provisions shall be in place to ensure individual property owners maintain defensible space requirements on their individual parcels. * Such agreements shall be submitted to SBCFD for review and approval.
Condition: Fire Apparatus Access Resolution Action: Prior to Vertical Construction All access ways shall be installed, made serviceable and maintained for the life of the project. • Access plans shall be approved by the fire department prior to any work being undertaken. • Access shall be as shown on preliminary grading plans dated July 31, 2025, and reviewed on October 3, 2025
• Access ways shall be unobstructed and extended to within 150 feet of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story of any building.
• A minimum of 13 feet, 6 inches of vertical clearance shall be provided and maintained for the life of the project for emergency apparatus access.
• Reference Santa Barbara County Fire Department Development Standard #1.
Condition: Fire Protection Plan (Wildland) Resolution Action: General In accordance with the California Fire Code, a fire protection plan shall be prepared to determine the acceptability of fire protection and life safety measures designed to mitigate wildfire hazards for properties under construction.
The plan shall be based on a project-specific wildfire hazard assessment that includes consideration of location, topography, aspect, and climatic and fire history. The plan shall also identify conformance with the most restrictive wildfire protection regulation, statute and local ordinance. • Refer to SBCFD Defensible Space Standard on website https://sbcfire.com/development-standards/ (The Fire Safety & Wildland Fire Protection Plan dated June 30, 2025, can be used for this.) Condition: Municipal System Resolution Action: Prior to Vertical Construction A minimum of 6 new fire hydrant(s) shall be installed. Final installation location shall be approved by the Fire Department.
• The fire department shall have on file a set of approved fire hydrant plans prior to any work being started. 344
• Fire hydrants shall be located per fire department specifications and shall flow 750 gallons per minute at a 20 psi residual pressure.
•
A water district permit and plan approval must be obtained prior to fire hydrant installation/upgrade. For application information, contact Goleta Water District, 805-964-6761. • For a municipal water system, water purveyor’s or private water system, location for fire hydrants shall be approved by the fire department.
• The system shall be tested by the fire department to ensure compliance. • A set of approved fire hydrant plans, stamped and dated by the fire department shall be kept at the job site and available upon request.
• Water systems shall be installed exactly as the approved fire hydrant plans dictate. No changes or modifications to these plans shall take place without prior Fire Department approval. • No work shall be covered or otherwise rendered inaccessible or unviewable prior to inspection by a Fire Department representative.
• Reference Santa Barbara County Fire Department Development Standard #2.
Condition: Hydrant Access and Clearance Resolution Action: Prior to Occupancy Clearance Unobstructed access to fire hydrants shall be maintained at all times. The fire department shall not be deterred or hindered from gaining immediate access to fire protection equipment or fire hydrants. • A 3-foot clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of all fire hydrants except as otherwise required or approved. Posts, fences, vehicles, growth, trash, storage and other materials or things shall not be placed or kept near fire hydrants.
• Clearance shall be maintained for the life of the project.
Condition: Fire Sprinkler New Resolution Action: General An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be installed.
• Fire sprinkler plans shall be approved by the fire department prior to installation. • A set of approved plans, stamped and dated by the fire department shall be kept at the job site and available upon request.
• Water systems shall be installed exactly as the approved plans dictate. No changes or modifications to these plans shall take place without prior fire department approval. • No work shall be covered or otherwise rendered inaccessible or unviewable prior to inspection by the fire department.
• Reference Santa Barbara County Fire Department Standard #4.
Condition: MIT Fees Resolution Action: Prior to Occupancy Clearance The applicant will be required to pay Fire Department Development Impact Mitigation Fees. In accordance with Chapter 15 of the Santa Barbara County Code, the fee shall be computed per square foot of new or additional occupied space in each building.
• Payment shall be made according to the schedule of fees in place on the date fees are paid. As of the date of this letter, fees currently are as follows:
Residential-Single Family Housing $0.59 per square foot • Final occupancy clearance inspection will not be scheduled unless fees have been paid.
As always, if you have any questions or require further information, please email [email protected] and include your permit number.
345
3 WEST CARRILLO STREET
SUITE 205
SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101
(805) 962-4611
SBCFD preferred fire hydrant
location.
346
The perimeter wall where the 30 feet separation from
the property line to the structure can not be
maintained, the perimeter wall shall be solid
noncombustible wall. This means the viewing fencing
can not be used in this area. This is due to location in the very high fire hazard severity zone.
Reviewed
10/03/2025
Santa Barbara County
Fire Department
Planning & Engineering
Chris Olmstead, Captain
347
The perimeter wall where the 30 feet separation from
the property line to the structure can not be
maintained, the perimeter wall shall be solid
noncombustible wall. This means the viewing fencing
can not be used in this area. This is due to location in the very high fire hazard severity zone.
348
GOLETA
WEST
SANITARY DISTRICT
www.goletawest.com
phone:805968-2617,fax:805562-8987
October 16, 2025
Ginger Anderson
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1020 State Street
Santa Barbara, CA 931O1
P.O. Box4,Goleta, CA 93116-0004
UCSBCampusParkingLot 32, Santa Barbara, CA93106
RE: SEWER AVAILABILITY LETTER FOR APN: 077-530-019
Project: Shelby Property, 56-home residential development To whom it may concern:
The property referenced above at 7400 Cathedra Oaks Road, Goleta, CA 93117 is served byGoleta West Sanitary District (GWSD).
Santa Barbara County sewer policy and District Ordinance No. 60 requires that any sewage generating uses constructed onthis propertybe connected to a community sewer system.
Sewer capacity of fifty six (56) additional ERU in District facilities is presently available to serve the property, and is expected to be available to serve the property if it is connected to the District sewer system pursuant to a District Sewer Service Connection Permit within one year from the date of this letter. The District makes no representation concerning sewer capacity beyond the period stated above.
In order to secure a District Sewer Service Connection Permit for the property, it will be necessary to comply with all District requirements for the issuance of a Connection Permit, including payment of all required fees.
Please confirm your acceptance of the terms and conditions outlined herein by signing the acceptance statement below.
Sincerely,
TO: GOLETA WEST SANITARY DISTRICT RE:APN 077-530-019
We hereby confirmour acceptance of theterms and conditions outlined inthis Sewer Availability Letter. es. t-Signaturef owner or their agent.
Da e O 14
th I FS
Da e )d
G:\GOLETAIDOCUMENTS\Availability Letters& Procedure\251016 7400 Cathedral Oaks Shelby Property 56-unit Availability Letter.docx 349
PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS LETTER
February 18, 2026
Springville 3, L.P.
Attn: Glynne C. Couvillion, Manager
690 Lilac Drive
Montecito, CA 93108
Re: APN: 077-530-019
Service Address: 7400 Cathedral Oaks Road
City of Goleta Case No.: 05-154-DP-DRB
Dear Mr. Couvillion:
The Goleta Water District (District) has reviewed the application for water service submitted for the above referenced project (Proposed Project) located at 7400 Cathedral Oaks Road (Property). Based on our review, we are pleased to inform you that we have determined water service may be installed for the Proposed Project, subject to the requirements of the SAFE Water Supplies Ordinance, District Code, water availability, and the conditions set forth below.
The Proposed Project must meet all of the conditions stated below prior to initiation of service. All checks are payable to Goleta Water District. Signed acceptance of this Preliminary Conditions Letter (PCL) must be received within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter to remain valid. If the acceptance is received within 30 days, this PCL is valid for one (1) year from the date set forth above, unless a written extension is requested and provided by th e District General Manager or the General Manager determines a longer period is justified.
This PCL is not a contract. It is a statement of current conditions issued in compliance with the current District rules and regulations related to the approval of an application for water service. The Proposed Project will be subject to any applicable future changes and modifications in District rules and regulations.
See Attachment A for additional details.
The remainder of this letter outlines the process for receiving a Conditional Can and Will Serve Letter, Final Can and Will Serve Letter, and initiation of water service.
To obtain a Conditional Can & Will Serve Letter:
1. Sign and return page 4 of this PCL, the ‘Applicant Acceptance of the Preliminary Conditions Letter’.
2. Provide a copy of the Land Use approval for the Proposed Project including Conditions of Approval from the City of Goleta Planning and Environmental Review Department.
3. Submit payment of the New Water Supply Charge in the amount of $2,632,794.54. See Attachment A for details.
4. Provide a Plan Check deposit in the amount of $4,000.00 along with design plans and hydraulic calculations for any required Water System Improvements, hydrant installations, main extensions, appurtenances and 4699 HOLLISTER AVENUE
GOLETA, CALIFORNIA 93110-1999
TELEPHONE: 80S.964.6761
WWW.GOLETAWATER.COM
350
Shelby Family Housing Development PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS LETTER APN:077-530-019 February 18, 2026
7400 Cathedral Oaks Road Page 2 of 10
surveyor legal description and drawing exhibits for any necessary easements in accordance with the District Standards & Specifications. See Attachment C for details.
To obtain a Final Can & Will Serve Letter, meet conditions 1 through 4 stated above, and:
5. Upon completion of plan review, provide an Engineer’s itemized cost estimate for the public Water System Improvements which are to be constructed by the Applicant’s contractor and dedicated to the District.
This information will be used by the District to determine the Surety and Inspection deposit amounts, which will be required prior to issuance of a Final Can & Will Serve Letter. See Attachments B and C for details.
6. Provide any Surety and Inspection deposit amounts determined during the Plan Check Review or Conditional Can and Will Serve Letter for the Applicant’s construction of the main extensions. See Attachments B and C for details.
7. Execute and record against the parcels being created an agreement, in a form approved by the District, apportioning the historic water service credit between the parcels being created by the proposed subdivision in such a way that each new parcel is apport ioned credit that is equal the amount estimated to be required for the development on the parcel.
8. Provide a copy of the final building permits from the City of Goleta Building Department.
9. Provide the final landscape irrigation plans including annual water demands as approved by City of Goleta Building Department.
10. Provide new addressing documentation from the County of Santa Barbara Fire Department.
11. Pay all fees and charges incurred as part of project processing including any balances due from Plan Check and Record Drawing reviews.
12. Provide required Water System Improvement deposits for District construction of the water main tie -ins to the District system, new meter placements and any other work involving existing District facilities. See Attachments B and C for details.
13. Provide required water system inspection deposits for District inspection of the new main extensions, fire hydrants, service lines and any other water system appurtenances proposed to be dedicated to the District.
See Attachments B and C for details.
14. Dedicate water system improvements constructed by the Applicant to be owned and maintained by the District for public water delivery as well as final record drawings and easements. See Attachments B and C for details.
To have water service activated, meet conditions 1 through 14 stated above, and:
15. Construct Water System Improvements and install approved lead free backflow assemblies. The location of all backflow assemblies must be approved by the District Cross Connection Specialist prior to installation. Backflow assemblies must be installed, inspected, and tested prior to any onsite work including demolition, grading, and construction. See Attachments C for details.
If the Proposed Project, related data, or other information changes during the course of the City of Goleta review or otherwise, these conditions, including the New Water Supply Charge, the number of meters, connections, service line sizes, fees, and agreements indicated may be revised. In addition, changes to the applicable rules and regulations of the District may affect the Proposed Project.
351
Shelby Family Housing Development PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS LETTER APN:077-530-019 February 18, 2026
7400 Cathedral Oaks Road Page 3 of 10
Please note that all fees, rates, and charges are subject to amendment by the District Board of Directors. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(d)(1) the 90-day period to protest the amount of any New Water Supply Charge fees assessed against the Proposed Project in this PCL has begun. If you wish to protest the amount of the New Water Supply Charges, such protest must be filed within 90 days of the issuance of this PCL as an appeal to the Board of Directors under Goleta Water District Section 8.30.010.
By signing below as the Applicant, you acknowledge that you understand and agree to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations applicable to the Proposed Project.
This letter constitutes the final determination of the General Manager. You have the right to appeal the determination of the General Manager, pursuant to Chapter 8.30 of the District Code.
Please provide a copy of this letter to the engineer, contractor, and other consultants working on the Proposed Project, and contact the District when you are prepared to begin the design of the Water System Improvements for the Proposed Project. If you have any questions regarding this matter or would like to schedule a pre-design meeting, please contact Jessica Sierens at (805) 879-4689.
Sincerely, Approved as to Legal Form,
David Matson Andrew Jared
General Manager General Counsel
Attachments: Applicant Acceptance
A – New Water Supply Charge
B – Water System Deposits and Charges
C – Water System Improvements
Enclosures
352
Shelby Family Housing Development PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS LETTER APN:077-530-019 February 18, 2026
7400 Cathedral Oaks Road Page 4 of 10
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Applicant Acceptance of the Preliminary Conditions Letter
The Applicant, Springville 3, L.P. , hereby confirms that Applicant has received a copy of and has read and understands this Preliminary Conditions Letter in its entirety, accepts the specified conditions and will abide by and carry out these conditions in good faith. The Applicant agrees to provide all related project documents to any succeeding property owner.
The person signing below on behalf of the Applicants represents and warrants that they have authority to bind the Applicant and the Property to the terms of this Preliminary Conditions Letter.
Applicant Signature:
SPRINGVILLE 3, L.P.
a California limited partnership
By:_______________________________
Glynne C. Couvillion, Manager
Date: _____________________
353
Shelby Family Housing Development PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS LETTER APN:077-530-019 February 18, 2026
7400 Cathedral Oaks Road Page 5 of 10
Attachment A New Water Supply Charge
The current New Water Supply Charge (NWSC) is $66,134 per acre foot per year (AFY) for potable water. The NWSC is based on water demand estimates using the District Code and calculation methodology at the time of the application and is subject to future adjustments by the Board of Directors.
Forecasted New Potable Water Demand
The Proposed Project involves demolition of the existing single -family residence (SFR) and accessory structures on an existing 15.8 gross acre parcel and subdivision into 59 parcels, with new development including construction of 56 SFRs on separate parcels and designation of three irrigated open space parcels. Consistent with District Code Section 5.16.040, the District has reviewed the Annual Water Demand Report for the Shelby Family Housing Development Project prepared by the Applicant’s Enginee r, Mohammad M. Quayum , dated February 9, 2026 (Report) and has determined that new potable water service demand for the Proposed Project is estimated to be
39.81 AFY.
Total Residential Water Demand: 24.64 AFY Total Landscape Irrigation Water Demand: 15.17 AFY Total Water Demand: 39.81 AFY
Following receipt of a copy of the City of Goleta Building Permit, the District will review the estimated allocations and may revise the water demand estimate if there are any changes to the Proposed Project description. Any additional development or changes of use which result in the existing water allocation on the Property being exceeded will be subject to the current prohibition on approval of new water service applications.
Credit for Existing Potable Water Use
The existing property has no e xisting non-agriculture potable water credit consistent with District Code Section
5.16.041.
New Water Supply Charge (NWSC) Calculations
The forecasted total annual potable water demand outlined above, is used to calculate the new water demand and NWSC. Pursuant to District Code Appendix A, Section 12, the NWSC for the Proposed Project is determined using the following rates:
NWSC = [Forecasted New Potable Water Demand x Unit Rate ($66,134 per AFY)] NWSC = 39.81 AFY x $66,134 per AFY = $2,632,794.54
The new water demand and associated New Water Supply Charge for the Proposed Project is $2,632,794.54.
SAFE Water Supplies Ordinance
The SAFE Water Supplies Ordinance prohibits the District from releasing over 1% of available potable water supplies annually to new or additional service connections, unless specific conditions are met. Although the District is currently authorized under SAFE to issue new allocations, the District cannot guarantee this will be the case at any given point in the future. In addition, new water connections could be limited in the future by Water Shortage Emergencies and related Agency actions under Water Code Sections 350 et seq.
354
Shelby Family Housing Development PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS LETTER APN:077-530-019 February 18, 2026
7400 Cathedral Oaks Road Page 6 of 10
Attachment B Water System Improvements Deposit and Monthly Charges
Water System Improvements Deposit
The Applicant must submit a Water System Improvements deposit for the District to perform any work summarized below and as described in Attachment C. A cost estimate for the District portion of work will be prepared upon completion of Plan Check Review. The exact deposit amount will be inclusive of the following anticipated District work:
• Two (2) new water main connections.
• Placement of water meters serving SFRs and irrigated open spaces • Existing service line abandonment or relocation (if applicable).
Pursuant to District Standards & Specifications 3.01.04 J and 4.01.10, the District will install all new meters. Pursuant to District Code sections 6.04.020 and 6.04.040, all water main tie-ins (off Cathedral Oaks Road) and water meter placements following District acceptance of dedication of the new water mains, service lines and meter boxes are to be installed by the District staff. If required, a ny new public fire hydrant installation off the active District Cathedral Oaks Road water mainline must be installed by District staff pursuant to District Code section 6.08.030.
Applicant Responsible for Full Cost of Project
The District will keep a record of the labor, materials, permitting, and other costs for the District -installed specified Water System Improvements. For those Water System Improvements to be installed by the District, the Applicant will be responsible for actual costs of installation. If the costs are less than the amount deposited, then a refund will be issued to the Applicant for the difference. If the costs are greater than the amount deposited, the Applicant will be billed for the difference between the deposit and the actual costs.
Construction Inspection Deposit and Letter of Credit
The Applicant must submit a Construction Inspection Deposit and a Surety covering Performance, Labor, Materials, and Warranty for any portion of the Water System Improvements to be constructed by the Applicant, consistent with the District Standards & Specifications. The deposit will cover District -incurred costs for inspection and administration. In order to determine the required amounts, upon completion of Plan Check review, the Applicant must:
1. Submit a construction cost estimate prepared by the Project Engineer.
2. Submit a Construction Inspection Deposit (to be determined upon completion of plan review).
3. Submit a Surety for performance, labor, materials, and one-year warranty (per District Regulations, Title IV, Section 3.03.06) for work to be performed by Applicant.
4. Use a licensed contractor to install the new water facilities.
The Surety, bond or letter of credit must be in a form approved by the District.
Monthly Charges
The monthly meter charge is the sum of all meters, even if the meter is redundant. This monthly charge is based on the size of the meter as determined during the Plan Check review and will commence upon installation of the meters.
A charge is assessed on the bill of each customer who has a backflow prevention assembly installed to protect the potable water system. This charge will be assessed per backflow assembly per month and is subject to future adjustment.
355
Shelby Family Housing Development PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS LETTER APN:077-530-019 February 18, 2026
7400 Cathedral Oaks Road Page 7 of 10
Attachment C Water System Improvements and Easements
For issuance of a Can & Will Serve Letter fr om the District, the Applicant must comply with the following Water System Improvement requirements. Applicant must submit construction drawings and easement documents for the indicated required Water System Improvements to the District for review and approval . Prior to water service activation, the Applicant must have all Water System Improvements (including backflow prevention assemblies) constructed, installed, inspected , and tested to the satisfaction of the District. With respect to all work that the Applicant is required to perform, such work, labor, and services must be performed at the sole and exclusive cost of the Applicant. Changes in the PCL by subsequent amendment may increase costs and, to the extent that such costs are increased by subsequent requirements, such additional costs will be the sole and exclusive obligation of the Applicant.
Please note: No plastic piping (PVC, C900, etc.) shall be allowed for the service connection from the main to the meter, backflow preventer, or DCDA . The District will approve all materials (Ductile iron, welded steel, or copper) to maintain the new standards. These updates will be issued in the 202 6 Standards and Specifications currently scheduled for release Spring 2026.
Applicant must provide the following Water System Improvements and easements:
Waterline Improvements
Pursuant to District Code Section 6.04.020 , service connections must be installed by District employees. Only authorized employees of the District are allowed to connect or disconnect the Applicant’s service from the District water mains. Backflow prevention assemblies must be installed by the Applicant.
Water Main Connections and Meter Related Improvements
Meter-related improvements and services must be designed and installed per District Standards & Specifications and must appear on the construction drawings for the Water System Improvements.
Where applicable, the Applicant’s licensed contractor must install the service lines and meter boxes. These service lines must be designed and installed according to the District Standards & Specifications and must appear on the construction drawings for the Water System Improvements. Traffic lids must be provided for all meter boxes subject to traffic loading. The Applicant is responsible for the installation and maintenance of the piping and plumbing connection from the downstream side (outlet) of the District meter to the subject parcel and on -site facilities. All residential and landscape water services must be independently metered or sub-metered.
Consistent with District Standards Section 3.1.04 N, new water mains must be located under paved roadways having a minimum traveled roadway width of 32 feet and must be a minimum of 7 feet from the face of the southerly or easterly curb face or edge of pavement and maintain minimum separation from all other underground utilities.
Pursuant to District Code Section 6.04.020, service connections must be installed by District employees. Only authorized employees of the District are allowed to connect or disconnect the Applicant’s service from the District water mains. Specifically, the new water main tie -ins, placement of meters , and abandonment or relocation of existing services must be constructed by the District. A service connection deposit will be determined upon completion of Plan Check.
Water System Improvements Constructed by Applicant
The required public Water System Improvements require site preparation work to be constructed by the Applicant and the District as follows:
• Applicant and their agents or contractors must obtain all necessary City, County, Caltrans or other required approvals and encroachment permits including approved Traffic Control Plans. Applicant contractor shall 356
Shelby Family Housing Development PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS LETTER APN:077-530-019 February 18, 2026
7400 Cathedral Oaks Road Page 8 of 10
perform all necessary road right of way preparation work including but not limited to potholing, trenching, bedding and any other site work necessary prior to the installation of new water facilities. • District will perform all shutdowns, tie-ins, and meter placements as well as testing and disinfection. • Applicant contractors shall perform all necessary road right of way completion and repair work including but not limited to installation of thrust blocks, trench backfill and slurry, asphalt paving, concrete curb, and gutter repair another checklist items required by the encroachment permit or its issuing agency.
District will require a deposit in an amount to be determined during plan review for its services necessary to perform inspection of all Applicant contractor work necessary to ensure proper care of the new waterline facilities. Note this is separate from any inspection required through an encroachment permit or by its issuing agency.
Fire Protection Improvements
The Applicant must submit a copy of a map of the approved fire hydrant locations, signed and stamped with Fire Department approval. District Code Section 6.08.030 requires that the District perform any work necessary to modify or alter existing fire hydrants. If applicable, any private onsite fire hydrants must be painted red in accordance with County of Santa Barbara Fire Department Standards.
Backflow Prevention Improvements
Residential and irrigation meters require reduced pressure principle backflow prevention assemblies (RPBAs) per District Standard Detail 5-01 and in accordance with District Code , and all must be shown on the submitted plans.
Fire Lines require either a RPBA or a double check or a double check detector assembly (DC) or (DCDA) backflow assembly. All meter installations, backflow prevention assemblies, and on -site piping are subject to inspection and testing by District inspectors for cross connection -control and backflow prevention. All backflow devices must be lead-free and located as close as practical to the meter . The location of all backflow assemblies must be approved by the District Cross Connection Specialist prior to installation. Backflow assemblies must be installed, inspected, and tested prior to any onsite work including demolition, grading, and construction.
Easements
All Water System Improvements to be dedicated to the District must be located within public right -of-way or easements dedicated to the District. If easements are required, the Property Owner must grant easements acceptable to the District for access to and maintenance of all Water System Improvements to be dedicated to the District. Easements must conform to the requirements as stated in the District Standards & Specifications. Easement documents must be based on the District easement template (available upon request) and must include descriptions for all necessary easements. If the required easement includes non -parallel line segments and or non -concentric curves, a metes and bounds legal description will delineate the boundary of the easement. At no time will the easement boundary be delineated by reference to lots or parcels of record maps. The Applicant’s Professional Land Surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer must submit easement documents for District review and comment. The District will notify the Applicant when the easements are acceptable for execution, notarization, and dedication.
If the Proposed Project is conditioned by the District for the installation of public Water System Improvements for which an easement private property is required and the Applicant elects to have said improvements installed by the District, a licensed land surveyor must provide construction staking along the boundary of the recorded easement.
Prior to staking, the surveyor must submit a staking plan for District approval.
Water Meter Work Order Information Spreadsheet
A Water Meter Work Order Information Spreadsheet is required (a template is available upon request). Using this spreadsheet, please list as much requested information as possible for all of the meters to be installed for the Proposed Project . Your engineer will be able to provide some of the in formation. This spreadsheet must be submitted and approved by the District prior to the District signing the construction plans. All new District meters shown on the construction plans (including fire line by-pass meters) must be included on this spreadsheet. 357
Shelby Family Housing Development PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS LETTER APN:077-530-019 February 18, 2026
7400 Cathedral Oaks Road Page 9 of 10
Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor
All engineering documents, calculations, design, and construction drawings for Water System Improvements to be dedicated to the District must be prepared by or under the direction of a civil engineer registered in the State of California (Project Engineer). Landscape architects and other professionals licensed in California can perform this work in certain District-approved circumstances, consistent with the District Standards & Specifications.
All right -of-way and easement documents , calculations, and exhibits for Water System Improvements to be dedicated to the District must be prepared by or under the direction of a land surveyor registered in the State of California and approved by the District.
All a bove documents must be prepared in accordance with the District Standards & Specifications. All such documents submitted to the District, whether preliminary or final, must be stamped and signed by the Project Engineer or land surveyor as applicable. For more information, the District Standards & Specifications may be found on the District website or provided upon request.
Pre-Design Meeting
The Applicant’s Project Engineer is encouraged to co ntact the District to schedule a pre -design meeting to ensure the engineer has a thorough understanding of these requirements and the District Standards & Specifications prior to beginning design work on the Proposed Project. Computer Aided Design (CAD) templates and examples are available for the Project E ngineer’s use upon request. The Applicant’s Project Engineer should obtain the appropriate record drawings from the District of the existing water system facilities prior to beginning design work on the Proposed Project.
Hydraulic Calculations
The Applicant’s Project Engineer must submit hydraulic calculations for all waterlines, fire hydrants, and fire lines to be dedicated to the District. The hydraulic calculations must demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed Water System Improvements. Required peak flows and fire flows must be stated. The hydraulic calculations must present selected pipe sizes, and resulting flows, fire flows, pressures, and velocities in accordance with the District Standards & Specifications. If the existing District water system is unable to meet the Proposed Project requirements, the Applicant is responsible to have the necessary improvements designed and constructed or determine an alternative method of fire protection acceptable to the Fire Department.
Plan Check and Deposit
The Applicant must submit one paper set plus one electronic PDF set of the “Water System Improvement Plans” and a Plan Check Deposit prior to the District reviewing the plans. This deposit will be used for District-incurred costs for plan check and administration. Pursuant to the District Standards & Specifications, the Applicant will either be invoiced if the actual cost to the District exceeds the amount of the Plan Check Deposit, or will be refunded any remaining balance after District costs are de ducted. The Water System Improvement Plans will go through a plan check and revisions may be required. Once the plans are acceptable to the District and all other necessary conditions are met, the District will sign the plan for construction of the public Water System Improvements.
Owner is required to perform potholing and providing exact depths and dimensions of existing utilities and drains as required by GWD Standards and Specifications (GWD S&S) Section 3.01.03.C prior to submittal of water system improvement plans for review . The exact locations, depths, and materials should be included on plan and profile views of the plans.
All active and abandoned in place storm drains, sewer lines, gas lines or electrical lines including their sizes and depths must be on the plans and their profile.
358
Shelby Family Housing Development PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS LETTER APN:077-530-019 February 18, 2026
7400 Cathedral Oaks Road Page 10 of 10
The plans should meet the requirements specified in the District Standards and Specifications. Please review and incorporate with extra attention given to Part III.
Project Engineer’s Estimate
During Plan Check review, the Applicant’s Project Engineer must submit an itemized cost estimate for the Water System Improvements that are to be dedicated to the District. This information will be used by the District to determine the surety and construction inspection deposit amounts required prior to scheduling construction.
Encroachment Permits and Traffic Control Plans
The Applicant will be responsible for providing all traffic control plans and obtaining the necessary encroachment permits and approvals from the City of Goleta, County of Santa Barbara, Caltrans, and any other agencies with jurisdiction. Plans and approv als will be required at least two weeks prior to the District scheduling work for any water system improvements.
Survey of Meter Location
The Applicant will be responsible for having a licensed surveyor mark the proposed location and final grade height for the roads, sidewalks, meter boxes, easements, hydrants, and any other required appurtenance to be dedicated, inspected or installed prior to the District scheduling construction or inspection.
Record Drawings
Following completion of construction and inspection of Water System Improvements to be dedicated to the District including any District construction necessary, Applicant must submit Record Drawings to the District for review and approval. The refund of any portion of the Water System Improvements construction and inspection deposits will not occur until after Record Drawings are approved by the District . Mylar print copies of the final District approved record drawing plans and associated CAD files are required.
Contractual Cost and Dedication of Facilities
Prior to activation of water service, the Applicant’s contractor must submit an itemized cost spreadsheet indicating actual cost of major items of work and total construction cost of Water System Improvements to be dedicated to the District. Applicant must also submit a completed Dedication of Facilities Form. The District will accept the Dedication once all facilities being dedicated have passed District inspection. Forms will be provided by the District to the Applicant and contractor following final inspection.
359
August 27, 2025
Darryl Mimick Sent Via Email: [email protected] City of Goleta
Planning and Environmental Review
130 Cremona Dr. Suite B
Goleta, CA 93117
Re: Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Suggested Conditions for Shelby Trust Residential Project, 05-154-VTM,DP
Dear Darryl Mimick:
The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (District) has reviewed the referenced project, which consists of the subdivision of a 14.38-acre parcel into 60 lots and the development of 56 single family residences, new roads, and retention basin. An existing single-family residence will be demolished. Construction is expected to take 12 to 14 months. The project will require 27,500 cubic yards (CY) of cut, 23,500 CY of fill, and 4,000 CY for export. The subject property, a 14.38-acre parcel identified in the Assessor Parcel Map Book as APN 077-530-019, is located at 7400 Cathedral Oaks Road in the City of Goleta.
The proposed project is subject to the following regulatory requirements that should be included as conditions of approval in the applicable land use permit:
1. All portable diesel-fired construction engines rated at 50 brake horsepower or greater must have either statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program (PERP) certificates or District permits prior to grading/building permit issuance. Generally, construction engines with PERP certificates are exempt from the District permit, provided they will be on-site for less than 12 months. In some situations, portable and/or temporary engines, require a District permit irrespective of PERP-registration status. See www.ourair.org/wp-content/uploads/PERPfaq.pdf for more information on the operation of PERP-registered engines at stationary sources. If a District permit is required, proof of receipt of the District permits shall be submitted by the applicant to planning staff.
2. The application of architectural coatings, such as paints, primers, and sealers that are applied to buildings or stationary structures, shall comply with District Rule 323.1, Architectural Coatings that places limits on the VOC-content of coating products.
3. Asphalt paving activities shall comply with District Rule 329, Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt Paving Materials.
360
District Suggested Conditions for Shelby Trust Residential Project, 05-154-VTM,DP August 27, 2025