Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Through all my school days, I hated boys. Those April Fool days brought me loveless joys. I read my Plato, love I'd thought a sin. But since your kiss, I'm reading Mrs. Glenn. I took one look at you That's all I meant to do And then my heart stood still

Good evening. Welcome to the City of Goleta Planning Commission meeting for August 10th. Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Could we get a roll call of the Planning Commission, please?

Commissioner Fullerton?

Here.

Commissioner Maynard?

Here.

Commissioner Penniman? Here. Vice Chair Sorotkin? Here. And Chair Miller?

Here. Next is the public forum. This is the time the public shall have the opportunity to comment on any non-agendized item relevant to the jurisdiction of the city. Do we have any public comments for the public forum?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. I do have two speaker slips. Those of you on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak to a non-agenda item, please use the raised hand icon. Our first speaker is Mary Nishimoto.

Mary, you'll have three minutes.

Thank you. Hello, Commissioners. I object to the recent ministerial action by the Planning and Development Department that allowed Goodland Guns, owned by Ashton Enterprises LLC, to move into 7443 Hollister Avenue. I live between this location and the Elwood Mesa open space with my family in the home that we have owned for 16 years. I personally know parents whose children attend Here We Grow Early Learning Center. the infant daycare and preschool that is next door to where Goodland Guns is now located. A ministerial decision equated the firearms retail business, which is an unlisted type of business in the city zoning codes, with general retail, thus giving Goodland Guns right of use in my neighborhood's community commercial zone. Consequently, this is causing the community harm. The general plan explicitly dictates that the city's actions must, quote, provide for a compatible and holistic mix of land uses to protect and enhance the health, safety, and welfare of Goleta's residents, workers, and visitors while preserving the unique character of the community. The city issued a categorically distinct special firearms business license on June 4, more than two months ago. There was no public notice requirement, and there is no avenue for public appeal. Less than two weeks ago, through word of mouth, my neighborhood learned about the type of business moving into this location. There appears to be an abuse of discretion by the planning department to knowingly permit a gun store to move next door to an operating preschool without considering the impact that the presence of a gun store might have on this adjacent, highly sensitive location. Decision making in the planning department has contributed to the preschool losing income as anxiety heightens about safety and parents choose to leave the program. It is likely that the landlord's financial prospects with the property, if vacated, will be affected by the gun store's presence. The addition of a gun store into the neighborhood increases the likelihood of more crime and property value declining in that area. Goodland Guns, yet to open for business, already is a legal public nuisance because its operation has caused a substantial and unreasonable interference with the preschool's business on their leased property. And it endangers the safety, welfare, and comfort of the staff and children in the preschool, Elwood Elementary School, and community in the surrounding residential area. Is litigation necessary? If finding no administrative remedy, a writ of mandate can be filed by an affected party against the city administration in Superior Court by September 2, 90 days from the license issuance. Can litigation be avoided? Commissioners, please have conversations with city management. Encourage them to use their authority to review the rightfulness of a ministerial zoning clearance for Goodland guns. Persuade the Goleta City Council to exercise its power to pass immediate emergency ordinances given that an apparent administrative loophole is causing real community harm. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Gerald Carlson Means.

Hi, good evening. I recently sent this letter to the city council, and I thought I would just read it here tonight so that you have an idea of what my thoughts are. I'm a Goleta resident, and I'm asking the council to examine the city's zoning of policies following the relocation of Goodland Guns to the former 7-Eleven property on Hollister. I want to be clear that my concern is not whether people have a right to own firearms or whether a lawful gun store has a right to operate in our community. The question is whether this is an appropriate location for one. This property is embedded in a residential neighborhood immediately adjacent to a preschool that was already in development near an elementary school and already alongside a multi-use path that children and families use to walk and bicycle to school. I'm particularly concerned about the preschool. Our community is already facing a well-documented shortage of affordable, high-quality child care and early education options. And we should be doing everything we can to support, not to unintentionally undermine the viability of this new preschool and daycare providers. Its success depends on families choosing to enroll their young children there. I do not know the owners of the preschool, nor do I have preschool-age children myself, but I am concerned about the broader availability and stability of child care options in our community. There are also legitimate land use differences between a dedicated firearm retailer and ordinary neighborhood retail. The extensive fencing, gates, and security infrastructure at this location reflect that. In fact, in 2021, Goodland Guns was the victim of burglary in which federal authorities reported that firearms were stolen after forced entry into the building. I do not mention that to criticize the business. They were a victim of a crime. I mention it because it illustrates why firearm retailers have unique security needs and why location matters. Goleta's zoning code already recognizes this principle for other regulated uses. For example, storefront cannabis retailers are generally prohibited within 600 feet of K-12 schools and are also subject to separation requirements for residentially zoned properties. While the code does not include a daycare buffer, it clearly shows that the city already considers proximity and neighborhood compatibility when regulating retail use. A lawful business can still be poorly situated in a particular location. If this type of commercial use would be considered incompatible with a residential neighborhood elsewhere in Santa Barbara County, residents of this neighborhood should reasonably expect the same consideration. I respectfully request you to examine a potential gap in our zoning code and consider recreating or creating a distinct firearm retailer classification with reasonable separation standards from schools, child care facilities, and residential neighborhoods. Thank you.

I have no more speakers for public forum, Chair.

Thank you very much. We now go to amendments or adjustments to the agenda. Do we have any amendments or adjustments?

Madam Chair, we do not.

OK.

We'll go to item A1 of the agenda. Would you please read it into the record?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. That's item A1, Review and Approval of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2026.

Okay. Do we have any discussion?

Questions?

Comments. Okay. Any public comments for this, please?

I have no speaker slips, Chair. For those of you on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak to this item, please use the raised hand icon and I will call on you. I'm seeing no public comment for this item, Chair.

Thank you. Can we get a motion to approve the minutes, please?

I'll make the motion to approve the minutes.

I'll second.

Okay, can we get a roll call vote, please?

Yes, thank you, Chair. Commissioners, please lock in your votes. Commissioner Fullerton?

Yes.

Commissioner Maynard?

Yes.

Commissioner Penniman? Yes.

Vice Chair Sirotkin?

Yes.

And Chair Miller?

Yes. Now we go to item B1, the public hearing. Would you please read that into the record?

Yes, Chair. That's item B1, continued review of a new community assembly facility campus for Anthem Chapel with adjustments, parking lot improvements to Christ Lutheran Church campus with adjustments and adoption of a statutory CEQA exemption for disapproval of a project at the property located at 6595 Covington Way.

Okay, thank you. This is a continued hearing from June 22nd to 26th on the Anthem Church case, which involves the review of whether Anthem Chapel should be granted city permits to build a chapel and other improvements at 6596 Covington Way. Do we have a staff presentation?

Commissioner Mitt.

Miller? Oh, yes. Excuse me. Commissioner Pennington, do you have anything you'd like to say, please?

Yeah, yeah. I am recusing myself from the public hearing on Anthem Church tonight out of the abundance of caution and to avoid potential appearance of bias in the decision. I will not participate in this item tonight. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Pennington. We'll give them a minute to step away. OK. Do we have any ex parte communications on this matter to report? Seeing none, we will now go to the staff presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Commissioners. Good evening. So we are here at the request of the Planning Commission from June 22nd for a review of project denial for the Anthem Chapel. Very briefly, we covered a lot of this project context and site history at the June 22nd hearing, so I won't go into too much detail here. But the site is on a 3.4-acre site that was now subdivided as of last hearing. A portion of the site is for the existing Christ Lutheran Church, and the rest was proposed for the Anthem project, which is before you tonight for denial findings. County originally approved the Christ Lutheran Church campus in around 1965. And then Anthem started sharing the site with CLC in 2020 and moved outside during the pandemic and then has since moved to Goleta Valley Junior High for their church services. And then in 2024, applied with the city planning department for a permanent facility. As a reminder, general plan and zoning for this site is RS8, residential single family. And the proposed Anthem portion of the project was to construct a new community assembly use of approximately 20,000 square feet, which would include a 500-seat sanctuary, 110-child preschool slash daycare with 36 employees and associated parking, landscaping, fencing, and lighting to support that use. The Christ Lutheran campus, there was no proposed changes to the existing buildings on the site. The proposal included some additional landscaping near the parking lot and requested modifications based on current code requirements in relationship to pre-existing campus development over the last 60 years. And briefly, so this is the site plan that's proposed. So the upper left corner is the existing Christ Lutheran Church site. And then upper right corner is where the Anthem Chapel Church is proposed, along with the proposed parking on the bottom there. so on june 22nd planning commission approved like i said approved the parcel map to subdivide the property that's map 32072 and then requested that staff return with denial findings for the anthem portion which was on lot two of that map Grounds for denial based on Planning Commission's stated views included the buildings were too large in size and scale. The education building was too tall. Neighborhood compatibility concerns arose from public safety, traffic, and insufficient parking causing congestion on Los Canaros and the potential for parking in the surrounding neighborhoods on the street. And then there was some concern about the proposed 100-foot ESHA buffer proposed to be reduced to 50 feet with the original proposal. Since that hearing on June 22, the applicant has provided some additional information related to parking and traffic. So one provided a parking and traffic demand plan. The plan proposes to have parking monitors on site at all Sunday services to direct incoming and outgoing traffic, guide vehicles to open spaces, and maintain orderly ingress and egress at Los Caneros entrances and exits. The plan proposes to use a ride matching app to promote coordinated carpooling and alternative transportation methods. The church would provide regular guidance in weekly bulletins and the church congregation app notifications directing all attendees to use the onsite lot. The plan proposes a minimum overlap in services of 45 minutes, so staggering the services throughout the day. The plan proposes a phone line and or email address that would be published to the public to report parking and traffic concerns with a commitment to respond within 48 hours. The plan would also provide on-site directional signage to be installed to encourage on-site parking. And then as a performance measure, the plan proposes a one-year post-occupancy review, ongoing monitoring, and in the event of ongoing parking spillover, the use of off-site parking agreements and other measures as outlined in the report. The applicant also provided some additional traffic counts that included some counts on a weekend, a Sunday. So this portion of Los Canarios Road near the project site is designed to accommodate about 14,300 trips per day, or ADT. That's about 4,400 weekday trips occur on this segment of Los Canarios, and about 2,500 occur on Sundays. The average daily traffic volumes on Los Canarios Road measured in this period were 43 percent lower on Sundays compared to weekdays, and the peak hour volumes on Sundays were 35 to 49 percent lower than the weekday volumes. And then existing volumes plus project average daily trips volumes forecast for the segment of Los Caneros near the site would remain well below the city's acceptable capacity of 14,300 average daily trips on weekdays and Sundays. Additionally, the existing plus project ADT forecast for Sundays are about 37% lower than existing plus project on the weekdays. In terms of driveway turning movements and operations, the project driveway on Los Caneros Road and the Los Caneros Road-Caireal intersection would operate in the LOS A and B range with existing plus project traffic volumes on both weekdays and Sundays, which is consistent with city standards. So a summary of the attachment to the staff report. Attachments to the staff report. Attachment one is the requested denial resolution reflecting the reasons provided by the planning commission with a new notice of exemption to reflect the denial. Attachment two of the staff report is the new information that was provided by the applicant. And then attachment three is an approval resolution for the conditional use permit amendment and DP amendment for the Christ Lutheran Church property, which is lot one. That would reflect the parcel map that was approved on June 22nd. So they can continue to operate on that site. And so this is just the denial recommendation for Planning Commission's consideration. That concludes staff's presentation. I'm here for any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to wait for questions for the staff until after the applicant does their presentation. So you will have a total of 15 minutes to give a presentation and rebut or clarify anything after the public comment. Please reserve time for the latter if you intend to respond to the public comment. The Planning Commission may have questions for you, but your time answering the questions does not count towards your 15 minutes. So go ahead.

Great. Thank you. Good evening, Chair Miller and members of the Commission. I'm Steve Welton with Steps Land Use Consulting, representing the applicants, Anthem Chapel, Goleta. With me tonight are Anthem's lead pastor, Nate Wagner, our project manager and church elder, Mike Reiter, our traffic engineer, Scott Schell, our project architect, Michael Holliday, and our legal counsel, Olivia Marr. So at our last meeting together, you were unable to come to a majority vote for approval of the CUP. And several of you lamented the fact that the city has no standards for weekend traffic. And some of you expressed concerns that the related parking and traffic could lead to neighborhood conflict. So in the intervening weeks, we've thought a lot about that. And tonight, we have some additional information, which Brian's already stole my thunder a little bit, but we'll go into a little more detail. Next slide, please. So first, AT has completed a weekend traffic study, which we'll have Scott here talking about. And we prepared a parking and traffic management plan, including measures to help minimize impacts and reduce parking demand. And we're offering this as a condition of approval. We've also developed to clear a picture of operations informed in part by that management plan. And finally, I think this is key. We're offering an additional condition of approval, a return to the planning director within a year of operations commencing to verify that parking and traffic are operating as we expect. Next slide, please. Thank you. I just wanted to briefly review some of the project statistics with you. On the slide here, a few things to note. Proposed lot coverage is 12% of the lot area. As a reference, the neighboring residences average about 25% to 30% lot coverage. The total floor area of the project is about 20,000 square feet, which was reduced about 2,000 or 10% during the design process. And it's worth noting that Anthem's lot alone could support another 13 to 14 residences under existing zoning density. And judging by the adjacent neighborhood, where almost every house contains at least a second story component, a total for these single family residences could easily exceed 50,000 square feet or over twice the massing proposed. And that doesn't count ADUs or other state laws that incentivize multifamily housing. Importantly, at least half of the proposed project supports educational or community support areas such as the daycare and the preschool. You just heard someone speak at the very beginning of this hearing about the need for preschools in that case. Finally, as noted previously, Anthems intentionally provided more parking than the zoning card requires. We could have designed 101 space parking lot for this project and perhaps pulled a building closer to the street. And that probably would have saved them a lot of money. But the church leadership wanted to be responsive to the comments they got from their original outreach to the neighborhood. So let's get into some of the traffic and circulation details. What happens in the neighborhood on a Sunday morning? That was your implicit question that you had from last meeting, and that's certainly fair to ask. However, your municipal code, as noted, doesn't specifically regulate weekend traffic. And one of the major reasons is that weekends don't have that same kind of peak hour impacts from people coming to and leaving work. And related to that, traffic is generally known to be lighter on weekends overall than on weekdays. Still, over the last few weeks, we were able to obtain actual traffic counts on Los Carneros. And with that data, ATE has conducted an additional analysis. And so I'm going to turn it over to Scott just to go over the next few slides.

We meet again. Scott Shell with Associated Transportation Engineers. And thank you, Mr. Highfield. I think you must have worked for a traffic engineering firm once or twice in your life. You did a great job. So I'm not going to try and repeat everything you said. So if we could just go to the next slide, please. So, as we heard from Mr. Welton, the city really doesn't have a standard for weekend analysis. When you see projects come before you, they focus on the weekday and really the AM and PM peak hour periods. Just as a point of reference, your traffic mitigation fees that you charge developers for are based on the PM peak hour traffic, just to give you a framework. But Anthem told us we need to go answer your questions and go do some weekend counts, do some comparisons to weekday operations. Next slide, please. Brian just showed all this, but the basic findings were that the Sunday traffic overall was about 43% lower on a daily basis, and the peak hour traffic ranged from 35% to almost 50% lower. That's the morning periods and the afternoon periods. And as we heard from Mr. Highfield, the volumes that are forecast when we add the project traffic in are well underneath the acceptable capacity on Los Canarios Road. It was like 4,600 and 2,900 compared to 14,300. Next slide, please. We also heard that we did an intersection operational analysis at both the Los Caneros and Cairo intersection as well as the project driveways And they all operate either level of service a or B which meets the city's standard of LOSC or better Basically, it sort of shows us that the flows of the driveways aren't going to impede traffic on Los Caneros Road either on weekdays or weekends That was a key finding. So just to summarize, we don't have standards for weekends, but we still did the analysis. We've got about 43% less traffic on Sundays than compared to weekdays. The roadways intersections will all meet the city's level service C standard, actually level service A and B. And the flows at the driveways won't impede traffic on Los Canarios Road. And I'll turn it back to Mr. Welton. He's going to go through the traffic and parking management plan.

Thank you, Scott. So as mentioned, we prepared a traffic and parking management plan to provide that to your staff. They just went through it a bit. These types of plans are pretty common for schools and other institutions. And this one's focused on the Sunday traffic and parking. The plan includes several components summarized on the screen. First, as mentioned, trained personnel directing arrivals and helping clear snags. As discussed in the last meeting, multiple services will be staggered. And as mentioned, we'll have at least 45 minutes between those services. Promoting ride sharing, that would happen both at the services and through the newsletter. There are phone apps that are tailored to ride sharing for churches. And as an example, many attendees go to UCSB or City College, and those are often driving alone. They can be matched up. The plan includes also a dedicated email and phone number of the website so that people with concerns can reach a responsible person. There was discussion last meeting about coordination and about overlapping events. And so Anthem's committed to enhance coordination with Stowe Canyon to try to avoid overlapping with major events there. However, in their annual request, Stowe almost never asks for parking on a Sunday. It's almost always on a Saturday. But we'll continue to operate, cooperate with the city and Stowe House as it has for the last many years and allow for community event parking on its lot. Crucially, if Anthem or the city determines needed, Anthem will contract with an off-site location, like one of the nearby schools, to lease additional parking. So let's go to the next slide and review compatibility.

Actually, maybe two slides.

So in addition to the parking and management plan, traffic management plan, the design of this project has several built-in protections for the neighborhood that were enhanced and focused on, and focused by over three rounds of review by your design review board, which unanimously supported it. provides a layered landscape screening to soften the development from adjacent residential areas, as well as an enhanced ESHA buffer. The buildings themselves are sited over 300 feet from the nearest residences. For reference, your code requires a 20-foot setback from the front property line. And also, in addition to the landscaping, the building will be partially screened from many locations either by Christ Lutheran Church or the tall trees to the east and the south. With regards to noise, I just want to reiterate that Anthem Chapel voluntarily eliminated outdoor amplified noise from its project description. Initially, the project also included an outdoor fall festival and Christmas launch, which were also eliminated. And these will be located elsewhere at a lease facility. That was directly in response to comments and concerns. It's in sharp contrast to the Stowe House directly next door. According to their website, I think some of the neighbors even reference it, private parties can lease events with up to 600 people outdoors, with no restrictions, outdoor amplified noise. And that's great. A lot of people enjoy those events. But Anthem has voluntarily decided not to pursue that for their site.

Next slide, please.

This slide just provides a visual representation of what I just described. The image on top shows that layered screening landscaping effect. The image on the bottom demonstrates that long distance from residential. That's a view from Covington. It's about a football field away from the building. And remember, the design intentionally places the gathering areas in the far side of that building, and so away from the neighbors and blocked by the buildings themselves. Next slide. Another way the project complements the area is via the proposed restoration. The plain fact of the matter is there isn't a buffer right now. It's literally bare land. Anyone today can walk right into the wooded area from here or from the stow house right today. This project objectively improves the ecological value with fencing, which allows animal passage, native trees, understory, and foraging that enhance the habitat. And that's clearly superior to what's located in the status quo on the adjacent lot where the resource is actually located. There is no escha on the Anthem property. And for the record, there's also no trees being removed in the Escha Bounty. I think some of the neighborhood comments seem to confuse that. There is no removal of any habitat. We previously discussed that the professional reports that justify this buffer reduction, a reduction that explicitly is allowed in your code for exactly these kind of ecological conditions, And the report's conclusions were peer reviewed and approved by your city's consultants and your biological experts. Next slide. So the project components are really simple. The sanctuary for worship services and the education buildings to support the community daycare and preschool, and on weekends, a Sunday school. Next slide. Childcare will be open to the public and operate as a not-for-profit. It will help serve the community and provide opportunities for families in that missing middle that earn too much for subsidized care but still struggle to find or afford daycare. That's 110 openings between the all-day childcare and the preschool. A recent 2022 study by the United Way shows there were over 1,000 people on wait lists for infant and toddler spaces in Goleta and Santa Barbara, and 1,100 on wait lists for preschool-age children. Whatever slice of that you imagine makes up Goleta, this project can provide a significant chunk of that demand. As mentioned earlier, we'd like to offer two conditions of approval to the record that directly address your stated concerns and provide a pathway to a motion for your approval. Condition one makes the traffic and parking management plan binding in place before occupancy and maintained for the life of the use. And these are the components on the screen that we discussed. And second, we're offering, what I mentioned, a condition that requires the applicant to return to the plan director, right here, after occupancy with a report documenting their monitoring by a city-approved consultant. The condition empowers the planning director to require additional measures to ensure compatibility. That could include adding additional service, entering an offsite or shared parking agreement, a residential parking plan, or other city approved method. We're not reinventing the wheel here. These types of plans are commonly implemented for institutional permits in residential areas. So the report we provided addressed the questions regarding weekend traffic volumes and levels of service, and the conditions now have documented procedures for Anthem to address parking demand and to improve traffic flow. No human system is going to be perfect, so the plan also provides oversight and verification by our own planning director. And so I'm going to conclude by asking for your commission to approve the CUP for Anthem Chapel, the additional conditions that were offered this evening, and then I'm going to hand it off to Mike Ryder to make a few closing remarks. Thank you.

A few short remarks. Mike Ryder, Madam Chair, with Anthem Chapel. And I just want to take you through a few steps that we've been going through over the last several years. We have looked everywhere for a home. We've been at Goleta Valley Junior High for quite a few years, but nothing permanent. We ended up going onto our own lot during COVID and had a tent and Heard a lot from the neighbors, and we agree that some of their comments made a lot of sense to what we were trying to deal with under a tent. But our search for a home has been for over four years. We've reached out to probably a dozen churches about selling or sharing with no results. We've been in escrow three times with different properties that seem to have potential with no results. We've looked at 15 to 20 for sale or for release seriously with our consultants, their professional help as well. And nothing proven from any of those avenues. And I would say right now, which we have said over the last four years, if there's a better option, we would probably take it even now. The problem is there is no better option, and that's why we're still here. We have looked at many of them. Then we started doing the work. We have a long-term option with Christ Lutheran Church. We started with 12 consultants and designed a project that got DRB approval and Planning Commission recommendation for approval and peer review by some of the top science in Santa Barbara. We've also heard from the neighbors. We had a neighborhood meeting several years ago, and about 40 of the neighbors came. And we did hear about the noise and traffic, and we agree with what they had said. But in addition, we heard something that I think had greater concern to most of them. They basically said of greater concern was, what if the church doesn't get approved? Is it going to be housing? And the answer was probably yes. And about 90% of those present decided that that was a greater concern than the current concerns of our church. I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you. So you did use your entire 15 minutes just to let you know. Can I ask for another five? OK, we're going to go to commissioner questions now for either the staff and or the applicant. Do we want to start with Commissioner Fullerton? Do you have any questions for either one?

No, I don't have any questions, actually.

Commissioner?

A couple of quick questions. There was some conversation around the ability to have a left turn lane going into the property. Was that considered as an option for this project?

Chair and commissioners, not with me. No, so it wasn't part of the proposal.

Can I ask the applicant if you considered adding a left turn lane and if there were reasons why you chose not to do that?

Madam Chair, Scott Shell with ATE. We didn't look at a left turn lane, but we did do the traffic counts and the analysis for the left turn delays and found that the left turn movements into the site wouldn't cause any congestion on the road. And it probably wouldn't warrant a left-turn lane based on the numbers that we saw. Most of the traffic we feel is going to be making a right coming up from either the freeway or Cairo. The right-of-way out there, I'm not sure Mr. Schlake is here, but I'm sure the right-of-way out there would be difficult to support that. The road, you couldn't put one in right now without removing the bike lanes. So we did do the analysis of the left-turn volumes. to make sure it wasn't going to create congestion.

OK. Thank you. With, I guess, another sort of question towards staff, there was some public comment letters that did some comparisons with other local projects. And some of the ones that they noted as potential mitigation measures with the Islamic Center, there was a requirement that if they had any events that would trigger more parking requirements than they currently are able to accommodate on site, that there's an overflow parking strategy. Has staff considered any type of mitigation measure that if with special events or some of the weddings and funerals and other types of events that would be added, if any of those would drive higher parking demand, that we would put in a mitigation measure for overflow parking?

Chair and commissioners, so the existing parking lot analysis was such that they provided more parking than what was required. So we weren't looking at specific conditions of approval related to parking. And I think for a church, things like weddings or even Christmas events are kind of part and parcel to a church use. So it's kind of built into the parking rate that would be applicable for a church. Okay. But, you know, conditions, like you say, if conditions are put on projects all the time, so if it's the wish of the Planning Commission, that could be a condition that could be considered.

Council could tell me if I'm going too far with this one, so let me know. But with the Islamic Center, we had some of those requirements. Was that because that project had less parking or was under-parked in some way on site? I wasn't here when we voted on that one.

I'm personally not familiar with that project, but Lisa might.

Chair and commissioners. If I remember right, because that was one of the very first projects I was here for, so it's over 13 years or close to 13 years, I believe they only have like 25 parking spaces on the site. So they have a pretty limited area for parking, and I believe that condition was because if they –

had a lot of you know if they had events that exceeded the number of parking spaces that they would seek out other locations okay thank you that's really helpful um and then uh similarly one of the things that i know the applicant put forward was the ability to do check-in after a year which i thought was um really a good opportunity for the community to give some feedback um but i know with the islamic center project they also had a a check-in after one year and also after two years and then also that those check-ins would be at a notice public hearing rather than only with the planning director. Do you see any challenges if we wanted to try to modify that modification to that mitigation to make it a first and a second year anniversary check-in and to do it at a public meeting versus a planning director meeting?

not challenge there's no challenge from a staff perspective no okay thank you uh those are my questions

Hi. Thank you. First, I want to say I was not at the last meeting, but I did watch the meeting recording and read all of the materials and public comment. But I do have a question. I can't recall if it was answered at the last meeting. You mentioned about over 100 kids in daycare and preschool. How many employees does that require?

You got me there. I know we definitely investigated that. It's in our parking analysis. Yeah, it's in our total employee count, which is, I think, in the 30s for the entire site. Yeah, 36.

And in other... It seems like the... That building is a lot larger than the actual assembly area?

It is.

I mean, what is that space going to be used for? How many other people are going to be working in there? 30 total, including all teachers and staff?

So that building, if you look at the floor plans, it has a small office space for a couple of the administration staff for the Anthem Chapel. Then there's the check-in area for the daycare, kind of a lobby area. And then spaces for the kids in the daycare. And then there would be classrooms as well for the nursery school or the preschool. And then there is a cafeteria, I think that's right, Mike? There's still a fellowship hall in there. And then on the second story, there's a few additional classrooms for Sunday school. So that's basically the component.

Just one last question. So are the same amount of students or kids anticipated to be there from Sunday school as well? Like on the weekends?

No, it would be different. I mean, the... The point of the daycare was to provide as many as we could, about 55 daycare spaces and 55 for the preschool. Right now, the demographics for Anthem Chapel is a pretty high number of children. It might change as the church matures, but right now there's quite a few, and so they want to have enough space for the kids that may not necessarily want to be in the sanctuary, and that might go to the Sunday school classrooms. I think that's it. That's correct. Yeah.

OK. Thank you.

And sorry, while I'm here, I just want to say that we would accept a condition for off-site parking. That's already what we're offering already is if needed, we would provide, we would contract or lease for off-site parking if the evidence shows that it was needed. Thank you.

No more questions? OK. Commissioner Sirotkin.

Okay, I have a long list, and I hope you'll bear with me. But in following up on that last question, there are 55, as I understand it, there would be 55 children in the daycare and 55 in the preschool. They're all meeting Monday through Friday?

Yeah, the daycare is all day, and the preschool is half day.

So those are meeting at the same time, those basically five classes of preschool and five of daycare. Is that correct?

They overlap in the morning, and then the preschoolers go home around 1 o'clock, I think it's scheduled right now, approximately.

Okay, and then how many do you anticipate for Sunday? Because I know when I asked last time, you don't have those programs now. There is no child care program.

There's no child care program, right, and there's no preschool, but there is Sunday school. So how many are in this Sunday? 120 is what Mike's telling me.

Yep. Okay, so because I, and this is kind of a continuation of a concern I had before, that's a very large building. This is the first time you've said that there's a fellowship hall that's part of that building. It's not just an education building. It's fellowship as well. Am I understanding that correctly?

Yeah. I'm sorry, if you saw it on the plan, it's not really much to speak of. It's more of a break room than a fellowship hall. We are not calling it a fellowship hall, because it's just too small for that. And as far as, we have about 120 kids that would be kind of in that same age bracket, like below junior high. that would be looking at that. And then we have, I don't know how many junior high and high school that would go upstairs. And I think the fourth grade through sixth grade would also go upstairs on Sundays. Because we figured those were the size rooms that we needed for the population of kids of all ages that we currently have. So that's how we got to the size. That's because it's based on our own numbers.

OK. Thank you. That answers a lot because it didn't make sense to me why the building is so big when having run a school program where 10 rooms was sufficient for over 100 students, why you have a two-story building that's as big as it is. That's...

Right. I think the rooms were sized basically for church. And then the... the number of preschool and daycare kids fit within that umbrella just very nicely and would all be basically on the downstairs.

So you're only going to use the one floor?

For daycare and preschool.

And the second floor then sits idle?

Until Sunday.

Until Sunday. You can't use the same rooms?

Well, we don't need to unless we expanded the program. If we expanded the program, we could.

Well, that's based on the supposition, right?

It is.

It is. But I have more questions about traffic. So with the new information about traffic and the traffic flow, where did that come from? Who provided that information, the study for Sunday for the weekends as opposed to the weekdays.

Scott Schell with Associated Transportation Engineers, Madam Chair. We did traffic counts after the last hearing to answer the questions that you raised.

So you did the survey?

Correct. Okay. If I could just keep going a little longer. So city staff.

Okay. And then I was kind of curious about the capacity for of 14,300 people per day, I assume, for Los Caneros. And I'm thinking traffic jam, major traffic jam with 14,300. Where did that come from?

It's in the city circulation element of your general plan.

Interesting. Okay. That's a surprise to me because I have used that road a lot, And my understanding is most of the people who use it are either coming from the 101 going to Foothill or to the neighborhood right before Foothill. So they're making right turns. They're not. coming down from Foothill and making a left. And so I think that saying you're not – I think there's going to be with now up to maybe 1,200 cars coming on a given day, maybe not with 45 minutes between each service, they're going to be making left turns possibly coming down from Foothill. I think that that's going to be a bigger issue as we move forward with And as you grow, as the church grows. So I was kind of, and related to the parking, how did they decide, or how was it decided that 110 parking, 101 parking spaces are required? And so therefore you're exceeding that with your 110. So who sets the 101 and on what basis? Since you're talking about growing to 1,500, I'm just curious as to how 101 is adequate.

Well, the parking calculations are based on your zoning ordinance.

On what?

On your zoning ordinance.

But not based on usage?

The use is considered in your zoning ordinance. So the zoning ordinance looks at the congregation area. It says you need one space per 50 square feet. So the calculations, I think Mr. Highfield has provided this in staff reports in the past that kind of go through how those are calculated.

OK.

So we've got circ element and zoning ordinance. Pardon? I said we have the circ element for the roadway, and we've got the zoning ordinance for the parking.

OK. I'm just curious where these numbers come from that I was reading. And like right now, the survey says there's less traffic on the weekend. But what happens when all those people start coming for services? What's that going to do?

I just wanted to correct the record, though. You mentioned 1,200 vehicles. That is wildly over what we would need.

Well, if you have 500 coming to each service.

We have 117, 500 people, but not how many cars. So there's 117 parking spaces for the church. So that's the number of vehicles we're looking at. So in no world would we have 1,200 cars in this area. We're talking about with three services, That would be 351 doing my high school math is right. So nowhere near 1,200.

So probably only for special events, church-wide events.

And we wouldn't even have three events either. So, yeah, that's.

Okay. And let's see if I have anything else. Oh, with the off-site lots, this question came up with somebody from the public. If they are parking over at Goleta Valley Junior High School or some other off-site location, How will people get from there to the church?

Shuttle.

I suspected as much, but I wasn't sure. I just wanted to ask.

For what it's worth, the church is operating at Goleta Valley Junior High today in a neighborhood that's far more dense than this neighborhood. And there's three churches within a quarter mile of that one. So there's four churches within a quarter mile, including Anthem, and a busier area operating with this. So to me, it seems the apples-to-apples comparison needs to be considered.

OK. And I agree with the one-year check-in is great. I think it should include, you know, the public. And I wonder now, this is a hypothetical. If after that one year it's found it's really not working for the neighborhood, for the road, everything that there's a major tie-up, you know, what happens then? What's the recourse then? Is that being built into this, you know, one-year checkup?

So the way we structured it and the application and the condition we provided to staff was that it would be the plan director. And if you want to change that, that's up to your commission, of course. But what we put in there is that the director would have the ability to evaluate. Reports done on a monthly basis checking out the actual use of the parking lot provide that to mr. Imhoff with And also information on you know complaints concerns where the public might deliver to them And then he would have an option to and ask for certain things for example He could say hey you need another service you're doing let's just say one service right now clearly you need to add another service that right there would throw in another 117 spaces into the mix, right? Because if we have one service, that's the maximum number of spaces we can have. Or he could say, that's not good enough. You need to have off-site parking. And it requires us to find off-site parking opportunities like Goleta Valley Junior High or La Patera or the mosque or wherever else that's available that we can get parking from. Or I mentioned, you know, maybe it's not a good idea, but a residential parking plan for weekends that would prevent, you know, that the residences could have their area of their neighborhoods, maybe not Covington, but the whole areas where they live so that people can't park there on Sundays. That's an option. So I think there's a wealth of different ideas we could come up with that would hopefully solve the situation.

I'm good.

I'm wondering if staff could pull up. I think it's the first packet, and it's page 29. It has a transportation assessment that was done, and it shows some of the left-hand turns versus right-hand turn estimates. Is it possible to bring that up?

Eventually. I could probably get it up, but I'd have to download it from our server and it might take a little bit.

Might be a little. Okay. Maybe that's more complicated. What I am seeing, and maybe because staff can verify, so like on page 29 there, I'm looking at the assessment that was done to try to estimate the traffic. And it looks like left-hand turns were estimated. And so for like the Northern driveway, it's an estimated of 19 left-hand turns in the Southern driveway of seven left-hand turns. And so it is looking at a higher right-hand turn. So on the southern driveway, it's 48 right-hand turns. The northern driveway is 32 right-hand turns. But it looks like there was some planning, some of the conversation. is around to what extent the left-hand turns were assessed as a part of this. And it does appear that left-hand turn traffic was included in this analysis. So that helped me to feel a little bit better that we're not accounting for zero left-hand turns. There is a set number in there that we're looking at.

I have a question about the monitoring. And I would address this to the planning director, actually, since your name was mentioned so many times. Is that normal procedure, process to have monitoring like that that reports to you and that you need to read reports on certain developments, any development in the city of Goleta. Are you responsible for reading those reports and Doing something about it? Is that part of your jurisdiction under your purview with your particular position with the city?

So, Chair Miller, there are certain things where we do require regular monitoring. For example, landscape installation is one of them. There are certain things on other kinds of projects where it makes sense, where there's a period in which, say, a you know, an Escher restoration that takes time to establish itself, then we do actually... We usually hire... Or an applicant hires an outside consultant or firm to do that monitoring work, and that consultant prepares reports and gives those reports back to us to evaluate. I have not seen monitoring on a project this size for something as central and... I guess, directly tied to physical construction. So it's usually something that has some kind of change of process over time, like, again, a landscape plan being established. And then it would go to usually the assigned planner, so under delegated authority from me, to review. And as long as the work was meeting whatever the criteria were aligned, out to be, I probably wouldn't see it. It might only come to my attention if there were some kind of issue with the monitoring not meeting the stated criteria, then it might be brought to my attention and I would then consider it and look at it. But oftentimes things are phrased as going to the quote unquote director and really it's going to a staff member under delegated authority who does kind of the the actual boots on the ground work of reviewing a report.

Okay, that makes sense. But what about for traffic monitoring, parking monitoring? Have you ever had to deal with something like that?

Yeah, traffic monitoring would be another example of something that under certain conditions for certain projects we might look at. And then, of course, that's a very technical area, so It would go to somebody like Mr. Schell under contract to actually review and collect counts or whatever was required. That would come back to us as staff. And then within the organization, it would most likely go to the project manager for that project to track and evaluate somebody who knows those conditions and look at that. And it's possible that, you know, there could be then something that trips a flag and we have to consult with Mr. Schleich, for example, or our public works colleagues to understand exactly, you know, what the consequences are of something not meeting a standard.

OK. And then it would be up to who then to resolve the matter, to fix whatever the issues that come up, who's responsible for actually fixing it so that it doesn't continue? And what are the repercussions if it's not fixed? The building, the construction's already there. The parking lot's already there. The business or the church is already operating. I guess it's just so many what ifs. I'm just wondering, is this agreement, so to speak, written out in such lengthy terms that all of these considerations can be dealt with. At a later time, when you get these yearly reports, monthly reports, biannual report, whatever it happens to be, it just seems like you'd need a lengthy legal contract to deal with this. And I'm just wondering, is that –

Chair, yeah, those are all really good questions. And ultimately, it would be the applicant or permittee, as the case may be, which would be responsible for assuring that certain conditions are met. And the conditions of approval would be where the contract, so to speak, would be the written document where the requirements are set down. And they can oftentimes be complex, and they would specify whatever the consequences are if the conditions were not met. And usually, you know, monitoring happens for things that are fairly straightforward and clear. Like, for example, there's a restoration plan or a landscaping plan, and either the plants take and they get established there or they don't. And if they don't, well, then you have to go and, you know, replant them. And that's something that would, if it's not done, would result in a violation, the project, so a zoning violation, the project would no longer meet the requirements, the conditions under which the project was approved. So the applicant or permit he would be obligated to rectify that problem. Here, though, this does seem, you know, much more kind of fundamental to the essence of the project itself. And typically, you know, we want to assure, I mean, our job and your job in looking at a project is to assure that the project meets the applicable standards, the standards in our general plan and zoning. And if it doesn't, then, you know, we can look to see is there a way we can condition the project to bring the project into conformity with those standards. However, we need to be able to make findings. You need to be able to make findings with assurance that the project will meet whatever those standards are. So, for example, with respect to traffic, that it meets our standards. transportation element level of service standards. If there's any question about that, then you have to ask for more information and make sure that you are comfortable that the project will meet those standards. But I think this becomes trickier when the thing that we are monitoring is really central to the very essence of the project.

OK, thank you.

Do we have any other questions? Yes, OK, go ahead. I have one more question that occurred to me. The barn doors that open? Yeah. If everything is going to be indoors now, what function do they serve? I mean, why do we have these opening barn doors since that seems to provoke some concern in the neighborhood?

I think it's pleasant. There's not always a service with amplified music going on, so it can open up and allow people to flow easily out into the neighborhood. area behind the sanctuary. It can allow for airflow. I think there's, I mean, maybe Mike Holley, go on. I want to speak to this if you want. But with regards to the measure, though, for dealing with the CUP, there are actual measurements. We could look at, is the level of service operating at A or B in reality, right? And if it isn't, then there might be measures to take. Is the parking lot overflowing every Sunday? Then there's measures to take. So I think that there isn't that difficult to really put down in writing what are the requirements for the applicant to take action. And as Ms. Prassey knows, there's procedures in the CEP. If the applicant is not responsive, then you have, as a city, you have

You can do things about that.

But that's not our intention. We intend to work with the city and to address issues that might come up, like providing parking or providing shuttling space, shuttles if we need to, or anything else that might solve the problem. So I just wanted to bring that up. Thank you.

Okay. You're done, Commissioner Sirotkins? Okay. I think we'll go to public comment. So do we have how many public, how many slips do we have, in-person slips do we have?

Chair, I have eight in-person slips. For those of you on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak to this item, please use the raised hand icon and I will call on you. I have no hands up right now, so I have eight people who would like to speak.

Okay. Go ahead then. Okay.

Our first speaker will be Jim Barsh. All speakers will have three minutes.

Good evening. Yes, my name is Jim Bartsch and the decision for this project should be based on the City of Goleta's municipal code and general plan and it's your responsibility to apply these standards fairly and consistently to every applicant. The question isn't whether a church is a worthwhile institution, it's whether this project complies with the city's requirements and is compatible with with the neighborhood, which it is not. Many citizens have already communicated their concerns about the project size and its impact on fire access, parking, noise, and neighborhood compatibility, and I completely share those concerns, but I'm gonna focus on bicycle safety Los Caneros Road is a Class II bike route that has an important connection between UCSB and Goleta's Northern Bicycle Network. Sure, there are three other roads, Glen Annie, Fairview, and Patterson. They have very busy intersections. They're not nearly as safe as Los Caneros to pass through from the south to get to Cathedral Oaks. My wife and I are both cyclists, and there's many other cyclists that regularly use Los Caneros. And especially on Sunday mornings when the traffic is at its lightest, you feel a lot safer. With this project, I could not possibly feel safe with the amount of cars that are going in and out, especially in the morning. The project would bring hundreds of cars to the site during church services in addition to daily activities, preschool, and many special events. The increased traffic on this two-lane road will absolutely make the bicycle route much less safe. Glita's general plan through policy TE1 calls for a transportation system where bicycling is a safe alternative to driving. This project is in no way consistent with that policy. So please, I hope you don't approve this project. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Catherine Bartsch.

Good evening chair and commissioners My name is Katherine Bartsch and my husband and I have lived on Covington Way for over 25 years And I am here to express my strong opposition to this project And my opposition is not because this is a church. It's because of the project scale and frequency of use, operational intensity, and the fact that it's completely incompatible with the residential character, the infrastructure currently, public safety, and the environmental conditions of the Lake Los Canarios corridor. The proposed 22,000-foot square sanctuary would accommodate up to 500 people. At each of three Sunday services, in addition to daily program, has been mentioned a preschool, more than 60 annual special events. However, the project only provides 117 parking spaces. And actual experience in this area demonstrates something completely different. On August 31st of last year, my husband and I counted 208 vehicles parked between Goleta Valley Junior High the adjacent santa barbara charter school and it was during a sunday morning service there was another independent count in june of 2025 they documented 290 vehicles on a sunday morning even the 168 legally designated spaces that are currently at these two schools are insufficient for anthem's current membership that attends. And clearly what is happening now, and I did submit pictures through an email, cars are parking illegally in the fire lanes in both Goleta Valley Junior High and the adjacent charter school every single Sunday. Approving a project with only 117 parking spaces will inevitably push overflow parking onto Los Caneros Road, onto Covington Way, and the surrounding residential streets. It's going to increase traffic congestion and create a significant safety risk for pedestrians, bicyclists, residents, and emergency respondents. I am also deeply concerned about Ansem's request to reduce the required monarch butterfly habitat buffer from 100 feet to 50 feet. The city's general plan establishes the 100 feet buffer for a really important reason, and that is to protect this very sensitive habitat. Lake Los Caneros, and I hope all of you have had a chance to walk through it and enjoy it, is one of our community's most treasured natural areas. We should not weaken the established protections to approve a project that creates foreseeable parking, traffic, and safety problems. For these reasons and all the others that have been shared in writing and in person, I respectfully urge you to deny the proposed Anthem Church project. And I thank you for your consideration.

Our next speaker is Dale Gehr, followed by Sylvia King.

Good evening, everyone. I feel that the traffic city that was done on Sunday was of no use. We don't know how many people are attending We were told in the design review stage that they were just shy of 300 people in their congregation. Then it became 450 and 500 at the last meeting with plans to go to 1,500. There may be no end to it. They want to get bigger. This is not the site for that. They did a study based on... Driveways on Covington Way, Los Caneros, or the traffic on Los Caneros, Covington Way, Cali Real, and two driveways on the project site with no mention of the driveway of Stowe House, the fire station, or the driveway into the Islamic Center. No analysis of traffic during the concurrent events with Stowe House. Now, they could have something going on. There's no way to analyze that. Plus, with no idea of how many people they're going to be bringing in and out as they can't really give us a number, and it's going to continue to get larger. It's only going to get worse. Common sense shows the close proximity to all the driveways there is going to cause major backups on Los Caneros, especially when they're changing from services to services three to four times a day. It's going to be mayhem. It's like leaving a county bowl after a concert's over. There's just no accounting for what to do with that traffic. Anton's going to offer to have a complaint line, which they themselves will monitor and report. Where's the oversight for that? We don't know what they're getting and what they're actually reporting. There's no way to confirm that. Parking monitors didn't work before, and there's no reason to believe they will work again. We've had it, and it didn't work. Their management plan for parking is entirely voluntary and by no means enforceable. As far as the school goes, the daycare, will it be free? Or are their members all going to fill it up? I believe they will fill it up, because they're currently using the number of buildings at Goleta Valley to house the children. would be equal to or greater than what they're requesting for daycare here. So there's no room for any additional outside people. It's a totally in-house program. I don't think this is going to work. It's far too large. The building's huge. It's a horrible idea. And I hope you deny it. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Sylvia King, followed by Rosalie Hardwin.

Good evening. At the last meeting, a comment struck me. Anthem shouldn't have to bear the burden of Stowe House's overflow parking if approved. But if it's built, everyone nearby and everyone who uses this area will bear that burden. I'm asking the commission to look hard at the gaps against the city of Goleta general plan. The requirements calculate parking spaces from square footage of movable seating in the main assembly. It doesn't care if it excludes 2 thirds of the entire campus or that the 500 count is adults only, meaning 4.27 adults plus their children would need to carpool together to fit into the 117 spots. The burden of circling for parking will fall on the congregation itself. Sundays at the ranch visitors feeding the goats, lemon run families, and homeowners already dealing with blocked driveways and fire hydrants. The requirements for sound only model exterior noise from the open roll-up doors which face Stowe House. It doesn't care how loud 500 adults plus their children are when they gather outdoors between services or ESHA impacts. The burden of losing tranquility falls on visitors picnicking on the Stowe House lawn, railroad museum train riders, birders on preserved paths, and firefighters off shift at 2 a.m. The requirements for traffic safety only count weekday 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. trips for daycare, preschool, and church staff. It doesn't consider Sunday, weeknights, weekends, concurrent events along Los Caneros, or that is the scenic corridor. Cyclists raising awareness for MS will bear the burden of navigating around cars using the bike lane to enter and exit without a protected left lane. Children riding bikes on handmade dirt ramps and families walking to the pool along Covington Way will bear the burden of hundreds of unmodeled cars spilling into neighborhood streets. Los Caneros is a designated evacuation route through a very high fire hazard severity zone, and that burden falls on everyone north of here trying to get out. The requirements for the escha they want to reduce by half didn't include studying the play yard sitting next to it for 110 babies, toddlers, and preschools, or how the fence around that play yard will impact wildlife. The burden will fall on the deer family crossing the unfenced escha and monarchs, hawks, and owls living in the eucalyptus trees. Each might look sufficient on its own, but I'm asking you to use the general plan to vote no on passing this burden on to us because of this project's size and scale in a neighborhood that already has two houses of worship and a public venue, all abutting a nature preserve.

Our next speaker is Rosalie Hardoin, followed by Karen Penniman.

Good evening. I walk around Lake Los Canarios both weekdays and weekends, and I also attend many of the events at Stowe House also. I'm writing in support of Anthem Chapel's conditional use permit as a benefit to the community of Goleta. My family likes to gather for different events and to know the people who make up the fabric of Goleta. This gathering of the Goodland people would add to what makes our community great. I do have a specific interest here. The undeveloped lot has served for years as informal overflow parking for the big Stowe House events, and I understand why people worry about losing it on a busy weekend. But in reviewing the information provided, I've noticed that the management plan includes voluntary scheduling coordination with Stowe House to avoid overlapping with major adjacent events and continued cooperation on shared parking. The plan also commenced the church to contract offsite spaces at, I believe, La Patera or Goleta Valley Junior High, as they are named as examples, if the onsite lot is not sufficient on a given Sunday. And the onsite lot itself will have 117 spaces, which fulfills the requirement of 101 parking spots. I would rather have a coordinated plan with a written obligation than an empty dirt lot. Right now, there is no plan at all. Under this permit, there would be a plan, a named contact, a published complaint line, and a process if it is not working. I would also like to say that a landscape campus with a restored buffer edge is a better neighbor to the open space than the graded lot and temporary structures that are there now. The before and after images in the presentation make that very obvious. Please approve the permit with the conditions offered. I believe it is a very comprehensive and well thought out plan, taking all areas of concern into consideration. Thank you very much.

Our next speaker is Karen Penniman, followed by Carter Morgan.

Good evening, planning commissioners. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. My name is Karen Penniman. I am here tonight to express my own personal opinion in opposition to the proposed Anthem Chapel project. After the last meeting, the planning staff documented some inconsistencies with the general plan. However, additional inconsistencies were also discussed as part of the meeting, but they were not included in the staff's findings. As I noted in my public comment email, the additional denial findings should be included. Land use policy 1.2, residential character. Open space policy 6.7c, regional open spaces. Visual and historic resources policies 3.1, community design character, and 3.2, neighborhood identity. And transportation element policies 11.1, bikeways plan, 11.3, design guidelines, and 11.5, bicyclist safety. Anthem Chapel is requesting a conditional use permit for this site. However, Christ Lutheran Church already has a conditional use permit for this neighborhood. Putting a second, tremendously larger church only feet away from an existing church is overuse, not only for the surrounding neighborhood, but also the open space and historical resources. With all of the general plan inconsistencies and the overuse of conditional use permits for the neighborhood, I encourage you to confirm your previous vote and deny the proposed project with these additional findings. Thank you for your time and public service.

Our next speaker is Carter Morgan, followed by Wendy Morgan.

Good evening, commissioners and city staff. My name is Carter Morgan. My wife and I have lived on Camino Caseta in the Lake Los Carneros area for 33 years, where we raised our two daughters. With its proximity to Lake Los Carneros and the Stowe House, this is a very special place, as we're sure you know. We care deeply about its future. I'm here to oppose the proposed development at Covington and Los Carneros because it is fundamentally incompatible with this neighborhood and poses serious safety and traffic concerns. The Planning Commission recommended denial, and I agree completely. Their decision identified a critical flaw. The original traffic study only examined staff vehicle counts during week... day work hours. This analysis, and the latest study as well, underestimate several major traffic generators. Daytime and evening meetings at the facility, parents dropping off and picking up children at the proposed daycare center at least twice daily, and many weekend events, including weddings and memorials. But the most significant concern is Sunday operations. The applicant intends to hold three services every Sunday in a 500-person sanctuary, with only 117 parking spaces, potentially 117 cars, enter and exit this lot six times on Sundays alone. Los Carneros Road simply cannot accommodate this high volume. Supporters themselves mentioned this congregation intends to grow. How long before the parking lot is insufficient, before cars spill into our neighborhood? This project creates a time bomb of traffic problems in the area. Cyclist and pedestrian safety is another major concern at the previous meeting It was suggested that the bike lane could serve as an additional turning lane This is deeply troubling in and seems in conflict with an aspect of the city's general plan which requires a building project to quote preserve or enhance public peace health and safety My wife and I are recreational cyclists who regularly use Los Carneros, enhancing our health and a peaceful state of mind. Many use Los Carneros because this road is the safest passage between Cathedral Oaks and Calle Real, Hollister Avenue, and UCSB. It is much safer than Patterson, Fairview, and Stork roads, which have high volumes of speeding traffic. Los Carneros, therefore, is the chosen crosstown route for most cyclists. Yet, even on this safer road, a skateboarder was killed in a collision with a car right next to where this project is proposed. Increased traffic from this development would put cyclists and pedestrians in grave danger. I applaud the Planning Commission for recognizing these concerns and urge a denial of this proposal. This project is too large, too dense, and fundamentally incompatible with our neighborhood's character and safety. Thank you for your time and for your good work.

Our next speaker is Wendy Morgan, followed by Michael Lynch. And a last call for those of you on the Zoom webinar who wish to speak to this item, please use the raised hand icon, and I will call on you. WENDY MORGAN.

Good evening, commissioners and city staff. My name is Wendy Morgan. And as a neighboring homeowner, I strongly oppose this proposed building project for three critical reasons. First, neighborhood compatibility. Despite drawings suggesting the building fits with the adjacent Lutheran church, the story polls clearly show these buildings will be massive and out of scale. I don't believe that this project meets a requirement of the Goleta General Plan, which states that new building must preserve the neighborhood Character. Second, emergency safety. The general plan also requires maintenance of the safety and welfare of our neighborhoods. The 117 car parking lot will flood Los Carneros with over 100 vehicles six times each Sunday morning. This creates dangerous congestion that could block emergency vehicles from the adjacent fire station, which is critical in this high fire hazard zone where seconds count. Third, community impact. This lot historically serves the Stowe House, the lake, the Railroad Museum. And while Anthem promises continued access, heavy church usage will eliminate most weakened availability for parking, pushing the parking onto our streets. We support giving Anthem a facility, but why not repurpose an existing empty building with a built-in parking lot? A church of this large scale doesn't belong here and could set a dangerous precedent for similar projects throughout Goleta. For these reasons, I urge a denial of this project. Thank you.

Our last speaker is Michael Lynch.

Madam Chair, commissioners, hello. We're here to look at, in my understanding, what a pool of experts have to say about an issue for building a home for Anthem Chapel. I hope to speak today about the value of experts in a given field and the findings of those experts so we can collectively review and discern whether Anthem's building project should move forward. I'm here in support of Anthem Chapel, and I want to speak to just one thing, the monarch buffer zone. I'm a biologist. I've taught general biology, and now I teach medical biology at DP. My job is to help students understand what we can know about the natural world when we acquire evidence and we utilize experts' understanding and assessments of situations. Then we can determine if other experts arrive at different conclusions and try to discern why they disagree. Science, like city codes, is governed by laws and rules. Those laws and rules help us determine what our evidence means. So when scientists arrive at different conclusions, we can look at scientific laws and rules and determine which conclusion is the most accurate. Your own codes say that a 100-foot monarch buffer may be reduced to 50 feet where the trees contribute to the habitat but aren't likely to be an aggregation site. The city council wrote that rule. It's a good rule. It's not reducing anything to a loophole. It's the rule that accounts for the evidence. So the question in front of you is a biological question. Are those edge trees an aggregation site? The applicants, biologists, say no. The roost is deep in the grove, and no proposed building comes anywhere near it. An expert determined this. Then the city hired Althaus and Mead to check that work. Totally reasonable thing to do. Karis Vanderhyde reviewed it. She's the Xerces Society's Regional Coordinator for the Western Monarch Count in Santa Barbara County. 75 overwintering sites. She built Goleta's own monarch docent program. So unquestionably an expert, and decidedly on the side of the butterflies. If there was a chance these trees were an aggregation site, Karis would have said so. She agreed wholeheartedly with the applicant's biologist in writing, knowing exactly what was proposed and the details of this property. In the staff draft, they talk about traffic and parking and activity, but no one has said that those trees are an aggregation site, and that's because they're not. The front of my classroom, I have painted in big, bold letters, autonomy should never trump ontology. What you want to be true should never be more important than what is actually true. And so I tell my students that I would tell my students this would be a slam dunk. Rather than having multiple experts come to different conclusions, we're having both experts who are on different sides of the table come to the same conclusion. I am thankful for those experts, and I hope that you follow their opinions.

I have no more speakers, Chair.

Thank you. So we would ask for applicant rebuttal, but you ran out of time. So I just wanted to tell you that. So now we will go to the commissioners. Additional questions?

No.

Comments? No, we're just doing questions right now. Yes. No, no.

Commissioner Sirotkin, any more questions?

OK, and I don't have any more questions. So we will now close the public comment portion of the hearing. We will now go into deliberations. So now we can make our comments. If you want to start, Commissioner Fullerton. OK.

I have a lot of comments. And please excuse a lot of them are actually very similar to what we've heard in the public comment tonight. But I do want to voice. um these so overall i just believe this project is not compatible with the neighborhood there's not enough parking and i do believe the accounts that people have done at the current location where it's clear there's a lot more than 100 cars and the applicant one of the applicants admitted he said in his own words that this is not the best option that there would you would prefer another option but you looked and you couldn't find another space so it seems like you're kind of settling here and you're admitting this is not a great this is not the best place to put this also in the last in the meeting that I listened to the recording it was discussed that parking is an issue already around the lake and Stowe House at some point. And I think this is only going to compound that problem. I think having, you know, ensuring that there's public access to Stowe House and Lake Los Carneros for the entire city needs to be protected. And if there's a parking nightmare around this area, it's going to discourage people from wanting to come and use those resources. Also, I just feel like the parking to me is the biggest issue. I agree there's safety issues as well. It seems like the way that the parking was calculated is a loophole. I just can't understand how it was only based on that one small assembly area. I know that is, I just think that's an issue. There's 13,000 square feet of building that's not being calculated. And we're talking over 100 children there. Maybe, I'm assuming you have to have a certain amount of people per building. child when you're watching them. So, I mean, we're talking probably 30 cars just for that, and they said 120 on Sunday. So, I mean, a third of the parking, maybe a quarter being really generous, is just for the teachers, not even the people attending. So, I just think that those are really large buildings, and I can't imagine they're not going to be used. I mean, I think you've stated that you want to grow, and that's I mean, I think that's a reasonable goal you want to grow you want to have more people And you're gonna use that space but the parking still is So so limited. I mean we're starting out limited and as you grow there's just no way that you can sustain that Also in terms of the buffer You know, it seems like we're always, every single project, there's someone asking for an exemption. They're asking for a modification. And sometimes it's because housing, yes, there's no alternate way to put that building there. But in this case, this is huge buildings. I mean, I think there would be a way to accommodate that buffer. So I just don't support that. compromising for no real reason because every time we do that, it kind of loses effect. Also noise, just there was discussion about the garage doors. It seems like there's still not really a commitment to keeping them closed during the services. The responses were always, you know, not just willing to say 100%, yes, we will not have these doors open during services. You said we like to be out. We like to have the nature. We want to be open. And that's, again, like there's nothing wrong with that. But maybe it just doesn't fit the space. And yeah, so overall, I just think we can't look at this in a vacuum and that if growth is the goal, it seems like you're just trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. So overall, I know our role as planning commissioners is to uphold the general plan and zoning codes, but it's also to protect the city and the things that make it a special place. And just based on all these points, I can't support this project. Thank you.

Commissioner Maynard.

I do find that this project is consistent with the transportation assessment guidelines that we've given to the project and to the parking requirements that we've given to the project. In reviewing this, I have found some places that I'd like to consider changing our zoning ordinance for future projects. But in terms of this, I think it's important that we can And be true to what we already said. I think, you know, Commissioner Srotkin asked a couple of times, who set that? And I said, I did. Like, we did. We set that here on Planning Commission. We wrote that zoning ordinance. And we might not have done it right, but we did write it ourselves. And that's what we've given to the applicant. And the applicant has followed our guidelines. I've also been impressed at what you came back with between the last meeting and this meeting, and that you're looking to find ways to meet the community halfway. I think there's a lot of good compromises that were offered by the applicant that are above and beyond what's required by our zoning ordinance. And if it was openness by other commissioners, I'd certainly be excited to talk about those and other mitigation measures we could add to it. if there was an openness to consider that. But I do find the project consistent.

OK. Commissioner Sirotkin.

I'm not sure. I kind of agree with Commissioner Fullerton in a lot of what she said. And I understand what Commissioner Maynard is saying as well. I'm just troubled by the size of this thing, by the fact that there are a lot of exceptions being asked for. I think, and I don't mean this in a political sense, but this is kind of like the 1776 fund and talking to the acting, or now I guess he's permanent, attorney general. And it's like, they can't quite say no, and so they kind of talk around it. And I've had the feeling that some of this is we're not going to make it smaller, but we're going to do a little monitors and, you know, doing e-mail to people to tell them where to park and what parking spaces are available. I'm just troubled by it. I think it's just I understand, too, what was said about it does look nicer in some cases than that gravel parking lot and all, but it just seems so big. Two stories, and I'm falling back on my own experience with running educational programs. It just seems excessively large, and I understand that they're trying to plan it for having a 1,500-member congregation, But that's not what they have now. And it just seems to me that they should, you know, build for a little more than they have but not be planning on making it so big. And I think I have a hard time supporting it. And the traffic, I think, is being minimized, the impact on the traffic and on every, you know, use of Los Carneros. And so I'm having a difficult time with it.

I just want to say I appreciate the applicant coming forth with some concessions and some ideas, some creative ideas on how to answer some of the concerns that both the planning commissioners had, that the public has with the traffic and being able to call somebody when something goes awire. I think that that's very much appreciated, certainly by me. However, And given all that, it still just doesn't convince me that this is the right place for this project. It's just for all the reasons that I spoke about in the first meeting, which I don't want to have to repeat, they're all there and they're all in the findings that the staff report reports on. So I don't want to rehash all that. But I just am not convinced that this is anything but it's the wrong development for this particular spot. It just isn't going to work. So I cannot support it. Thank you. So we need a motion now. Does anybody want to make a motion for the two resolutions that we have? We'll go one at a time. OK. Let me just find.

I will make a motion for. first one. So after considering the evidence presented during the public hearing, adopt Planning Commission Resolution Number 26- entitled A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Goleta, California. Denying the proposed project for Anthem Chapel and adopting the notice of exemption for the development located on lot two of parcel map 32072 at 6595 Covington Way. APN 077-160022, case numbers 24-0005-COP, 24-0009-DP, an applicable portion of 24-0030-DRB. So do this one separately.

So do we have a second? I'll second. OK. Can we do a roll call vote, please?

Commissioner Fullerton?

Yes.

Commissioner Maynard?

I vote no.

Commissioner Penniman is accused. Commissioner Sirotkin? Vice Chair Sirotkin, excuse me.

I vote yes as well.

Chair Miller?

Yes.

Pardon me. Commissioners, if you would lock in your votes, please. I apologize. I will lock that in. Thank you.

And Chair Miller, before we move on to the next motion, can you close the public hearing? I thought that I did already.

Oh, no, I didn't close the public hearing. I closed the public comment. You're right. I would like to close the public hearing. Thank you. Okay. Can we now go make a... Can I ask for clarification on number two?

Yes. It looks like number one was to deny the project. Number two was to approve the project. Do we need to vote on two if we already denied the project in one? Or am I missing what the second resolution is?

Yeah, thank you. The second resolution is for lot one, which is the CLC parcel. When the Planning Commission approved the parcel map, We've made that lot smaller where CLC is located. So we need to do kind of, this is kind of conformity to adjust the development plan and the CUP that goes with CLC so that it links up to the boundaries that are now for lot one. And that's why it says it's for lot one of the parcel map where, sorry, the first resolution was for lot two.

Thank you. That helps me get clarity. I appreciate it.

Okay. Do we have a motion for item two, for resolution number two?

Sure. I'll make the motion that we adopt planning commission resolution number 26- Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Goleta, approving a conditional use permit amendment and development plan amendment with adjustments for development on Lot 1 of Parcel Map 32.072, located at 6595 Covington Way, APN 077-160-022, case numbers 24-0004-CUP-AM-24-0010-DP-AM, close paren, and a portion of 24-0030-DRB.

OK, thank you. Do we have a second? I'll second. OK. Roll call vote, please.

Commissioners, please lock in your votes. Commissioner Fullerton?

Yes.

Commissioner Maynard?

Yes.

Vice Chair Sirotkin?

Yes.

And Chair Miller?

Yes.

OK, thank you. We'll go to planning director comments, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and good evening, chair and commissioners. I really don't have much of a report this evening except to note that our next planning commission meeting will be on August 24. We do expect that we will have at least one item that evening for your consideration.

OK. All right. Let me give Commissioner Penniman a chance to come back to the dais. Okay, sure. And we'd like to open it up to planning commissioner comments. Does anyone have a comment for this evening? Okay, Commissioner Peterman.

Thank you, Chair. I might find my notes here, but given the public comment that we've received, I'd like to suggest that the City Council... I'd like to suggest that the City Council consider directing staff to explore a sensitive business location ordinance. Goleta already has objective separation standards for certain land uses such as cannabis retailers. It may be worthwhile to evaluate whether similar content neutral location standards could be adopted more broadly to certain categories of land uses with unique compatibility considerations based on objective planning criteria. The goal would not be to prohibit lawful business, but to rather establish clear, consistent, and objective land use compatibility standards that help protect sensitive receptors such as schools and other places where children regularly gather, while also providing certainty to businesses in the community alike. I believe this would be an appropriate policy discussion for the City Council to consider And I respectfully encourage the council to evaluate whether consistent, sensitive business location ordinance framework would benefit the community. Thank you.

OK.

Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Maynard.

I would just add that I would also be interested in that policy discussion. And so as we're giving feedback to city council, I'd like to say that I would also have an interest in that discussion.

We drive past it every day.

Count me in. Anybody else? Yes. Me too. Yes.

Agree.

Okay. Okay. And I don't know what there is to do about the current situation that the public is, you know, has been bringing up. But, yeah, I don't know if there's any recommendations or anything that can be done at this time for that. But... Not something we can discuss tonight.

Yes. Thank you. OK. Can we get a motion for adjournment? I motion to adjourn.

I'll second.

Roll call vote. Commissioner Fullerton? Yes. Commissioner Maynard? Aye. Commissioner Penniman?

Yes.

Vice Chair Sorotkin? Yes. And Chair Miller?

Aye.

I think what's going to happen is there's going to be an accident. And then the wind is free.

Take good care of yourself.

You belong.