Planning Commission - Special Meeting

Okay. I'd like to call the meeting to order. Can we all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance? Hey, can we get a roll call?

Commissioner Maynard?

Present.

Commissioner Peneman? Here. Commissioner Srocken?

Here.

Vice Chair Miller?

Here.

Chair Fullerton?

Here. Okay. Next, first up, actually, is the public forum. It's the time when someone from the public has the opportunity to comment on any non agenda item relevant to the jurisdiction of the city. Do we have anyone for public comment?

Thank you, madam chair. I've not received any speaker slips. If any attendees on the Zoom webinar wish to speak to public forum, please use the raised hand feature and I will call upon you. And, madam chair, I am seeing one hand raised. April Reed, you will have three minutes. Please remember to unmute yourself.

Okay. Can you hear me?

Yes. Thank you.

Great. I just wanted to bring back around the issue of Kenwood Village. As I mentioned before, council member Kariyako said that if we were able to build on Shelby, which it looks like that's going to happen, then, there's a possibility that we wouldn't need to build on Kenwood. Keep in mind, we've got, GlenAnnie and Calusa and Shelby and Kenwood. It's a lot of building in a small suburban area.

I have sent you guys pictures previously about all the flooding and issues with Kenwood Village. Somebody indicated to me recently that they were considered wetlands.

I'm not sure I'm not an expert

in that area, but I've sent you guys pictures of, three days after a rain, and it's completely flooded. I'm happy to send you those pictures again if you would like, or if you need them. My main concern is that I wanna make sure that there's enough building on Shelby. 56 doesn't really seem like a lot if you guys are willing to have build monstrosities in this area. And if you need housing in this area, it seems like 56 houses to replace Kenwood doesn't really seem like that much.

But then again, I did see in the, Independent that there was sufficient housing in to meet the requirements. So in order, as I said, not to not build on Tenwood, we need to make sure that Shelby has the proper amount of housing and that, we go through the state and make sure that the state is willing to substitute Shelby, which wasn't included originally for Kenwood. I would really appreciate all of this. Also, the building, the housing the apartments next to Kenwood are considered to be in a flooded area. Government doesn't evaluate empty lots.

I'm sure if it were evaluated, it would be considered to be a flood zone. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Madam Chair, I have one other hand raised for public forum. Okay. Cynthia Hoffman, you'll have three minutes. Please remember to unmute yourself.

Can you hear me?

Yes. Thank you. My

husband and I own the lot straight across the street from the Shelby parcel project site. Our property has been reclassified by Cal Fire as a very high risk fire zone? The Shelby parcel is also classified as a very high risk fire zone by Cal Fire. Why is the state of California and the city of Goleta allowing and encouraging residential development in an area that's already been deemed by the state to be very high risk fire zone? It makes no sense.

This project will take away the defensible space provided by the Shelby parcel for the existing neighbors to the south of Cathedral Oaks Road, like Crown Collection, and adjacent neighborhoods, the elementary school two blocks away and Dos Pueblo's High School putting lives at increased risk from fire. Building 56 new homes on the Shelby parcel in a very high risk fire zone will put those buyers' lives at risk and increases the risk of starting a fire in our neighborhood by having Excuse more people me.

So this is for public forum. This is for non agenda items. If there's any way you can stay and perhaps speak during the public comment for the project?

Oh, I thought this was the right time to raise I'm my sorry.

No, no, totally great. We just want to make sure that you can speak, but we want to make sure it's part of the public record for this agenda

So I need wait until you call A1.

Yes, exactly.

Okay, sorry.

Oh, no problem. Thank you. Okay, do we have any other public forum?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have no further public speakers for public forum.

Okay, thank you. Mr. Hof, do we have any amendments or adjustments to the agenda?

Madam Chair, we have no amendments or adjustments.

Okay. Can you read Item A1 into the record?

Yes, thank you. That is Item A1. Shelby Single Family Residential Project for 56 single family units and three open space lots with a final environmental impact report at 7,400 Cathedral Oaks Road, APN 70 seven-five thirty-nineteen, case number Five-one54VTMDPDRB.

Hey, thank you. Before we start, can we go through and see if anyone has any ex parte? Can we do a roll call?

Yeah, certainly. Beginning with Commissioner Maynard.

I have no ex parte communications.

Thank you. Commissioner Pendiman? I have none.

Thank you. Commissioner Sorokin?

I have none.

Thank you. Vice Chair Miller? I have none. Chair Fullerton?

I have none.

Thank you.

Okay, next we have a staff presentation.

Thank you, Chair Fullerton, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Darryl Mimic. I'm a supervising planner here in the current Planning Division. And tonight, you'll be looking at the Shelby Residential Project. Before I start, I just want to briefly do introductions. We do have a Citi team here with us tonight. So on my right, you obviously know Lisa Prossi, current Planning Manager. And then in the audience, we have our contract city engineer, Mike Schleck. And then remote, we have from BBK who are contract attorneys. We have Ryan Stagger as well as Hannah Park.

And then from Rincon Consultants, prepared the EIR tonight remotely, we have Maddie Majors, Chris Julian and Megan Jones. So, so this is the Shelby residential project. So, this is a subdivision for a new map as well as the development of 56 residential units. The location is 7400 Cathedral Oaks Road, roughly 14.38 net acres. You'll see on the aerial to the south is Cathedral Oaks Road.

And to the south of that road, have single family residences. To the east, you have GlenAnnie Golf Course as well as to the north in a portion of the west side of the property. You will also see the riparian corridor. This is El Ocanto Creek, which is an environmental habitat area. Then further to the west, you'll see this is the current existing multifamily development.

Tonight, the project objective summary for the project are as follows. One is to develop a 56 residential unit complex on an underutilized land located within Galita. Secondly, to provide residential development in Goleta to fulfill the housing stock envisioned in the city's adopted twenty three-two thousand and thirty one housing element. Thirdly, to 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, also known as RINA Four, to improve accessibility and encourage active transportation for bicycles and pedestrians in Glyta. And lastly, design residents to incorporate green building measures to encourage the use of energy and water efficient technology.

This evening, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission consider a recommendation to the City Council for the following. One is for the subdivision of a vesting tentative map. Secondly, a development plan for 56 residential units. Design review that is to take a look at the design that the design review board looked at on February 10 and recommend approval, excuse me, have a recommendation of approval to City Council. And then I also recommend to counsel the certification of a final EIR.

Project history. It goes back actually quite a ways, roughly to 2005. To keep it brief, I'll start 2011. So, the initial project application was deemed complete and a notice of preparation for the draft EIR was released. 2014, the city released two draft EIR's for public review and this was addressing the general plan amendment and rezone and project level impacts.

2015, the city released two revised EIR's in the project based on revised project descriptions as well as based on public comments. In 2014, the project was delayed. This is in part due to Gliedawater District water moratorium. Then in 2023, the applicant submitted a revised application under Senate Bill three thirty, reducing the residential unit count to 56 units and incorporating of those 56, 11 deed restricted affordable housing units. Twenty twenty five of last year, staff prepared a draft EIR, a revised draft, on the new project description which supersedes all the prior EIRs and reflects the updates of the project design as well as CECO guidelines in local thresholds.

This project is a builder's remedy project and does have the protections of the builder's remedy protections of the Housing Accountability Act. That's a state Housing Accountability Act. And that act prohibits the 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 law. Builders' remedy in this project shall be deemed consistent, compliant and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standards, requirements, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments or other similar provisions for all purposes and shall not be considered or treated as a non conforming lot, use or structure for any purposes. State density bonus law is also a part of this project in the applicant's middle which does provide significant incentives and benefits for the applicant if they provide a qualifying number of affordable units.

So, AB eighteen ninety three clarified that the builder's remedy and density bonus law can be used in tandem, provided that a project provides a sufficient number of projects affordable units under state density bonus law, which this project has. And for the reasons, and for these reasons, the project qualifies for the Builder's Remedy and state density bonus law. And with that, State Density Bonus Law allows incentives of which some are concessions or waivers to the zoning ordinance or general plan, which I'll get into later in the presentation. Native American consultation. Consultation started really in 2011 with the initial project.

And at that time, staff submitted a request to the Native American Heritage Commission for consultation. And in 2013, Citi contacted by mail those Native American groups that were on the list asking if they had any cultural information about the property or concerns about the project. And at that time, received no comments. Additionally, in the letter dated 07/25/2014, the city invited the local Native American community to a meeting on 08/12/2014 to discuss the project. No one from the Native American groups attended that meeting.

However, we did get comments from one group suggesting in a letter that they'd like to see that land stay vacant and to remain undeveloped. Which brings us to August 2025. Staff reached out again, although not required, pursuant to Assembly Bill 52. The city engaged in informal consultation with members on the Native American contact list and no comments were provided. Design Review Board.

February 10, the applicant went before the Design Review Board for preliminary review. The DRB made the recommendation to the Planning Commission as well as City Council in a unanimous decision to move the project forward. Overall, applicants the members liked the design and had some comments but gave a unanimous approval for recommendation of approval. Existing structures on the site. You can see here there's an existing garage.

This was a single family residence. Here's another view of residence. The current use of the property is really kind of a vacant parcel currently used for kind of wood chipping and firewood storage. Project description includes the following: the demolition of existing on-site residents, garage and barn the subdivision of existing 14.38 net acre parcel into 59 lots, three of which would be open space lots, the construction and occupancy of 56 single family dwellings, 11 of which would be designated for extremely low to above moderate affordable income levels. Also, state density bonus law, the applicant is requesting concessions and incentives or waivers to deviate from the following city standards and I want to go into these in-depth.

The first concession is an encroachment into the required 100 foot Streamside Protection Area, also known as the SPA buffer, of approximately 7,786 square feet in the rear yards of Lots 1 Through 8. Portions of the houses on Lots 1 And 2, and proportions of the sidewalk on Lot 38. To compensate for the SBA buffer encroachment, the proposed project design includes roughly 0.21 acres of additional open space provided outside of the buffer. So that's the one concession. We'll move on to the four waivers from the zoning ordinance, particularly Title 17.

The four waivers include the following. And the waivers are to the RS7 single family residential neighborhood. So as part of Builders' Remedy, this site is currently zoned as well as the land use is agricultural. But given this is a Builders' Remedy project, the applicant has the authority to request to change the zoning of the lot, which they have. They have requested this to be a single family residential zone and given that, they're requesting four waivers from that residential zone district.

Number one, they're proposing lot widths of 60 feet instead of 65 feet, which is in the zoning ordinance on lots 31 excuse me, on 31 of the 56 proposed residential lots. This occurs on lots one through nine, twenty through thirty, thirty two through 36, 39 through forty, forty seven, 58, fifty one and fifty five. The second waiver, the applicant proposed rear yard setbacks of 15 feet, which is less than the 25 feet otherwise required in the RS7 Zone District. This request is on 51 of the 56 proposed residential lots and specifically on lots one through twelve, fourteen, 17 through nineteen, twenty one through twenty nine and thirty one through 56. The third waiver reduced side yard setbacks of less than the required 6.5 feet in the RS7 Zone District on 32 of the 56 proposed residential lots.

This reduction allows for a second story to extend closer to the edge of the property and this is being proposed on lots five Through nine, twenty, 22 Through thirty, thirty one, 33 Through 37, forty, forty three and forty seven Through 56. Lastly, the last waiver. They're requesting a waiver in the maximum floor area of 35 houses, which would exceed the maximum floor area within that zoning district. These exceedances range between two zero eight to fifteen thirty nine additional square feet, depending on the lot. These floor area exceedances will occur on lots one through fourteen, twenty through 23, 25 through 29, thirty two, thirty four, 36, forty, forty one, 45, 46, 48, fifty, fifty two and fifty five.

Here you'll see the proposed best intend of map of the 59 lots and the 56 single family residences. Just for reference, the you'll see Cathedral Oaks on the left hand side of the screen. You'll see El El Canto Creek, this blue line, following my cursor. You'll see the SBA proposed encroachments with this blue line. You'll see encroachment into lots along the western edge.

Moving to the site plan. Here's the 56 residential units, internal private streets. You will see the 11 deed restricted proposed affordable residences noted as well. They occur in the first, second and third row and a little bit of the fourth. Here is the applicant's proposed landscape plan.

So, this includes street trees, shrubs and grasses. You'll see some proposed rehabilitation within the SBA buffer area. Moving on to design, the applicant is proposing five residential floor plan types. Here you'll see one story residences. And the square footage really range from between for a single story seventeen sixty five square feet to two story 3,870 square feet.

Typical roof heights for the single story homes would be seventeen'nine 20 three'ten for two story homes, which is within the limit of the building height within the zoned district. Here's some simulated views the applicant provided us. You'll see this is on Cathedral Oaks. You'll see the photo on the left, that's the existing conditions. In the photo on the right, you can see the applicant has added photo simulations of what that would look like in terms of a view along Cathedral Oaks.

Moving South of Cathedral Oaks within the Crown Collection, you'll see the existing view towards the development and then the photo simulation on the right. And with that, that starts the CEQA overview. For this, we do have Maddy Majors from Marinecon Consultants. She was one of the members who prepared the EIR.

Thank you, Mr. Mimic. Just making sure everybody can hear me okay.

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay. Will raise my voice because I saw a baby out there. So our secret overview here, the California Environmental Quality Act is the state's primary environmental protection law, which requires that public agencies disclose the environmental impacts of projects that have a physical effect on the environment. So, with that, an EIR was prepared and what is an EIR? It is an informational document that discloses information about those physical effects of the proposed project that the proposed project could have on the environment.

The EIR will also identify mitigation measures for any potentially significant impacts and describe feasible alternatives to the proposed project. And the EIR must be certified prior to project approval. With that, will move into our CEQA process. So we are nearing the end of the CEQA process here at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings where the city will make a decision on the project and if approved, the city adopts the final EIR findings and overriding considerations. There's also several steps along the way during the sequel process where the public is provided the opportunity to provide input on the project and the environmental review of that project.

Tonight is an example of one of those opportunities where the public can comment on the project. With that, I'll just give a kinda quick overview of the impacts that were identified in the environmental impact report for this project. There was one significant and unavoidable impact in the area of transportation and circulation that was specifically related to the vehicle miles traveled. There were also several potentially significant but mitigable impacts in the areas of biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, tribal cultural resources, and wildfire. And the document was circulated for a public review as is required in the process for I think it was ended up being a forty eight day public review period.

And, comments were received generally in the following environmental issue areas, biological resources, geology and soils, public services, utilities and service systems, and wildfire. All of the public comments that were received on the environmental impact report during that public review period were responded to in the responses to comments document and added to the final And with that, I will hand it back to Mr. Mimic to complete the presentation here.

Thank you, Ms. Majors. With that, staff does have a recommendation for the Planning Commission this evening. And that recommendation is to recommend to the City Council to adopt the environmental findings pursuant to CEQA to certify the Shelby Residential Project Environmental Impact Report, adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and to adopt the statement of overriding considerations. Additionally, to recommend approval to counsel the best in tandem map and the development plan for the Shelby residential project. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have any Planning Commission questions for staff, or do you want to wait for the applicant's presentation? Okay. So, now we have the opportunity for the applicant to give a presentation. Do you have something? Okay, so you have a total of fifteen minutes to speak now and rebut or clarify anything after public comment. And the time that you spend answering Planning Commission questions don't count towards those fifteen minutes.

Members, my name is Mark Lloyd from LNP Consultants representing the applicants. I, have a team with me tonight. I have my design architects, landscape architects, biologists, and attorneys and are here to help out with the presentation and answer any questions that you may have. With fifteen minutes, we're going to try to make this brief as we can and reserve some time for rebuttal if we need to do so. We have a presentation to show you also, if we could go to the next page here.

So these are the subject matters we'll be copying. Why don't you go to the next one, or covering here this evening? So here's an overview of sort of the region. Daryl showed you a aerial photo of the property itself, and you can see it above Cathedral Oaks there that opened vacant property there. This photo, I think, really shows the neighborhoods around the property.

And generally, have older Galita subdivisions that were done in the sixties and seventies. They tend to be single family homes designed when the county had the jurisdictional oversight here under the 4.6 units per acre zoning ordinance the county had in for many years. Generally, single family. You have Dos Pueblos High School over onto the lower right. And then directly to the west of the property on the other side of El Encanto Creek, you have a quadplex condominium project that is made up of multiple buildings that I believe have four units per building in them.

Next slide, please. And then we've imposed the project over the property itself, the 56 unit project. And again, what I'm pointing out here is the compatibility of the project as to design, density and layout and how it mimics, if you will, the traditional single family home design that is on this particularly the South Side Of Cathedral Oaks there. And really, I think, highlights the neighborhood compatibility. As we all know, there's been the RINA process that's went through in the up zones and re zones that the city and county has done.

And as you know, many of those projects involve multifamily projects of much higher density. We had proposed a single family project through this application process and decided to keep that as we went into an SB330. Next slide, please. So project attributes, it's 56 single family residences, again, not a high density project. And just to give you a

little bit of

background, as Daryl had pointed out in the history, this application had been before the city since, the early two thousands and, was being processed as a single family project. We ran into the moratorium in 2015, the water moratorium that delayed the project, and then, tried to revitalize the project later on. And when the city did not have its housing element adoption done, we applied for an s b three thirty project. I would point out to you, though, that we did not change any of our project design. Many of the concessions of the four concessions that Daryl outlined, they had been designed under the city's previous zoning ordinance for the most part of the 4.6 unit density per acre density.

As I'm sure you've heard the city referred to it as the old zoning ordinance, and then they brought in their newer zoning ordinance later. So this project very much complies, we feel, with the standards of the RS7 Zone District, except for the concessions we had in that. Also, our project originally did not have any affordable housing units in it. We were going to do an inclusionary fee project. We were actually also in a development agreement, a proposed development agreement, going to donate some money to the city for some fire stations and other things.

But we had no inclusionary housing or affordable housing designated. So when we went to the SB 330 project, we decided not to change any of the design that was done with the property. As is usually done in projects, the affordable housing tends to be smaller units. The finishes seem to be somewhat compromised. And the housing look and feel, in many people's opinions, don't really match what the rest of the development is.

We decided not to do that change. We just kept the project we had. So of the 20% affordability we're doing under the SB three thirty requirements, those 11 affordable units were in fact designed and continue to be market rate design units. And so these are going to be obviously priced within the four affordable ranges that are allowed under SB three thirty in the city's requirements. But there's nothing dumbing down about these units, if you will.

Secondly, they're spread throughout the community. They'll all be done at the same time. The project's, I think, big enough to be meaningful but small enough to be manageable. So all the affordable units will be built at the same time as the rest of the project. And there are also public improvements, bike and pedestrian facilities for the street frontage, and then location benefits from the project.

It is, again, a single family project that fits in an existing single family neighborhood with elementary schools, high schools, and shopping and etcetera around it. On to the next slide, please. So at this point, I want to bring in Ryan Mills of DMHA, our architectural firm. I was going to briefly just go over the architecture here so that you can look at it. And we made an hour presentation of the DRV, and it'll be just a couple minutes here tonight. Ryan?

Thank you, Mark. Madam chair, fellow commissioners, I think I have sixty seconds as my part. Ryan Mills with DMHA. So I'll keep it very high level. So, originally, the origin of the design was us looking at the area regionally, but also just early California architecture.

So we looked at transitional farm architecture, some ag architecture, and then really honed in on Galita's past of when single residential really developed in the fifties and sixties when this area boomed with aerospace and the university. So we honed in on that and ultimately towards kind of a a mid century modern inspired design, but balancing it with contemporary design just so it's a balance of new and old, something that feels fresh but fits perfectly into this community. And then some of the design features, there's there's a range of unit sizes and and color palette. But, really, the main design features was indoor outdoor living just to fully appreciate the area we live in and the parcels that these owners will have. Another key piece was the porch.

So as we looked into older communities, a design feature that seemed very special that developments tend to be losing is the front porch. So this is an opportunity to create a neighborhood, create a community, so we introduced the front porch to all these designs. And likewise, that element helps kinda create a hierarchy. So the people and the entry of the house becomes more important than the garage, which is usually the biggest element you see at the front. So the porch element protrudes forward, is more dominant.

And so as you look and move up and down the street, it really disguises and makes the garage a secondary element. Material palette, as you can see, is simple, durable, inspired by natural colors and materials, and it'll be, easy to easier to maintain for the homeowners.

Thank you. Daryl had also noted to you that there was concessions as far as square footage on the units. I think you've recited a number that was about 200 square feet increase for a number of the units up to over a thousand, I think 1,300. Some of that effect, again, when these were designed, there was no square footage criteria in effect. However, I would note that of the 56 units, 52 of them are our models one through four, and those are from the seventeen sixty five square feet up to, I believe, 2,400.

So the great majority of the development is between that 1,802,400 square feet, which is very compatible with the neighborhood housing. We have four units, which is our unit type number five that are up on the top of the hill, kind of or the top of the property, kind of dug into the back slope. They have a buried component to them. The layout of that area was commensurate with doing a bigger unit there. They're 3,800 square feet.

And those are the four that have that 1,300 square foot increased number. So again, 52 of the 56 units are quite modest. And then why don't you go to the next screen, please? Well, I would just highlight, as Ryan said, some of the backyard areas are you know, sort of a living open living space. We do with the the great room kind of design on the Lower Floor and whatnot.

But one of the things I wanted to point out is, as you can see, the units are very modulated. I'm not seeing in our presentation. We try to hone it down some of the side yard. And here's that bigger unit. So there is on the lower left is the front elevation, but you can see the garage. That's the only one with three car. On the upper right, the garage is tucked into the side, so you don't really see the garage doors on that. And then the mass of the house is set back. And then on the upper left, you see that side yard where it has an appearance of one story. A significant part of the lower floor is actually buried there.

But the architecture modulates quite a bit. And one of the things we really wanted to set forth was on the sides of the houses as you face your neighbor, instead of having walls that are two stories that are just one mass, they actually undulate back and forth quite artfully so that you don't have the presence of a large wall in front of you. Moving on. So this is from our landscape plan. As was noted, we have three open space lots.

One of them is along the frontage of Cathedral Oaks. There's another little pocket park within the development itself. But the largest one is this SBA influenced lot. And as you can see, we're proposing to landscape that, kind of create a passive open space. There's some pathways through that.

And then we have some water detention and retention facilities in there for storm drainage compliance with the Clean Water Act, etcetera. Moving on. Again, this is some of the landscape items that we have. So this project, as it was originally designed, we thought we were kind of at the forefront of water filtration issues. So we actually have created the streetscape on the left hand view.

You see that we've created a landscape chicane in where there would normally be parking so that water, as it's running along the curbs, filters through that that vegetated chicane, and then you have the cleansing effect of the vegetation in there on that water. None of this was required when we designed this back in 2011. However, as we treaded water with the project, much of this water quality provisions have caught up with us in the code, but we were actually at the forefront of that. Moving on. You can see here, I hope, the affordable units are outlined.

They've got a yellow circle around them, and they are down in the lower 60% of the property, but dispersed through it. So in this layout, one of the things I wanted to point it out about the concessions was that the lot width concession, where we're asking to go from 65 feet to 60 feet. However, to complement that, what we have done is maintain the 10% lot width of a 65 foot lot. So we would have a 6.5 foot setback on a 65 foot lot. We've employed that on the 60 foot lot.

So in essence, we're getting the same separation between buildings as if we didn't have a reduced lot width. So we have a thinner lot, and we have a thinner housing unit in it.

Just one note, one minute.

Yes. Very let's keep going through it quickly here. I knew this would be a push. Oh, okay. Well, I think we'll quit now. Is there any questions?

Okay. Thank you. So, yeah, do we have any questions for staff or the applicant? Commissioner Maynard? So I

just wanted to ask a couple of questions to make sure I'm understanding everything perfectly here. So with the concession, given current state housing law, we do not have the ability to deny the concession given the housing guidance. Is that correct?

That is correct. And we do have from BBK Ryan Stager to answer this question.

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Darrell. Commissioner Maynard, can you hear me okay?

Yes. We can hear you.

Yeah. Under under the project that's designed in these features, no. We don't think there's a a basis to deny this concession.

Okay. Two more questions that will be very similar. Given the current housing law that is applicable to this project, we currently also do not have any authority to be able to deny any of the waivers that have been proposed?

The based on the project that's designed, we don't think any of the bases under the statute to deny the waiver are present.

Okay. And then also, there's a question. One of the things about this project is it was zoned as agricultural land, and now they're proposing to put housing on it. But we cannot make a determination against this project in any way based on the fact that it was agricultural land because of the state housing laws. Is that correct?

Correct, Commissioner Maynard.

Thank you for confirming those three things. I am curious about for the VMT plan that was proposed as a part of the There's some things that are objective about it where we do we will have a plan. It will be reviewed by the director. There is some guidance about when that occurs and how that will be built into the project. But in terms of what the plan will include, we it seems very subjective.

I guess there's not a lot of guidance about what the plan must include or how we would evaluate whether the VMT plan would be adequate? And I'm curious, is there any ability for us to strengthen what's required of the VMT plan?

Yes, we can answer that question. We do have Hannah Park here from BBK.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioner Maynard, and thank you for your question. With respect to the VMT mitigation measure, it purposely sets out a menu of potential measures that the applicant and the city can agree upon later because many of these measures require either future actions or may involve other agencies or third parties that it's not possible or feasible to determine at this time of the EIR stage, and that's why it's presented as a menu of options. And so with respect to your question of whether we can revise that mitigation measure to include different revisions, Under CEQA, you know, the city acting as a lead agency for the EIR could revise the mitigation measure. But if that does happen, you know, it may trigger recirculation of the draft EIR and go back to do more further analysis of those mitigation measures. But this mitigation measure, as drafted and as included in the EIR, you know, does pose as a feasible and feasible mitigation measure that is implementable, to further reduce those VMT impacts.

However, I do wanna say as the EIR concludes, even with implementation of this VMT mitigation measure, there still are significant and unavoidable impacts with respect to VMT. And I don't know if Rincon Natti Majors has anything more to add from the technical side of that mitigation measure, but, you know, I did wanna offer that up as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Hannah, and commissioner Maynard for the question. Yeah. I don't have much to add there. I think Hannah covered it pretty well. The only thing maybe is that, you know, the additional items that would be included in the plan also could have additional ground disturbing activities that could result in further environmental impact.

I think that the laundry list of measures here or the, you know, the ultimately, the list here that we've determined is ultimately feasible as part of the plan, you know, makes the most sense for this project and is, I guess, most practicable also. So that was something that we took into consideration when, you know, we included items here. DMT is a hard one to mitigate, which is why we don't end up at that significant unavoidable conclusion. That's kind of all I have.

Ms. Park, you had mentioned about if we did change a mitigation measure that could cause recirculating. And I guess my understanding also is that we're on a clock on this one. Can you describe I think this project can only have a certain number of meetings. So if you could describe that.

Yeah. Actually, and if you don't mind, commissioner Maynard, I'll pass this off to Ryan Steger, my colleague, who is more the expert on the timelines.

Mhmm.

Yeah. Thank you, Hannah. I think, commissioner Maynard, you're you're referring to SP two thirty's five hearing rule. So so, yes, we're this is hearing number two. We had the first one at DRB. So, yeah, any sort of, recirculation, you know, you you only get five so that that those five could quickly get eaten up.

Okay. Thank you very much. And then, this project has an interesting component of thinking about where we're getting the water from and so, there is a request in to get water from the Vita Water District, But if that water is not available, there was some language in the EIR and the staff report about water wheeling. Can you describe what water wheeling is?

Where will that water come from? And how will it get to the project?

Commissioner Maynard and other planning commissioners. So, we had a conversation with Galita Water District. So, this is how we understand what they shared. So, the applicant would acquire water from somebody who had excess water not in the Galita Water District boundaries. So, somewhere around but not subject to Galita Water District, primarily because of, I believe, because of the right decision and the bait because our basin is adjudicated.

They would, the applicant would acquire that water and then they would enter into an agreement with the Water District who would transmit it through their pipes, which is called wheeling, and there's, you know, things that would happen, and then that water would be provided to the property. But, I mean, and that's how they would get water. According to the Water District, they would not be a Water District customer, so they would always have to be acquiring that water, paying whatever cost was for that water, paying the cost to Galita Water District to transmit it through their pipes. So, that's our framework of our understanding of what wheeling would entail. And, however, that is an unlikely situation because they are working with the Water District.

They have gotten their preliminary conditional water letter, which is not water service yet, but they're one step closer, a big step closer than they were even a month ago. So, and when we spoke with the Water District, it feels like forever ago, but I think it was only like two or three weeks. Yeah, they're indicating right now they've, you know, they there is water available and they just need to finish going through the process and making the application. You know, of course, it's first come, first serve. So, anyway, wheeling of water seems like it would be an unlikely situation.

And they primarily my understanding is they wanted to do this or at least consider it because they were in the process. I mean, we were very close to being before the Planning Commission in 2016, but there was the water moratorium and there was this understanding they thought they could use agricultural water, but that didn't happen. The water district was like, no, that doesn't count. So that's when the project got put on hold in 2016. And they've been wanting to develop. Anyway, they want to just have this was kind of insurance, I think.

And if waterwheeling were to occur, would that also have a transportation impact? And if so, was that also assessed as a part of the EAR when it was looking at vehicle miles traveled?

No, I do not. And I believe it wouldn't really have a water impact because they would the water would go through the pipes and not I don't believe it would be brought to the site in a truck.

Okay. I'm going pass it on to my other commissioners for questions.

I just had a quick follow-up on that.

Sorry, before

Commissioner Pendiman. So, if this water wheeling had to happen, who would be responsible for that? Like, owners of the homes would have to deal with, like, all of a sudden, there's not enough water from Goleta Water, they would have to somehow

Well, they would not be getting water from Goleta Water. They would be acquiring it from some third party. And yes, they would be responsible in perpetuity.

Okay. And then just a couple other just one other question. So if there's a question on how much water is available right now through the water district. Does that maybe this is soft topic, but kind of indicate for other projects that the water is limited and it's all first come, first served. Is that really like there's really a question on if there's enough water?

Since they lifted the water moratorium I'm sorry. Chair since the Galita Water District a year ago, two years ago, lifted the water moratorium. And they have a certain amount of water they can allocate each year based on the safe ordinance. And so each year, they determine how many acre feet they can allocate and provide to new customers, because this project, like others, would be considered a new customer. And it is first come, first serve.

And they, I believe, have well, we know they have indicated they've got water through this calendar year. And when we met with them, they were indicating that they thought that next year would they would still have water but that will be up to the Galita Water District Board to determine if they have water and how much.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Penningman.

Thank you. Yes, Builders' Remedy is a little bit new to me, I have a few questions, about a dozen, so sorry. But, it's all about the EIR, trying to get my head around that. There's a lot of material. And in the cumulative impact assessment in Section three, the related projects, the EIR says, CEQA guidelines requires that information from one of the following two sources must be included when analyzing significant cumulative impacts: one, a list of present, past and probable future projects related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency or two, a summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional or statewide plan or related planning document.

It goes on to say that the cumulative impact analysis approach in this EIR uses the first method described, the list approach. Mostly, I guess, from my understanding, what was the criteria used for choosing the list method, for the cumulative impacts? And could you give me an example of when other planning documents might be used instead? I've never seen that happen.

Thank you, commissioner. This is Maddie Majors with Ringtone Consultants, and I can step in here and address this. So the list, method has been the standard approach in the city, for this type of analysis. And we, in collaboration with them, looked at, you know, the the items that you can use. So their cumulative the city's most recent cumulative project list, but that that wasn't just it.

We also looked at the current capital improvement program projects, the Department of Transportation roadway projects occurring within Goleta, and known near right projects in the County Of Santa Barbara with potential to combine for a cumulative impact in this area. So while we use that list approach, we do, you know, kind of look at it on a holistic basis and we try and make sure that everything that could potentially impact the environment in, in combination with this project is considered. I don't have any off the top of my head where we would use a different approach, but I don't know if Megan or Chris, you can think of any.

Okay, that's good enough. Yeah, I don't think I've ever I'm just wondering what an example is of that other approach. I've only seen the list approach. But, okay, thank you for that. The footnote at the bottom of the list says, given the GlenAnnie Golf Course residential development projects, proximity to the project site, the project has been included.

But however, cumulative analysis related to the population projects are based solely on cumulative growth within Goleta. So just trying to understand what that's saying. Is it saying that the cumulative impacts resulting from GlenAnnie's Arena site, which is I think planned for 800 to 1,000 units are not factored into any of the cumulative impact assessments in this report or did I get that wrong?

That project is factored in. It's where you know where it's relevant to the environmental impact. So, for certain issue areas, it may not, you know, have a combined effect, but anywhere that it does, it is included. So, it is in our list of cumulative projects and then throughout the, EIR impact sections, you will see that project referenced several times, where it's from.

Okay. Which, cumulative sections was it not used for?

I might have to circle back with you on this one, Commissioner. So, if you can give me

Alright. Yeah. It wasn't wasn't clear to me. Alright. Thank you. Moving on to the traffic section. The majority of written comments that I saw from the public included concerns about traffic congestion. One community member, Ms. Cox, submitted comments requesting the or questioning the accuracy of the traffic study. And I admit that it doesn't seem to really reflect what we're seeing there on a daily basis.

The traffic study mentions that the data was collected in February 2024 and in November 2017. A couple of questions around that. Was the 2024 study a redo of the 2017 data or were both data sets used? And a follow on to that would be the time frame for that data collection. Was it the entire month or is it just a week out of the month or a certain time frame?

Commissioner Penman, I believe that would probably be better answered by the applicant team, because they're the ones that were in control of that. I mean, the city has reviewed it, but they were the ones in control of doing the work and the research.

Gotcha.

And do you want to respond? You like to respond?

Madam Chair, Commissioners, the data collection for the traffic study was done as a full update. I'd have to go back and look at the study to refer as to what time periods it was done and what duration it was done. It's likely a week long, traffic study period that was done, but I'd have to go back and reference the document.

Alright. Thank you. Yep. Hi.

Ginger Anderson with Bernstein. I I would add, all of our technical studies were peer reviewed by RingCon for acceptability, and we went through several rounds. So if there had been a question over the adequacy of accounts taken, I'm sure they would have brought that up as well. I believe Mark Schleich, your public works director, contract director no, not director. Sorry, I was trying to give you a raise. I think he also reviewed it. So I would assume that out of those three parties, in addition to the professional standard of care for our consultant, that we covered that base.

Okay. And so you said that the 2024 data was used only, not the 2017 data? It was a redo, you said?

Madam Chair, I believe it was an update of the 2017 data. So there was new data collected and built upon the 2017 data. More data instead of less data.

Okay. So both were used. Okay. Thank you. Okay. And then I understand that level of service is no longer a SQL concern. It's VMT, which is vehicle vehicles miles traveled is only a measure of traffic impacts then why does why do the traffic studies have level of service and congestion included at all? Is that used anywhere in the EIR or just for informational purposes?

Commissioner Penman and the Chair, I can respond to that. For CEQA purposes, it is VMT. That is the level that is the threshold and the metric that is used to determine whether or not there is an impact. And that is a response that is because of a law that was passed 2013 that it's about it's not about delay. It's about how many miles somebody travels.

So, that is for CEQA purposes, that is the standard in the metric. And as indicated in the IR, there is a class one impact for VMT based on the project. And that's not surprising given this portion of Galita. Pretty much most of Goleta has a high VMT. The only area that primarily does not is Old Town because of the density and the bus lines and the high frequency of the bus lines.

So there is a low VMT in Old Town. Now, you asked the question about LOS. Our general plan has the standards in the general plan are LOS based, about intersection. So, it's about so that, yes, the traffic study does use both VMT for CEQA and provide information about LOS for general plan consistency. Sorry about that.

Okay. Thank you. And because it's general plan consistency and this is builder's remedy, that doesn't really apply in this situation?

Yes and no. I mean, they do have in the traffic study, it does show, like, that the level of service at the adjacent intersections will remain at level of service C, which is the city standard. So, yes. I mean it's consistent based on the traffic study let's

see in section 4.11.4 transportation and circulation cumulative impacts, in this one there was no mention of GlenAnnie residential development project, which is the adjacent property and, I understand considered reasonably foreseeable. What is the reason that this was included from those cumulative impacts? I guess that'd be for the Rincon consultants.

Commissioner, can you point me to the section that you are referencing again, please?

Four point eleven point four.

So four point eleven point four, that would be the transportation and circulation section, which is relying on that traffic study, particularly related to BMT. So we're relying on what is captured in there and the VMT for that did, or sorry, the traffic study did consider both the city wide and the county VMT threshold because it's on a regional basis. So, that should capture the cumulative effect of the area, which is how we base that analysis.

Okay, so, it didn't, but it didn't include the future projects, just current cumulative?

Yeah, with the VMT, I think it's because of how those averages are set that is, you know, the the, metric we can use, that provides us with, you know, a reasonable evaluation of that impact.

Okay. So would you say that because GlenAnnie Residential Development is not, developed that it wasn't included?

I'm not sure I can say that for certain. I would say because, the VMT is, you know, based on location and against the regional average, it's gonna that it's kind of more on a case by case basis there.

So I see.

I don't know if

any others wanna chime in here. But

Commissioner, if I can put a, you know, add to what, miss Maddie Majors has just opined on here. And it kinda goes back to your earlier questions about how the city analyzes cumulative impacts for all these resource topics in the EIR. How do we determine which set of related projects we look at for each and why was GlenAnnie or, you know, other related projects not included in some cumulative impacts analysis and not others? And that really comes down to the resource topic that is being analyzed. For example, whether it's air quality, you know, generally, we take a broader look at the region wide basin, the air quality basin to look at the cumulative impacts of that, whereas something as noise, we may look at a tighter frame around the project site and its surrounding area because noise wouldn't travel as far for some of the other related projects.

And so that's why, each cumulative impact analysis for each resource topic in the has a different lens by which the city is looking at those impacts. So with respect to VMT, the city has discretion in determining, you know, how we look at the cumulative impacts of VMT. And I believe, this VMT cumulative impact looked at the related projects within the city since we are looking at, you know, at the increase in VMT within the city, whereas the GlenAnnie Golf Course is outside the city limits. And so I believe that is how that was determined in analyzing the cumulative impacts of VMT.

Thank you. Last one, I think, on traffic is reading the traffic study table five trip distribution percentages. This is in the traffic study. It's projecting that a majority of the four seventy seven daily trips from this development project will pass by the high school and through GlenAnnie Corridor. Is that fair assessment of that traffic report?

Madam chair, commissioner, yes. I believe that is an accurate assessment of that. I think we all understand that most traffic pattern dispersals will go to the East because that's where the jobs and the activity is.

Okay.

So it's something to the West.

Thank you. I'm fairly new at reading those traffic studies, so I appreciate that. All right. One question on parking that wasn't clear to me. Policy I guess, city policy TE nine three nine Dot three says adequate parking shall be provided to minimize the need for parking and public rights away and to avoid spillover into, of parking into adjacent uses and other areas.

The parking allocations, I guess, had burnt 100% clear when I first read it, but now it looks like there's two driveways parking spots and two garage parking spots for each unit. Would this development also accommodate on street parking or visitor parking?

Madam Chair, Commissioners, yes. So the design of the project has a two car garage, and then, the street design is done in such a manner where there is parking on both sides of the street. So, as I said earlier, we do have some infiltration chicanes that would be taking up some of that parking. I believe there are 11 of them. But yes, the streets are designed for a 40 foot curb to curb width, which accounts for travel lanes and parking both sides.

Great. Thank you.

Okay.

Alright. One more two more sections. Sorry. Alright. Views. So for our, city policy vh1.four, views of the surrounding foothills and mountains will continue to be available to the public was found as consistent public comments and photos from Lawrence Hunt showed significant impact to their private views Does the general so, a question for, I guess, our staff does the general plan also protect private views in addition to public? And even if so, does that even matter with Builders' Remedy?

Commissioner Penman and commissioners, we do have I think we mentioned in the staff report, we do have a general plan policy that talks about private views, and it just said they are to be considered in development. But it doesn't say they are protected. And we recognize that there will be a change, as we said in the staff report.

And even if we were considering it, because of builders' remedy, I think it would be moot?

I think that's a good assumption

okay okay that is correct commissioner

all right thank you thank you last one on oh yeah one more on views In that policy, says the following development practices shall be used where appropriate. Practice c says step stepping of buildings so that the heights of the building elements are lower near the streets and increase with distance from the public viewing area. I guess my question around that is, I couldn't really tell if it was if there are two story buildings, but it looked like there are two story buildings in the first row. Is that true? And is that because stepping is not required, or we wouldn't have required that anyways?

I do believe there are several single story homes. And, I mean, the site, it's interesting that and Mr. Lloyd will comment. Cathedral Oaks got put in. And so it split the property, and it got graded up. If you notice in the staff report, I did indicate I think there's something like 150 feet between the property lines from the homes on the north side to the homes on the south side. And those homes will back up. So even if to the property line, there will be a rear yard, and then we'll start the homes. And I'm guessing that Mr. Light has more to add to that.

Within our presentation, we have some additional slides that show the views from Cathedral Oaks across the property, if you'd be interested in seeing them.

No. I took I've taken a look, but, I was just wondering if that, like, stepping comes into play. But it sounds like that the property's already kind of stepped back from the from the street.

And we do have stepping amongst one story to two story elements along the frontage there. And again, I have slides that

Are there any two stories on the front row?

There are.

There are. Okay. Thank you. All right. Last couple of questions.

Biological resources cumulative impacts, I guess this one's to city council, maybe or, other council. Section three or 4.3.4 biological resources cumulative impacts assumes that cumulative developments will have any other cumulative developments in the area will have their own impact reports and mitigation and so are not considered as cumulative impacts for this project. My question is with that GlenAnnie Rina site again. Is that arena site because it's kind of state mandated does that necessarily mean that there will be CEQUA and an EIR for development on that property as well

Commissioner Pendemand and commissioners, the GlenAnnie site is in the county of Santa Barbara, so not in Galitas jurisdiction. And that housing that site has been rezoned for housing, which means that it gets a ministerial processing through the county. So it's not subject to further CEQA analysis. However, if you want to know what the impacts are of adding that housing site, the county Santa Barbara County did do an MND to their housing element. So the analysis of what the impact of those units are in the county environmental document.

Okay. So, does that make this section inaccurate then saying that other projects would be required to have this assessment and mitigation? And should there be an exception in this saying that would be the exception?

I think that what that means is that each project is subject to its own sequel, its own environmental analysis, and likely that project will, you know, rely upon the environmental analysis that was done in the Santa Barbara housing element.

So that MND would suffice for that?

Yes. It was either an MND or an EIR. I can't remember.

Madam Chair, it was an EIR that was done by the county for their housing element.

Okay, great. Thank you. And last one, I promise. It's also mentioned that no cumulative development projects are located along El Encanto Creek, But isn't that GlenAnnie residential development along that creek, too?

Sorry, Commissioner Penman and council members. Yes. Yes, it is. Mean, I think what and I'm having a hard time tonight. Ms. Was mentioning I think some of it is that it already has had some CEQA review done. So we're looking at new CEQA, I believe.

Okay. Yeah, that just says, furthermore, no cumulative development projects are located along El Encanto Creek, which just kind of struck me as maybe inaccurate. That's all the questions I have. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Sarotkin?

Thank you. My question is kind of a follow-up from what commissioner Fenneman was saying. But I one question because I confess. I didn't read the traffic study. And but when the numbers are determined, and I'm not sure who should be answering this question.

I'm assuming it's the project team. Is it averaged out over a day or a week, the number of trips? You know, and when you come up with a number of how, you know, the what is it, VMI you said? VMT. Is that an average of traffic across the day or is there any consideration of, you know, certain times of the day?

And the reason I asked the question is I recently had the debatable pleasure of picking someone up from the high school at 03:30. People are laughing, I know. I have that it was an obstacle course. First of all, just trying to get across and and to the high school took me about fifteen, twenty minutes because cars are coming out of the parking lot. Cars are going into the parking lot to pick up people.

And then they're backed up from the light at Stork. Stork's a whole other issue because that's a single lane in each direction. It's a nightmare. And then in all of that, there's the electric bikes, you know, kind of weaving in and out. And then people on Cathedral Oaks are trying to blend, move forward while the people are coming out of the driveways at the high school.

And the reason I'm describing this nightmare is that anyone who moves into that development is gonna have to deal with it. And you have two driveways for 56 houses into two curb cuts, into Cathedral Oaks. And that to me is gonna be an even bigger nightmare. One with a traffic light would be advisable. And I'm curious as to why the there are two, you know, exits, entries to this little development when it's already too many different layers and directions trying to blend in at a certain time of day.

And, you know, you say that, you know, you've built in accessibility and active traffic management because we know the traffic is the major impact. How I don't understand how now we're gonna add people crossing the street, which is, you know, it's so why two driveways? And can that be made into one with some kind of traffic control mechanism?

Hi, Commissioner Saratkin through the chair. There was a lot of different things you just talked about. There was I like it. That's how my brain is. The traffic to get through the lights, you're talking about level of service. And so level of service in the analysis says that the level of service in those intersections is level c or greater, so consistent with the general plan. In terms of the number of exit points to Cathedral Oaks, the city did a big study. Actually, it's a fire department. They really prefer to have two entry points. And you did do a big study and identified that projects with one entry were less palatable than those with two for a number of reasons.

So that's by design. And in terms of how long it takes, that's a level of service thing. So yeah, those and VMT is really the length of the trips, not the impact of the intersection itself.

It does not need to be two exits onto the same road because as I look at that traffic pattern, there are ways across so that anybody who's on this side of the property can cut across and go this way rather than having to go too straight down. EMTs and fire, as long as they can get around in a circle, they're Okay. So don't I'm just curious because I can see this becoming a real nightmare more than it is already.

Yeah. I think what you're talking about is a feasibility issue. There is no access for this property to cut across. Think maybe over to GlenAnnie is what you're thinking.

It looks like there is in the map. Didn't I see Internally. Yeah, internally. So that if one, they go in the one driveway, then they can go this way or they can go that way.

Yes. There are two crossroad connections. Actually, three, I believe.

Right.

And, yes, that you can go from one Cathedral Oaks entry. You can go across and access both of them. And then the fire department requirements are that you have to have more than one access if you have more than 25 units.

That's interesting because there is a property. And I guess maybe this is the solution. When by the university, there's ocean I forget what the you know, it's at the end of Cannon Green is the entrance in. That's there's only one entrance into this great big winds around. There is one that has posts in it. Only the fire company can remove those posts. And then that is a second one. But they it prevents the traffic going out both ways.

Yeah. That's down off of Phelps Road.

Yeah.

Yeah. And that was before the circulation element changed in the county in 1986 because there were supposed to be other roads there and another half with developed. And just one more answer to your question. In the traffic study, it also has average daily trips, peak hour trips, AM and PM trips, although the analysis is VMTs. It still has that information. And the total car contribution from the project, as noted, the IR is 84 cars and 1.5 cars per residence. So pretty small as to the 1,600 car per hour design that the road has.

Mark Schleidt, contract, public works official. With the regard you were asking about signals. First off, these are private roads entering a public street. And, typically, we do not put signals or do do not desire to put signals with that combination. Also, when we set speed limits, place stop signs, or signals, there are criteria or warrant

So the owners of the 56 unit lots own their lot and fee. There is a homeowners association, but it's generally for maintenance purposes

Okay.

And not a lot of facilities like you'd see in a big condo project.

Okay. You might want to stay up there. I've got some other questions, and you don't need to these lots that these homes are on, they're reduced lot sizes. That's part of what you're doing there. You said you had skinnier homes and skinnier lot sizes.

So you've got that element of it, the smaller lot sizes. And then you've got what I think the architect referred to as porches, which I, when looking at the design map, pictures, whatever, what I would call those are decks. To me, they're decks. They're not porches. I don't know.

Maybe it's apples to oranges. I don't know. But in any event, they're just wide open decks. And is there a mechanism in place, first of all, to have those decks be used as their intended purpose as to sit out there maybe with a patio chair, a little table, I don't know, maybe some potted plants, and visit with your neighbors. I mean, read through, and that's the type of ambiance you're looking to create is a community and talk to your neighbors and sit down on the decks and the porches or whatever and visit.

So is there any mechanism in place to keep those decks to be used with appropriate furniture on it, a picnic table, whatever, a wicker chair, instead of having people store things out there, like their surfboards and their bicycles and their wet suits and toys that we all like to use in California with our great weather being so near the ocean. So is there a mechanism in place to keep those decks used as their intended purpose?

So the front patios that the architect was referring to are covered. They have a roof element over them and side posts and whatnot. So a patio to me is an open concrete or hard surface area. So these are decks that are covered and therefore have shading to them, have some protection from weather, both sun, rain, whatever. So they have a use facility to them that is greater than a patio.

So I think that that design itself encourages there to be occupation and use. As far as the prescription of any particular furniture or amenities on the front patio, no, we're not dictating that to any of the homeowners. As far as covenants and restrictions that could be introduced into the homeowners association, I suppose that we could say and will likely have covenants that say that you can't have RV parking on your front driveway, as an example. That's a pretty common one. And you can't hang wash from your front fence and things like that.

I'm sure in the association there'll be some restrictions as to the storage of amenities in the front patio areas. But again, our design there, we think, is encouraging that occupation. And I wouldn't think we would, even in the HOA, dictate what kind of furniture you may have out there.

Okay. That's fair. And then another question sort of following up on the parking. You said that there were each unit has two garages, a space for two cars. Is that correct?

A garage, two car parking, yes.

Garage, two car parking. Does each home also have a driveway for two cars?

The driveways are a depth that would be two cars wide and deep, yes.

So every home has that?

Yes, you could park on your driveway. Yes, two cars.

Yes, so you can park in your driveway. There is no mechanism that again, the same type of thing that a garage has to be used for its intended purpose of storing your car, or can people also choose to turn their garages into something else, like a gym or a storage area? Is there a mechanism for that?

Well, again, the homeowners association restrictions would be the vehicle to have that kind of enforcement, which as you say it, that is moving towards like a condominium project. Not that that's a bad thing.

Right.

So

right now, in the design stage that you're at, is not contemplated. These things are not contemplated that I just discussed with you. You're just saying that perhaps once they do develop the HOA and the CCNRs that they may or may not enter those considerations in there. Is that correct? We do

not have a draft set of CCNRs yet, no.

Okay. Getting back to the open spaces, you said would be common areas. Is that true? Or they would be who would own those open spaces?

So the lots that contain the open space would be dedicated to the homeowners association. And they would have the maintenance responsibilities for that.

Okay. Is there any contemplation about what those open spaces might be used for? I see that you've got a path going through, one of them a walking path. Is there any consideration of other

sort of

recreational amenities, some place where you can throw a ball, where you can play basketball, anything like that type of thing that the neighborhood can use for recreation of some sort?

Well, the purpose of the open space, as shown on our landscape plan and, as you noted, has unsurfaced walking paths and, as I described earlier, a passive use element to it. So there are no sports courts, no basketball courts, no, let's just say, grass areas that would encourage a large football game to occur. That is not proposed there, and I think that is indicative of its proximity to the El Encanto Riparian Corridor and the SBA elements of habitat protection. So we purposely left that area particularly as a low intensity passive use area. The smaller, open space lot that we have within the project has got seating on it and lawns and, you know, could engage in play activities and whatnot or people walking dogs or whatever, I'm sure they'll walk them also along the SBA buffer, too.

But it is a passive use area by design.

Okay. So the open space that's in the interior there, I think it's like up by some of the bigger homes, if I'm not mistaken? We could

bring up the map. Is opposite the open space lot, but adjacent to a number of the housing lots. So it's about in the center of the project.

Okay. How big is that?

I think it's about 6,000 square feet, if I recall. So it's not large.

Right.

Okay. So the families that might move into the neighborhood, So if they wanted to shoot baskets or throw a football or whatever, they probably will have to go to the neighborhood park to do that. Is Yes. That

You have the what is that green belt that's to the west? Evergreen? Yeah, there's a large green belt area there. As we all know, there's the high school nearby, Brandon Elementary School, the El Rancho campus, which is, I think, something else now. Yeah, so there's a lot of recreational activities around the neighborhood.

Okay. And then, again, getting

back And to the project pays quimby fees.

Pardon me?

And the project pays quimby fees at the Galita rate.

Okay. And then, so folks, the family members that may want to go play ball and walk over to the green belt and take their friends with them, So are they going to have sidewalks to walk along and then hopefully have a crosswalk to get across the street safely to get over to that?

Yes. Part of our public improvements in the Cathedral Oaks right of way is a class two trail, 12 feet wide, which is both for walking and riding. We are proposing that that trail be extended beyond our property to the west to get over to the street that's to the west of us. That street has fully improved walks and curb and gutter and crosswalks.

Okay. So you're talking about the existing crosswalks that are already there?

That we are extending new sidewalk to get to those crosswalks.

Okay.

So there'll be a full array of public walk improvements now in the neighborhood.

Okay.

This is the last if you would like, this is the last segment, if you will, to connect to that.

Okay. Give me one second while I see if there's anything else in there. Oh, perhaps you could explain to let's say everybody was out on their deck patio at the same time, or it was a beautiful day outside and everybody wants to be outside. And families can be noisy, depending upon who they are and how many family members are there and whether they have guests visiting. But with this being again, these decks being quite open, I understand they're covered, but they're very open.

Open. There's no privacy fence surrounding them. So was there consideration given to how and since these again, the lots are smaller, was there consideration given so that people don't feel like they're on top of each other? You've got, again, the ambiance of people visiting and talking to their neighbors. But what if they don't want to talk?

How does the design give people a sense of privacy as well? Will there be a feeling of being on top of one another?

So the first comment I would make to your questions are is the lots, as far as the lot sizes, are not smaller. They're thinner, but they are over 7,000 square feet, RS7 Zone District. So the lots are not smaller. They are a single family, standard sized lot. Configuration is a little different. Secondly, and I'd be happy to bring up the architectural rendering so that we could see these front porch areas, but they are, as I said, covered. They have post and other wall elements to them. They're open. But I think that they give you a sense of privacy. Oh, we got these up.

I think you have to go the other way. Yeah, any of the architectural rendering. So for instance, it'll stop somewhere. All right, let's take this. Okay, there, freeze.

So if you look at the center perspective, you can see the covered porch that is to the right of the garage. You can see that that is entirely covered by a 2nd Floor element. You can see that on the right hand side is a solid wall. And then in the front elevation, probably 30% of that opening is walled. And so it's a two sided exposure there.

I think that is, I think it is a great balance between being opened and yet being enclosed to give you a sense of privacy on one hand, a little bit of seclusion, a little bit of observation. We like to people watch, all of us. And yet, it still has an openness to it that allows air circulation, allows you to interact with your neighbor if you choose to do so. So I think that is far from being an open blind and open to the weather patio deck. If you go another slide, let's go to the back of the house.

Let's say you're sick of your neighbors and the noisy kids and their guests. You know, you can go around the back. And as we said, we have also open porch areas and areas that are also roofed, also walled off on some sides to give you a sense of privacy. There is an open floor plan that allows you to pull back large French and pocket doors so that you get a combined, as we love in California, Southern California, a combined indooroutdoor combination space that has maximum utility and use and privacy in your backyard. So we believe these units actually give you the best of both worlds.

Me just see if there's anything else. I think that's it. Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Maynard?

I have just a few follow-up questions. I guess one for you first. We talked a little bit about the bike and ped facilities. You just mentioned a Class two bike path, but in the staff report, it said a class one

bike path.

Excuse me. It is class one.

Okay. And the class one bike path goes on Cathedral Oaks for your full frontage to where you describe that goes to Northgate Drive is the extent of it? Yes. And then you've got the pedestrian facilities sort of through the open space area. Are there any other bike or pedestrian improvements as a part of the project?

Well, are sidewalks on both sides of the street. And again, we introduced some brick pavers in the parking areas to give a little bit of architectural thematic and cache to break up paving and whatnot.

Those are my only questions for you. You can have a seat. I have two other So questions for it was described that to do the VMT analysis, there was an assumption that would be 1.5 cars per home. But there's also a two car garage, and this is a family home. So I'd imagine maybe two adults and a couple of kids, and maybe some of those kids are driving age. Is 1.5 cars for a full single family home a normal average?

Sorry, if I may, Commissioner Maynard, through the chair. Mark misspoke on that. The 1.5 per is actually a part of our wildfire evacuation plan. And so in event of an evacuation, you would expect 1.5 cars leaving. So depending on what time it was, maybe not all the cars. So that is not what we based our VMT analysis or LOS on. No, I was

What was the LOS and the VMT based on?

Oh, those would be numbers in the MUTCD. Or not, sorry, not the MUTCD, the ITE manual. Those are prescribed in the manual.

And just for folks who don't know the manual as well, does anybody know how many cars per house that is in that manual?

There we go. Thank you.

So the ITE manual, which I think we're up to the eleventh edition of, generally assumes that a single family resident has one peak hour trip. Okay? So that's one trip during the peak hour. It may be a little less if it's condos or townhouses. But generally speaking, that's it. And these are based on studies that the Institute of Traffic Engineers, ITE, have taken from all across The United States.

Thank you. That's very helpful. My last question is for staff. For the statement of overriding considerations, there are five arguments that are made. Is it true that if we let's say we only agree with one of the five arguments, we can still potentially make the statement of overriding consideration. So a support of the statement of overriding consideration doesn't necessarily imply support of all five arguments. It just means that you support at least one of the arguments. Is that correct?

I see that Ms. Park is back on, and I think she will be answering that question.

Okay. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you for your question. So statement of overriding considerations under CEQA requires the decision makers to balance, the project's benefits with its significant impacts. Whether there are one or whether there are five, CEQA requires that the decision makers just have rely on one, overriding benefit. Here, staff has presented five different ones. And so even if you disagree with some of the listed overriding benefits, you know, each benefit serves as its own separate and independent basis in which to approve the project despite its Class I impact. Does that answer your question?

Yes, it does. Thank you very much. And that's the last

of my questions before public comment. Okay. I just have a couple questions just to clarify for staff. There was a question earlier about if the garages could be converted into something else. The houses would still even though this is builders' remedy, the homes, once they're sold, would still be subject to the Galita zoning

requirements, right? That is correct.

So yeah, they would still have to conform to whatever rules are in place. Okay. And then I have a question about and maybe this is for the applicant. With the reduction in the buffer to the creek, is the property level? Is it on a slope? Can you describe where the creek is compared to the homes?

Yeah. Perhaps bringing up the map as an exhibit would benefit this dialogue. So on the lower, let's say, percent of the property, it's relatively level. It's 2% or 3%. Generally, they open space there up to, let's say, to the fourth or fifth home going up that creek side. And then, it starts rising in elevations, probably eight or 9% gradient. So it's a little more slope in

You mean the homes are higher than the

So the ground is sloping a little steeper. So actually to create a flatter pad in that area, have one foot 18 inches little walls between the lots. So as you step up, So relative to your question about how flat is the site and along the creek corridor there. So the buffer that we have there today, as was indicated in staff's presentation, that we're encroaching into that now. In 2016, we weren't encroaching.

Things grow. And we haven't changed any of the design of that. So the willows that are along the creek have grown out a bit, about 10 feet impacting the back of the first two lots. And then it continues to impact to maybe a two or three foot encroachment along the backyards of the houses the next two or three homes.

Okay. Was there any I think it said in the report that there's no flood warning or flood concern there. Is there any possibility that the homeowners would have to have flood insurance because they're close to the creek?

Well, flood insurance isn't a requirement in California, but these homeowners could get that. They'd be in what we call Zone X, which there is the most minimal flood hazard. We're actually elevated above the creek. Although El Encanto has a lot of vegetation growth to it, it doesn't drain a large drainage area. And so it doesn't get a lot of water in it. It's dry most of the year.

Okay. Thanks. That's my only question. I think we have public comment. But I guess my question is, should we take like a five minute break?

I think that's a good idea. And one thing I just wanted to say is, as we go on to a break, I know we have a lot of students in the room, and we've been throwing around a lot of acronyms and a lot of terms and jargon. If you are curious about any of these terms, come find us during the break and ask us a question. We'd be happy to give you a little bit more background. I think a break is a great idea.

Okay.

Yeah, let's take a seven minute break till 08:00. Okay. Thank you.

Buffer around the El Creek. It is in Esha. It is in SPA. The concession should not be allowed as there is more than enough space on this property to incorporate the full buffer. El Encanto Creek is already identified as an impaired creek downstream. There's no reason to further impair it from the upstream development. Additional waivers have been requested to reduce lot widths, yard setbacks, and side yard setbacks, setting more land available for buffer. I see where they're talking. It is so close to the edge of some of the houses there. But it's an important functioning wildlife corridor as well.

I'm down by Lake Los Caneros and often walk up that area. I see bobcats, coyotes, that kind of thing. And they do use the creek to avoid oh.

You're Okay. One minute.

One minute. And the EIR states that traffic transportation impacts, which we've talked a lot about tonight, and public safety, mostly related to fire hazard, can be mitigated to less than significant. But most of us living here already recognize the existing unavoidable impacts that cannot be mitigated on Cathedral Oaks, the GlenAnnie Intersection, during rush hours, school scheduled or unscheduled hours, and especially during times of high fire hazard evacuations. We've been through these several times. Mostly, we also recognize that there's potential for other future development in this high fire hazard area.

I don't think I need to say anything more about the existing unavoidable mitigation factors. And this comment may be less related to the approval for the adequacy of the EIR, but still an important question. There are four units that are being classified as extremely low income. One unit for

low

income. Do I continue? Yeah. We really need housing for our working community, not for people buying second homes. I recognize that this is what it's for. But a working family making under $40,000 and they have two parents and two kids, are they gonna be able to afford a house like this even if it is deed restricted? Thank you.

Thank you.

You. Speaking next April Reed followed by Dustin Hoyseth. April, you will have three minutes. Thank you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, thank you.

Okay, great. Yeah, I wanted

to

focus on Shelby. I will be the first to acknowledge that this is not an ideal situation building in suburbia, these these kinds of houses. But I will reluctantly say that these houses are the best of a bad situation, so I would recommend that you approve them. Regarding being in a fire zone, if you look at Cathedral Oaks, it is much more accessible to, buses, to emergency vehicles than other areas, like, example. That's just one example, which is a much narrower road.

So building on Cathedral Oaks would be much better in general than trying to build on other roads that are narrower. And that that's just my opinion, and I think that's the opinion of a lot of the people who are experienced in this area.

In terms

of animals, the previous speaker talked about wildlife corridors and all the animals that go back and forth. This would have a wildlife corridor for all of the animals, and, hopefully, most of them will be able to make it back and forth across the road into the hills as opposed to other places in El Encanto that don't have wildlife corridors. So I think we should consider the animals, not just coyotes, wolves, bears, but littler animals, you know, skunks and possums that I can go on and on, which are all over the place here in El Encanto. Like I said, it's not the ideal place, but it is the best place that we have in El Encanto to build. I would oppose any type of monstrosities, but these houses seem to be a little bit more reasonable than some of the other places.

I would also encourage you to consider more than 56 houses. We have to put a certain number of houses in Gallia whether we like it or not according to the state and the county. And I think we should consider Shelby as one of those places so we don't have to build on as many properties.

And I would recommend that we

go with the state and make sure that we get a from the state if

we need it. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Thank you. Speaking next, Dustin Hoyseth followed by Jim Terzian. And, Dustin, you'll have three minutes. Please remember to unmute yourself.

Hello, commissioners. My name is Dustin Hoyseth. I'm the director of economic development with the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce, which represents business interests from Goleta to Carpinteria. I'm proud tonight to offer the chamber support for the for the Shelby single family residential project tonight. Lack of available housing supply continues to be a top challenge for local employers, their workforce, and for our regional economy.

The Shelby project will add 56 much needed homes to a region of Galita that is close to jobs, schools, parks, and public transit. Additionally, these units are a perfect fit to meet the workforce housing needs of our local technology and manufacturing companies that our community is so proud of, many of whom are struggling with recruitment and retention difficulties directly tied to the lack of housing supply. These units will easily serve these employees and their families. Not to mention the 20% of deed restricted affordable units that will serve low income residents and which are inclusively incorporated into the project as a whole, designed and incorporated just as the market rate units are. We believe that this project's density and home size are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and is a welcome addition to this area.

The site is essentially entirely surrounded by residential zoning given the county's plans for GlenAnnie. This project also aligns with the state's goal of focusing on focusing on and encouraging urban infill development. The project also addresses concerns regarding transportation impacts and fire safety head on by by including sidewalk and bike lane improvements, as well as utilizing fire resistant materials, defensible space, undergrounded utilities, and firewall breaks incorporated into the design. This project has been in planning for nearly two decades with the chamber's backing since the beginning, including during various zoning hearings during the county's housing or during the city's housing element process. Further delays of this project do not serve the community's desperate need for more housing options.

Please approve this thoughtfully designed, appropriately scaled, and legally compliant project that delivers the much needed workforce housing our community needs. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And madam chair, I have two more public speakers. Speaking next, Jim Terzian followed by Cynthia Hoffman. And Jim, you'll have three minutes.

Thank you very much. Commissioners, I'm Jim Terzian. Can you hear

me? Yes, thank you. Hi, Jim. Are you there? I'm going to pause your time.

Hi, Jim. We could hear you briefly, but we can't hear you anymore. If you're still online, please continue with your public comment. Madam chair, I'm bringing him back now. It seems he lost his ability to speak, so just getting Jim back on.

Is this better?

Yeah. Hi.

Thanks. There's something about our system that seems to be muting me even when I'm speaking. I apologize. I am a member of the board of the Crown Collection, but I'm speaking tonight as my own voice because we haven't discussed in the board some of these details. There's two issues that really we hope, or I hope you will be attending to in looking at a proposal that we think is really quite good for the neighborhood, but has a few problems.

Those two problems include or specifically that El Encanto Creek passes into the property of the development and out into the open a bit, so that members of the community either those living in these houses as proposed or others who are entering on the streets can enter the environmentally sensitive space and create a problem. There needs to be a protection for that section of the creek that comes too close and the setbacks that are being asked for inside the 100 foot limit are a real problem. I would ask that you change that so that either a small portion of the westernmost element in the southwestern most element is donated to the city so that it may be used for the environment sensitive space, or that it is protected in another way that cannot be altered. Secondly, and of great concern to everybody in the community is our is the fire danger. There is no question that Cathedral Oaks will have to be expanded to two lanes each way with a center line.

And there just isn't enough room left if we use only 15 foot setbacks on these houses. In fact, it may need even more. And so this property may need to reassess what it takes to provide two lanes each direction on Cathedral Oaks. The problem as anybody knows who's driven on 101 at rush hour points and seeing the people trying to exit for on to GlenAnnie and Stork, that line of cars backs up sometimes well past Los Carneros. What will happen in emergency when people from these developments have to get out?

We need that extra room so that the city and the county and the state can fund development of roadways that are safe and so that insurance companies will ensure the houses that you're purporting to build as well as the ones that already exist here. If extra space isn't given along the Cathedral Oaks boundary of the development, this will not be possible and we will all suffer. I ask that you support this development, but only after making these corrections. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, and

our last speaker is Cynthia Hoffman. Cynthia, please remember to unmute yourself and you'll have three minutes.

Yes. Can you hear me?

Yes. Thank you.

My husband and I own the lot across the street from the Shelby Parcel project site. Our property has been reclassified by CAL FIRE as a very high risk fire zone just recently. The Shelby Parcel is also classified as a very high risk fire zone. Why is the state of California and the city of Goleta allowing and encouraging residential development in an area that's already been deemed by the state to be a very high risk fire zone that is prone to Santa Ana winds. It makes no sense.

This project will take away the defensible space provided by the agricultural zoning of the Shelby parcel for the existing neighbors to the south of Cathedral Oaks Road like Crown Collection and adjacent neighborhoods, the elementary school two blocks away, and Dos Pobos High School, putting lives at risk from fire. Building 56 new homes on the Shelby parcel in a very high risk fire zone will put those buyers' lives at risk. Will these new homeowners even be able to obtain fire insurance? And I'm telling you, I'm worried about losing my fire insurance now. Adding 56 more homes will increase the risk of existing homeowners in the area not being able to evacuate in the event of a wild land fire.

Adding 56 more homes will put a strain on state and local natural resources and manpower to protect more people and more property on this very high risk fire zone parcel and use more taxpayer money? Is there enough water for fighting fires? It didn't even seem like there was enough water for the project. So is there going to be water for fighting fires? When will the next drought be?

And what will they do then about the water? Since it seems like this project may be allowed to proceed because of Builders' Remedy, just want to know, what does Builders' Remedy do to protect homeowners against fire? Is it right to be offering citizens that can only afford low income housing housing in a very high risk fire zone? Is that right? Compatibility was mentioned by one of the presenters.

This is off the fire thing. It was mentioned that this project would be single family homes like the surrounding area. I beg to differ. There are no homes on the North Side Of Cathedral Oaks Road from El Encanto Creek to San Pedro Creek, with the exception of maybe one farmhouse. Allowing the Shelby parcel to be rezoned to residential use sets a precedence to develop everything else on the South Side Of Cathedral Oaks Road.

Excuse me, Ms. Hoffman, you are out of time. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other?

Madam Chair, I have no further public speakers.

Okay. I believe that the applicant did use up the full time, but do we

There's one minute and ten seconds remaining on Perfect. The

Do you have any rebuttal or anything you want to respond to the public comments?

Me one moment to reset the timer, if you don't mind. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just note into some of the public comments, particularly the last one, the entire South Coast is a very high fire hazard area. All properties are within that. It's something that we just need to deal with regionally. As far as the widening of Cathedral Oaks, our map is dedicating a 20 foot wide dedication for additional right of way of Cathedral Oaks for its future widening into a full 104 foot arterial roadway, which is the widest roadway that you have per your standards in Goleta.

And then in addition to that, we have a 20 foot remaining buffer and then 15 foot setbacks to our home. So after the improvements are made, if they are made, there'd still be 35 feet separation. So in regards to mister Tershon's comments, I'm not sure what the comments were about El Encanto Creek. It doesn't pass through our property. It's next door. And I see I'm out of time.

Okay. Thank you. Does staff have anything they want to clarify based on the public comments? No? Okay. Then do we have any final questions from the Planning Commission before we close the public portion. Commissioner Paiman?

All right. Thanks, everyone, for the presentation and the information and allowing us to ask questions. I do think that this is the type of housing project that we want in Goleta and that we're looking for. My only concern is with the content of the EIR. And it looks like the majority of public comments had traffic concerns that were addressed as non VMT related and thus not applicable to the sequel process, but I think they're trying to tell us something.

Heard it from other people who spoke tonight. Over 50% of this project's projected trip distribution is allocated to the GlenAnnie Stork Corridor, which is impacted not only by regional commercial visitors, but also a thriving regional high school, having students coming in from multiple jurisdictions. On top of those circulation pressures, there's also

Excuse me one second.

So are you

I want to make sure we close the public

Oh, I'm sorry. Testimony we get into the Yeah, no. This is my deliberation.

I'm sorry. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. My bad.

Okay. So yeah, so we don't have any questions. Any additional questions? Okay. Then we're going to close the public testimony portion of the hearing and now go to deliberations. Sorry

for jumping out of order there. Yes, so like I was saying, it's just we've got many circulation pressures and there's also that reasonably foreseeable GlenAnnie residential development that's going to bring 800 to 1,000 more units to that GlenAnnie corridor, which is on three or four sides of this project, not to the fault of this project at all. In the EIR, I would have expected to at least seen mention of this about school peak day hour traffic backups. I think one speaker mentioned, you know, it's backing up all the way into the slow lane on Highway 101 at the GlenAnnie northbound off ramp during these peak hours and backs up east on Cathedral Oaks halfway across Bishop Branch and to the west, it's backing up past Alameda, past the high school and backed up all the way through the GlenAnnie Cathedral Oak stoplight. The fire department's first responder assessment for Shelby's development makes no mention of this peak hour congestion, whereas typical for both east and west lanes on Cathedral Oaks and the center lane to be fully utilized by commuter traffic.

So, it kind of leads me to wonder like was there safety protection plan based on up to date data? My main concern here is less about circulation and VMT and primarily focused on public safety, getting students to and from school safely and for the safety of all residents in El Encanto area, including at the proposed development site. There's an existing city deficiency that should at least be mentioned in this as the project will be adding to it and affected by that deficiency as well the GlenAnnie residential development. This EIR gives no mention of these realities, which are witnessed by myself and other community members as my opinion that the circulation deficiencies and foreseeable cumulative impacts create specific and adverse impacts upon public safety. In addition to the public safety concerns, I don't understand how the projected population of GlenAnnie residential development can be excluded from the cumulative impacts on traffic.

And for these reasons, I consider the EIR to be deficient and uncertifiable in my opinion. Lastly, I'd recommend to the city council members considering to consider adopting a focus planning effort in the El Encanto Heights circulation and safety impacts due to regional shopping, regional high school and the state's RINA allocation impacts. It's my opinion that without this type of proactive plan and by our Station ten, new projects in the El Encanto Heights are not safe to approve. Thank you.

Do we have any other comments? I guess I can give my comments. Okay. A bunch of comments. First, in terms of having two entrances, I think that's a really good thing coming from someone who lives in a neighborhood with only one access point in the high fire danger area. It's very scary. And honestly, I think about that a lot, that we have one way of getting out. So I think having two ways of getting out is really good. And I guess it's what the fire department wants anyway. So I do support that.

In terms of the buffer, the creek buffer, it's not ideal. Know that we have no grounds to deny. But just personally, also, I live across from a creek. And when we had that rain a few weeks ago, 17 inches of rain, I was very concerned that that water was going to come over into my house. And I live about that distance from the creek.

So just in terms of having homes that close to the creek is risky, but I guess people will take their they will make that decision whether they want to buy a home right next to the creek or not. But again, I don't think there's any grounds for us to deny this project based on all the state regulations. I think the density is consistent with the area, and I think the project itself is really nice. I think the architecture is really nice, and I think it looks the houses themselves, I think it's a really nice project. And I do appreciate that the affordable housing is the same as the other housing.

I do see that a lot, that affordable housing is not quite as nice, not as or smaller. So I think that's a nice feature to have. In terms of the traffic in BMT, I know it's more, I also looking just thinking about my neighborhood, which has more than 50 homes. I go in and out during the day. It's not a huge amount of cars and traffic.

And I think that that, I mean, I'm not arguing that area right there is a nightmare. And it's not going to help that. But I don't think it's fair to penalize this project when there's an overall issue with the traffic. And we have to be honest, it's going be a lot worse if the golf course is developed. I mean, I'm not quite sure what's going to happen there.

But I don't think it's fair to hold this project responsible for that whole area. And in terms of just one more note, I think this shows all the concessions. It just shows how important our housing element is for some people sometimes that think, why do we have a housing element? It's because of this so that other projects, we wouldn't have to maybe make some of these compromises. But overall, I do support this project. And yeah, think overall there's a lot more positives than negatives. Commissioner Maynard?

This is a project where Builders' Remedy has tied our hands. We cannot take a stance against switching this from agricultural to residential zoning. We must make the concession on the stream side protection area, something that we have fought very hard to put into place for the city of Galita. And it breaks my heart to see that concession. And yet, based on the housing law, we must grant that concession.

There are a number of waivers here that do make this inconsistent with the neighborhood. And again, we must approve those based on Builders' Remedy and current housing law. So there are not a lot of options for us on this particular project. The EIR identified one impact that is significant and unavoidable that is focused on VMT and not on level of service. Level of service is something that we think is very important within the city of Galita that is built into our general plan.

But when it comes to the EIR, we have moved away from, in the state of California, a focus on level of service or congestion along our highways to a focus on vehicle miles traveled. And with that, there's a different consideration in looking at that review. In looking at the statement of overriding considerations, there are five arguments that have been made. I do want to state significant concerns with four and five within the list. Four is to improve accessibility and encourage active transportation to bicycles and pedestrians in Galita.

I think this project has done some minimal efforts around bicycle and pedestrian improvements. I don't consider what they've done in that area to be significant enough to argue for a statement of overriding considerations. I also number five is design residences to incorporate green building measures to encourage the use of energy and water efficient technology. Though possibly at the beginning of the design of this project, this project may have been going above and beyond at this stage. The project primarily follows existing guidelines and standards with some, again, minor sustainability advancements.

That said, as I clarified with staff earlier, we only need to agree with one of the five statements under the statement of overriding considerations. We do not need to agree with all five. I do think when narrowed down to only considering vehicle miles traveled, I do think that the additional housing and especially the availability of extreme low income, lower income, and moderate income housing opportunities do make the argument for a statement of overriding considerations on the VMT within that. I mostly want to state my specific concerns around that for future projects. I hope that some of these arguments aren't used again in future projects.

So I want to state my disagreement with them, even though at the end of the day I can make one of the five statement of overriding consideration comments. The traffic report and analysis that we've been presented today by staff and by the EAR does say that the level of service would not surpass C, which is consistent with our general plan. Though I am concerned that some of the standards within our transportation planning are underestimating the impacts at these areas, as we've heard from our community, from the folks that have lived experience in this neighborhood. That said, I don't believe that we've been given legal grounds to deny the project based on level of service. And so unfortunately, I don't think that's enough to deny the project today.

There is going to be a lot of additional development in the neighborhood around future projects. But we need to take each project as it comes in. We don't know exactly what any future project is going to look like, which one's going to come first, how many exactly are coming. And so we need to decide each project based on what has been approved and planned in our area. And so with that, I do think that this project meets the requirements that they needed to today.

Thank you. Do we have any other comments? No other comments? Okay. Well, we have to close the public hearing first. And now, we can see if there's any motions.

Yeah, I would like to make a motion. First, I would like to also just say that I concur with what both, Commissioner Maynard and Commissioner Peneman said. I think they both said very eloquently what this project is. And it's got many, many good attributes. It's not perfect, but it's got some good attributes.

And I think that we're really happy to have some additional housing, and hopefully workforce housing for our city. So I would like to make a motion. I just have a question. We actually have three resolutions. Do I make a motion for all three or do we do one at a time?

Yeah, I would recommend one at a time.

Okay. I

would like to make a motion for the first resolution to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Number 26, next in line, entitled a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Goleta recommending that the City Council, number one, adopt environmental findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Number two, certify the Shelby Residential Project final environmental impact report, paren SCH, number 2012081019. Number three, adopt the mitigation monitoring and reporting program. And number four, adopt a statement of overriding considerations. And number five, approve the project.

Do we have a second?

Thank you, Commissioners. Please do remember to lock in your votes, please. All right. Roll call beginning with Commissioner Maynard, please.

Aye.

Thank you. Commissioner Pendeman? No. Commissioner Siroczakin?

Aye. Vice Chair Miller? Aye. And Chair Fullerton?

Aye. Okay, motion passes. Do we have a motion on the second recommendation?

I can make a motion again. Adopt Planning Commission Resolution Numbers 26, next in line, entitled a resolution Commission of the City of Goleta, California recommending approval of the vesting tentative map to create 56 residential lots and three open space lots for the Shelby residential project located at 7400 Cathedral Oaks Road, APN 70 Seven-five Thirty-nineteen, case number Five-one54VTM.

Do we have a second?

I'll Okay.

Can we get a roll call vote?

Yes. And, once again, please do remember to lock in your votes. Once again, beginning with Commissioner Maynard.

Aye.

Thank you. Commissioner Pettiman? No. Commissioner Sorokin?

Aye. Vice Chair Miller? Aye. And Chair Fullerton?

Aye. Okay. And do we have a motion for the third recommendation? I can make a motion. Okay.

I motion to adopt the Planning Commission Resolution Number 26 entitled a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Goleta, California recommending approval of the development plan for 56 residential lots and three open space lots and associated improvements for the Shelby residential project located at 7400 Cathedral Oaks Road, APN 70 Seven-five Thirty-nineteen, case number Five-one54DPDRB.

Do we

have a second? I'll second. Okay. Can we get a roll call vote?

Okay. Thank you. And, once again, please do lock in your votes, beginning with Commissioner Maynard.

Aye. Commissioner Peneman? No. Commissioner Siroczakin?

Aye. Vice Chair Miller?

Aye.

And Chair Fullerton?

Aye. Okay. Motion passes. Second. Okay. So, next on the agenda is Planning Director's Comments.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good evening commissioners. I don't have a report this evening. Our next meeting will be on the March 9, so we will see you back then. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Do we have any planning commission comments? Nope. Can we get a motion

for adjournment? Motion to adjourn.

Second. Second. Roll call vote.

Commissioner Pendeman? Yes. Commissioner Maynard?

Aye.

Commissioner Sproken?

Aye. Vice Chair Miller? Aye. And Chair Fullerton?

Aye. Thank you. Okay. Meeting adjourned.