Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

I know that I'll be yours, come shower or shine So I say clearly, dearly beloved Dearly beloved, dearly beloved

I love you There's nothing to hide It's better than burning inside I love you No use to pretend There, I've said it again. I've said it. What more can I say? Believe me, there's no other way. I love you. I will to the end. I've tried to drum up a phrase that would summon all that I feel for you. But what good are phrases? The thought that amazes is you love me. And it's heavenly. Forgive me for wanting you so. But one thing I want you to know, I've loved you since heaven knows when. There I've said it again. But what good are praises? The thought that amazes is you love me.

Chair, is your mic on? Is your mic on?

Oh, OK.

Thank you.

I didn't stop to think about that. Welcome to the August 24th meeting of the Planning Commission for the City of Goleta. And if you would all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner Fullerton?

Here.

Commissioner Maynard?

Here.

Commissioner Penniman? Here. Vice Chair Sharotkin?

Here.

And Chair Miller is absent.

Okay. Mr. Imhoff, are there any amendments or adjustments to the agenda?

Madam Vice Chair, there are none.

Thank you. So can you, Mr. Clerk, can you let me know how many in-person speakers and speakers we have on Zoom for the public forum this is?

Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. For those of you who wish to speak to a non-agenda item, please use the raised hand icon and I will call on you. I have no speaker slips. I do have a hand up, Steve Hathaway. Please unmute yourself. You have three minutes for non-agenda items.

Can you hear me?

Yes, thank you. Okay. Do you want me to start? Yes, please. You'll have three minutes for the non-agenda item.

I'm speaking as the owner of Elwood Station, the manufactured home community located immediately adjacent to Steve, this is for non-agenda items? Oh, I'm for an agenda item.

Oh, yes. That will be coming up in a few minutes. Okay. Thank you, Steve. Okay, Chair, with that, I have no speakers.

We're not agendized to discuss the issues raised by public comment, but we will pass any comments that we receive along to the City Council as these issues are within their purview. So the first thing on our agenda for tonight is the approval of the minutes from August 10th. Mr. Clerk, can you read the item into the records?

Yes, thank you, Madam Vice Chair. That is Item A1, Review and Approval of the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of August 10, 2026.

Okay. Any comments from the Commission? Are there any public speakers?

Yes. Those of you who wish to speak to this item, please use the raised hand icon, and I will call on you. And I'm seeing none, and I have no speaker slips.

Okay, then I'd like to entertain a motion from the commissioners to accept the minutes.

I'll motion.

I'll second. Okay. I'll vote. Put in your votes.

Yes. Thank you, Vice Chair, and we will also do a roll call vote. Commissioner Fullerton?

Yes.

Commissioner Maynard?

Yes.

Commissioner Penniman? Yes. Vice Chair Sirotkin?

Yes.

And Chair Miller is absent.

OK. So I think we're all set with that. And we're ready then to move on to the second item on the agenda. Mr. Clerk, please read the item into the record.

Yes, thank you, Vice Chair. That's item B1, Hollister Avenue for 50, pardon me, 7360 Hollister Avenue for 59 unit condominium residential community, vesting tentative map 32074 and class 32 categorical exemption located at 7360 Hollister Avenue.

OK, this is a public hearing on a project proposed at 7360 Hollister Avenue, which involves the review of a 59-unit condominium residential community, vesting tentative map 32,074 and class 32 categorical exemption. Staff, do you have a presentation?

We do. Thank you. My name is Sophia Tatlian. I'll be presenting tonight. Is there anybody else on staff that wants to introduce themselves or can I go ahead, Daryl?

Yeah, Madam Vice Chair, if I may real quick. Darrell Malenick, Supervising Planner here at the city. I've been helping facilitate this project with our Michael Baker international consultants. So I'll briefly give a couple introductions. We have Sophia Tatalin, who's been the main project planner for this case. Then also from Michael Baker International, we have Elizabeth Mayer-Hoff. Elizabeth is a CEQA practitioner. Then we also have for staff, we obviously have Mark Schleck here, contract principal engineer. We have Dennis Lommers, who is also a city contract traffic engineer, as well as from BBK. We have Hannah Park, one of the contract attorneys in the planning division. So with that, if I may, I'll introduce you to Sophia to start the presentation. Thank you.

Thank you, Daryl, for that. Good evening, Vice Chair and Commissioners. Again, my name is Sophia Tatlian. I'll be presenting tonight. I am a senior planning consultant. And as you mentioned, this is a 59-unit condominium residential community followed by City Ventures with 7360 Hollister Avenue, LLC as the property owner. There are three entitlements before the Commission, tentative track map 25-0001, development plan 25-0003, and design review 25-0018. The Planning Commission is the final decision maker unless the action is appealed to the City Council. Before I dig into the details of the presentation, I would like to acknowledge there was a staff error with regards to the number of total buildings being proposed. The agenda incorrectly cites 13 three-story buildings where there are 12 three-story buildings proposed. The applicant reduced the number of buildings when the site plan was revised during the last iteration in order to relocate the main driveway per city staff's request. Okay, next slide. Oh, sorry, we're at the correct slide. So the project location. The site is approximately 3.17 gross acres at 7360 Hollister Avenue, currently developed with three single-family residences and ancillary structures, plus areas used for outdoor storage and equipment. Surrounding uses... Excuse me. Surrounding uses place commercial development to the east, residential uses to the south and west, and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor on the US Highway 101 to the north. The site was identified in the city's 2023 to 2031 housing elements as an underutilized site and was rezoned and redesignated from community commercial to residential high density to support housing production and the RHNA obligations. It also falls within the airport environs overlay and safety zone six for the Santa Barbara Airport. The project objective summary. So the three primary objectives that drive the project are to, one, develop the 59 residential condominium units on underutilized land in the city, to bolster the city's housing stock as contemplated by the adopted housing element, and provide very low-income affordable units that contribute to the city's affordable housing inventory while supporting RHNA compliance. These objectives frame the analysis that follows and align the rezoning that made the site available for high-density residential use. Next slide. So staff's recommendation is approval of the request for vesting tentative track map, the development plan, design review, and CEQA determination. Okay, let's see. Background. Three state and local frameworks really shape the Commission's discretion. Under SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, or the HAA, the project is processed against objective standards in effect when the preliminary application was submitted, which was on March 19, 2025. The city is limited based on state law to five hearings total. One which was already finished or completed on June 23rd, 2026 for the design review board hearing. Under state density bonus law, the project qualifies by providing three very low income units, or 5% of the 59 units, entitling the applicant to one concession and two waivers. The design review board voted four to zero in recommendation of the preliminary design approval with advisory comments on compatibility with the adjacent Outwood Station mobile home park. Next slide. So this slide is the existing conditions on site. Buildings one and two are among four structures proposed for demolition consisting of three single family residences and one detached shed or outbuilding. These images document the current character of the property, which also includes ancillary structures and areas used for outdoor storage and equipment. Existing nonhistoric structures. If you can go back one side, thank you. Buildings three and four. They are shown together with one and two. These structures will be also demolished to accommodate the proposed development. The existing improvements represent the underutilized condition that led to the site's housing element designation and rezoning. Next slide. So the project would demolish the four existing structures and consolidate three parcels effectively into one, creating a 3.17-acre site to develop 59 condominium units. The residential program consists of 12 three-story buildings with units ranging roughly between 1,200 to 1,600 square feet. And it's proposed in a modern farmhouse architectural style, each with a private garage and patio and all electrical construction with rooftop solar. The applicant uses one density bonus concession to shift the affordable mix from 2.5% to 5% for very low-income units and requests two waivers, one for building heights, proposing an access of 35 feet of the 35 foot limit for the 12 buildings and to reduce restriction open space for the units since 46 of the 59 units fall below the 200 square foot requirement for restricted open space. Next slide. The site plan shows 12 three-story buildings arranged around an internal private driveway aisles and pedestrian pathways with 118 garage spaces, 14 guest spaces, with a total of altogether of 132 parking. Common amenities include a central event lawn, shaded picnic and barbecue areas, outdoor social seating, a community garden, landscape buffers along Hollister Avenue, common open space that totals around over 37,000 square feet, roughly 634 square feet of open space collectively per unit, which is well above the required 5,900 square feet of common open area. Access is taken from Hollister Avenue through a single driveway, and the project complies with the standard setbacks of 20 feet in the front, 10 on the side, and 10 in the rear. Next slide. The vesting tentative track back consolidates the three existing parcels into a single site to create the 59 condominium units. Staff found that the subdivision design provides access to the units and common areas in a uniform and logical manner, and that the site is physically suitable for the development based on the topography, the lot size, and access to existing infrastructure. on approximately 2.91 net acres which results in a density of 20.2 units per acre. Furniture improvements would include a public sidewalk and a bicycle path along the north side of Hollister Avenue. Next slide. The landscape plant combines native and ornamental plantings, including canopy trees, shrubs, and ground cover. with an enhancements throughout the common open space areas. Stormwater management features such as permeable paving, bioswales, and onsite infiltration support water quality and low impact development objectives. Exterior lighting complies with the city's dark sky standards with all fixtures directed downwards to limit light spill and includes street pedestrian scale building mounted fixtures. Landscaping, lighting, and common area improvements would be maintained by the Future Homeowners Association. Next slide. Buildings 8 through 12. This is a slide kind of just showing the floor plan for this fourplex unit. This unit occurs five times on the site, buildings 8 through 12. each consistent of four attached townhomes with individual entries, private garages, upper level living areas. These elevations and floor plans illustrate the project's modern farmhouse architecture through varied reforms, gable elements, stucco horizontal fiber cement sidings, vertical board and batten sidings, brick veneer accents, decorative lighting, vinyl windows, and metal sectional garage doors with planter boxes and trim details. Next slide, which is building five, buildings one through six. This is an example of the fiveplex. And like the other buildings, each unit is a three-story attached townhome with private garages and patios with similar range to unit sizes. And the elevations, again, carry the same modern farmhouse that you'll see throughout the other, throughout the entire project. Building 9 is the largest building. It is the 7-plex. This slide and the following slide will kind of show you how the floor plan is designed. And again, the 7-plex is similar in style, architectural style. The story poles representing each floor plan with elements over 35 feet were installed on January 12, 2026. Next slide. Next slide, please. And this is just the next two levels showing the layout for the 7plex at Building 9. showing the second and third levels and the attached townhome floor plan. All 59 units have, oh, if you can go back, sorry. So all 59 units do have ground floor access and also include balconies within their floor plans. 46 of the units provide less of the restricted open or the private open space per unit of the required 200 square feet, which is the basis of one of their waivers. Next slide. This is the diagram of the proposed circulation on Hollister. Like I said, access is taken off Hollister Avenue through a single driveway. And earlier reviews by staff raised concerns about the driveway's proximity and alignment relative to Cannon Green Drive. Concerns that were raised included safe ingress and egress, adequate site distance, and potential conflicts with among vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists and transit users all sharing the same the same area. The issues have been addressed through continued plan review and recommended conditions covering frontage improvements, pedestrian pathways, and compliance with the city circulation and right-of-way standards. The 132 proposed spaces going back to the on-site parking, they exceed the 100 required parking spaces required per state density bonus law. And there is therefore adequate parking on site. Any change to the existing bus stop would be coordinated with the transit provider. Next slide. CEQA is the state's primary environmental protection law and requires public agencies to disclose the environmental impacts of projects with the physical effects on the environment. Based on the Class 32 Categorial Exemption Determination Report prepared for this project, the project qualifies for the infill exemption under CEQA guidelines 15332. is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and zoning, sits on a site of less than five acres within the city limits, It's substantially surrounded by urban uses, has no value as a habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, would not cause significant traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality effects, and can be adequately served by utilities and public services. So none of the Section 15300.2 exceptions apply. Next slide. Let's see. So based on the class 32 categorical exemptions determination, as mentioned in the previous, just now, staff does find the project to be consistent with a class 32 exemption. Next slide. Findings. Perfect. So findings. The project creates 59 homes on a combined 3.17 acre site. The site is planned for high density housing. existing buildings would be removed are not historic, and the site has adequate access and public safety review. Next slide. Staff finds that the site is adequate in size, shape, and topography to allow the subdivision in the planned development adequate infrastructure services, access, and environmental clearance. It also has compatible design, layout, landscaping, and lighting, and site improvements. So next slide. Okay, recommendation. So staff's recommendation is to adopt planning commission resolution entitled a resolution to the planning commission of the city of Goleta, California approving vesting tentative track map 132074 to create 59 unit condominium residential community located at 7360 Hollister Avenue and finds the project exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15332 Also adopt planning commission resolution entitled a resolution of the planning commission of the city of Goleta approving development plan and granting preliminary design approval for 59 unit condominium residential community located at 7360 Hollister Avenue. With regards to the administrative error I mentioned at the beginning, if the project is approved tonight, the staff will revise the attachments to correct the administrative error by changing the number of buildings from 13 to 12. Daryl, I believe there is also an additional change. Did you want to speak to that or should I?

Yeah, thank you, Ms. Tattleman. Yeah, I can. Madam Vice Chair, Sirotkin, as you have in front of you, there is an errata sheet. This is to a condition of approval for Exhibit A to Attachment 1 of the map. Essentially what we have here this evening is, you know, per all new development, we require that the applicant underground their utilities. And we'd like to put that in the conditions of approval. It is in the applicant's project description here this evening, but we also want to have that as a condition. So you'll see 15A4. That's the condition. You also see 15A5, which essentially says, you know, they'll coordinate with adjacent property owners to, if mutually acceptable, they'll come up with a cost-sharing agreement. However, kind of looking into this more, staff would like to admit number five, basically due to those overhead utility lines on the east and west portion of the site, those are actually not on this site. They're on the adjacent sites. So the applicant, if this project is approved tonight, will be pulling electricity solely from those overhead electrical lines adjacent to Hollister. So staff would recommend in terms of this errata to include 15A4 but omit 15A5. And then you also see on the back side there, exhibit D to attachment to development plan number 42. staff would request to modify that condition as well, similar to the previous condition, to insert some language into condition 42 that all underground utilities serve the project site as required by condition 5A of the vesting map. So I just wanted to inform you of this proposed erratic sheet to the commission. And we did run this by the applicant. They do agree with the condition.

Thank you, Daryl. Thank you for your patience when we got through this. Staff is here. They look for any questions that you may have along with the applicant team.

And, Chair, I'm just making sure. Is your mic on? Thank you, Chair. Okay.

Thank you for reminding me. Normally, we have about 15 minutes. You get 15 minutes to give a presentation and rebut or clarify anything after the public comment. So you might want to reserve some time for the latter. if you intend to respond to public comment. The Planning Commission may have questions for you, but your time answering our questions does not count towards your 15 minutes.

Thank you.

And Daryl, will you be clicking through the presentation? Perfect. Thank you so much.

Good evening, Commissioners and Vice Chair. My name is Nick Patterson with City Ventures. We're the applicant group for this project here at 7360 Hollister Avenue. I wanted to also, if you want to go to the next slide, just introduce the rest of my design team as well. We have a few of them here in person. Mitchell Cameron with City Ventures as well as our acquisition director. And then we have online, Dwan Keith from KTGY, Steve Oh from C2 Collective, their landscape. Dane McDougall from CNV Consulting is our civil engineer. And Chris Burt from Cox Castle Nicholson is actually, he is here in person. He is our land use attorney on the project.

Next slide.

So just a little bit about who City Ventures is. I know that we had a lot of details already, so I'll try to keep this short and sweet for you guys and leave more room for answering questions. But we are, first and foremost, a home builder. We have a really good track record in the state of California. You'll see on the screen here a few of our past projects that we have done. One of them is actually already in the city of Goleta, the Winslow project over near Old Town. We have over 150 entitled communities in the state and over 10,000 homes built. We're also 100% electric home builder, so we utilize solar to power our projects.

Next slide.

So just a little bit more about the solar aspect. We do have solar panels that are on all the roofs of our homes. That is pre-installed before people move in, and then they can use those benefits towards themselves and for powering their homes. We also do pre-wire conduit for EV in all of the garages as well for any electric vehicle owners. And so I know that we've went through most of this, but I just wanted to speak on the location and the surrounding uses. We think this is a really good project for the specific area due to the surrounding residential on the west and the south of the property, as well as the commercial being able to be used by future residents to the east. We think that this is... A really good opportunity for 59 townhomes here. It's also close enough within walking distance to the commercial that's just a little bit farther east down Hollister and can be used by any of the future residents as well. Housing element site. This is mostly talked about, but I just wanted to go through that. Total acreage is 2.93 acres here, so having a total net unit potential of 88, or sorry, realistic unit potential of 69. We feel that 59 units is a really good quantity of units here, given that the sizes are similar to single-family homes. They are meant to be first homes for future homeowners. And then also people who are looking to maybe downsize that are in larger homes and single-family homes now. So we think this is a good size and good quantity. They also have two-car garages as well, as well as those balconies for multiple utilization for indoor-outdoor living by the future residents. And we can skip this slide. It's mostly just about state density bonus. I just wanted to. include that as well. The architecture here, as I mentioned before, the building materials contain the stone, metal, and wood. Here we do have a color scheme of the dried thyme and white pallet with natural wood materials. We think this blends in very well with the surrounding uses and the surrounding properties and just kind of blends into the city of Goleta as a whole as well. And then here, you'll see the site plan. I know that you've already looked at this. This is our landscape plan. But I just wanted to talk through the flow of the project. So you will be entering off of Hollister Avenue. And that'll be your main ingress and egress point. And then the site plan here is what we call like a fishbone. So you have your main center drive that looks and kind of feels like a main street of a downtown with sidewalks on both sides. And then you have those little drive inlets between the townhomes as well. And all of these drive aisles are considered fire department hammerheads. So fire trucks can turn in and back out, meets all those requirements as well. So they can go into any of those alleyways there and then drive back out through the site. And I assume we'll be talking more about this, but there's the traffic improvements along Hollister. We really wanted to work with the city on this. And we did this by shifting our driveway entrance, which originally was in the center of the site. We think that it works better, as well as the city and staff, to move it over to that western side to allow for any future improvements on the site, but also to allow for kind of what we call this pork chop design and turn lanes on Hollister there that can be utilized. So it creates a lot more of a safe exit for people leaving Cannon Green as well as our project site and anyone that's turning on to anywhere on the intersection there. And then I just wanted to highlight the parking quantities. As I mentioned before, every garage does have a two-car garage. And then we also do have 14 guest parking spaces that are kind of equally split throughout the site. So no matter where you're visiting, if you're a guest or a family coming to visit homeowners, they'll be parking close to their homes as well. And so with that, I just wanted to highlight the conclusion of, you know, we're very excited about this project. That's a housing element, you know, general plan site. You know, we are CEQA exempt. And, you know, we just have, you know, sufficient parking, no traffic impacts. And we're happy to answer any other questions that you guys have throughout the night. I look forward to working with the city of Goleta. Thank you very much.

Okay. Mr. Clerk, do we have any people on Zoom and in person who want to speak?

Yes, thank you, Madam Vice 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 have two speaker slips, and I have one hand raised, so three total speakers.

Okay, so public comment is typically three minutes per person, so if people who speak keep that in mind.

Sorry, Vice Chair. Just curious, do you want to ask if the commission has any questions of the applicant or staff before you? Before we open the public?

Oh, OK. All right. Then does any member of the commission have any questions that they would like to ask of the staff or the applicant? OK. Chairman Fullerton?

Hi, I just have a couple questions for the applicant. The first one is, was there discussion on why some of the buildings are so close to DOG instead of moving the open space so that the open space was a little better aligned with the DOG play yard?

Yeah, definitely. When we were looking at this, aligning the dry vials would definitely impact units and quantity of buildings, but also we figured that Having our common area open space where every resident is going to be using it, being outside, you know, right next to that dog. Daycare, DOG, we'd rather have one, maybe two units there. We've also, this was a comment that came up in DRB, and we can look at, you know, having double pane windows for sound issues that can happen with the dogs outside. barking in the night, as well as just daytime activities as well. So there are mitigation measures that we have looked at and can explore once we get into final engineering and construction drawings as well. But our main idea was to keep the area that every resident is going to be living in as farther away from just a single unit or two there.

Okay, and then which are the low-income units?

Yes, there's going to be three of them. The locations have not been decided yet. That'll be part of the affordable housing agreement that we'll work on with staff. But they'll be like units spread evenly throughout the project. So we'll have some in early phases. And then as we build the project, we'll have one more kind of ready to go online. So there's always going to be one available.

So will they be the smaller ones or will they be different sizes?

They'll be different sizes.

OK. And then... Why only one exit? I know, was there any discussion about trying to have another exit going maybe into the shopping center or something so that you don't just have everyone having to go make a right?

Yeah, I think the... Exiting into the shopping center would require obtaining easements and approval from the neighboring property. It wasn't a thought that we had explored before. We ran these plans through the fire department, and they didn't have any comments on additional ingress or egress. But as I mentioned before with those hammerheads, fire trucks can get in and out with their regular turning motions, going all the way in and out of the site. And then also, if we had a secondary you know, entry or egress or ingress. A long haul, sir, it just would, you know, eat up into too much space. We won't be able to hit our minimum density. We'd probably lose units and buildings if we did that.

Okay. And just one last question. You have solar, but are the units going to have, like, power walls or batteries?

They, that's a good question. I don't know if we already install power banks or the batteries in the garages. I know that we do obviously pre-wire the conduit for EV chargers, but that's something that I'll have to get back to. I'm not exactly sure.

Okay, thanks.

Commissioner Penniman?

I think my questions are probably directed to staff. I'm not sure. But just to make sure I understand all the, all the kind of constraints around this. Because this is an all-housing project, that's why it's subject to SB 3300, the Housing Accountability Act. Is that what makes it qualify, just because it's all housing?

Commissioner Pittman, that is correct. All right, cool.

Cool. And then just to make sure I understand the concession, that... that by providing three very low income units, the applicant reaches 5% threshold and qualifies for the state density bonus law. And that gives them a concession, which they then use to shift the city's normal affordability mix from 2.5 very low to 5% very low, and then taking the low from 5 to 2.5. All right.

Commissioner Penman, that is correct.

Does that shift result in any reduction in either the total affordable housing obligation or the total in lieu fees the city would otherwise receive?

Commissioner Peniman, no. So in retrospect, so what we'll have here is in order to be considered as a state density bonus law project, the applicant has to meet 20% of the total units to be affordable. And so what we have here is, given that the applicant is providing 5% state extremely low, that does bump them into a concession or a waiver. But also, per our ordinance, the city's ordinance, they do have the ability to, since they're only providing three, to fee out the rest up to 20%. And so using that concession, that's the applicant's proposing to do.

I see. So they're still with the three units plus in lieu fees, there's 20% affordable houses? That is correct. OK. Thank you. A couple more questions. I think there was a public comment by Irene Russo mentioning traffic exiting the site has to travel west on Hollister. which I think was a good call out. She was wondering where they would turn around. Have we thought about where most people will turn around and the traffic safety around it?

Commissioner Peniman, I think we'll have Mark Schleck assist with that question. I think in the meantime, we do have a good graphic that I think will also be beneficial. Let me just share that one second.

Commissioner Penniman, to answer your question, the closest signal is at Entrance Road, just to the east or west, excuse me. And so cars would either make a U-turn there or take the scenic route out to Cathedral Oaks and get on the freeway there.

Yeah. Most people are going to be going to Costco and all the shopping centers. Absolutely. So I imagine most of that traffic is going to be making a U-turn. So there is a U-turn. Is legal at Entrance Road? Yes, it is. Great. That answers that question. And then, just to make sure I understand correctly, under the conditions of approval, anyone buying one of these homes, either original buyer or subsequent buyers, will be notified as part of their purchase process that there's already an existing dog daycare kennel next door. Is that right?

Commissioner Peterman, that is correct.

So it'll be part of kind of the disclosures. Hey, you're moving next to a dog kennel. Correct. You've been warned? Yeah. OK. Correct. Good. Good. That makes sense. Two more. Well, no. You already answered where are the low-income units, because I couldn't see that either. The Air Pollution Control District mentioned that a potential health concern for residents within 500 feet of Highway 101. Could staff walk through? Was that concern addressed? Were there any conditions or recommendations related to that?

Commissioner Penniman, yeah, thank you for that question. Yeah, we did receive an agency letter from the Air Pollution Control District with recommended conditions of approval, specifically including on those condos adjacent to Union Pacific as well as Highway 101, that there's certain details that they want added to those units. One is obviously dual pane windows, but also, too, that those windows cannot open or shut. They have to have specific air filter requirements within the condos, HVAC requirements. So we have taken those conditions and implemented those in our conditions of approval.

Okay. Thank you. And is that just for that last row, that last building? Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's all the questions I had.

Commissioner Fullerton? Maynard, did you want to? Okay. I had a couple of questions as well. And I just kind of, part of it is, you know, very similar to Commissioner Penniman. I'm concerned, having been on a rescue squad for 17 years, having driven you know, an ambulance and a fire truck when you say they're going to back out and then they have to make a turn to get to the exit. I am concerned about that. I'm also concerned about the possibility of fire. If there is a fire that does jump the highway, that's prime territory for it. There's only one way to get in and one way to get out. And I noticed in the description that they said the three houses in the back, on the north side of the property had a driveway. Now, what has happened to that? Where does it go? Is there a way to make another exit that goes behind the Elwood mobile homes and comes down to the traffic light at entrance road? Because that way, you don't have to worry. That left turn and then U-turns, In that area, those are really strange and very dangerous because you can't tell whether people are just making a left turn or a U-turn. And so I could see that being a potential accident. Is there any way, and I noticed there's a green belt behind Elwood, that there couldn't be some kind of a driveway. Because I'm thinking about the safety of the people in those houses, both health and fire. That's a concern for me. Have you looked at that at all?

Yeah. So obviously, like I said before, it was reviewed by fire. The plans were approved and we were given the conditions of approval by them, as well as having a full traffic impact analysis reviewed. Um, and you know, them kind of saying that this plan, the site plan does work and it does, um, you know, work to come out of our site, you know, right in, right out only, um, regarding that green strip that you're talking about above Elwood station. Um, we had looked at that, you know, very long time ago, uh, and it's owned, I believe by, uh, union Pacific railroad, who's not the easiest to work with. Um, if, uh, you know, that's, that's, uh, you know, something that they would, uh, be willing to work with city staff on to, you know, donate or you know give access to for this project um you know that would be something that we would be open to but uh you know i think we're very confident still with you know la county or sorry santa barbara uh county fire um and uh and um you know our traffic analysis that this does work and um there shouldn't be any concern for health or safety based off of that because i drive that and and that that both the

Cannon green, people coming out, trying to make a left turn, you can't always see when people are coming from the west. And just to have, there's not some better way than just say, oh, well, they'll make a U-turn at entrance road, because I think that's really risky. And this is, I guess, a question for staff. We had a similar project off of Cathedral Oaks. Shelby was that? And there they were required to have two entrances because we talked about those. And yet here they're saying you don't – similar size project, similar shape in a way. I'm just kind of, you know, how did – how can it be one way here and another way there?

I'm sorry. Vice Chair and planning commissioners, I believe the frontage on Shelby was much greater. I can do some math real quick, but I believe the frontage on Shelby was much greater than what the frontage is here. And also because they were in the very high fire severity zone, I believe the fire department did want the two access points where this is not in that severity zone.

Okay. I was just curious as to how, you know, that worked. And then what kind of screening will there be? Because when I, you know, deliberately came up, counting green to make a right here, to see where the polls are. Now, at one point, too, there was another concern that we dealt with in another meeting about view and whether you know, certain buildings would, you know, obscure a view and we're, you know, and I came up when we were talking about the golf course, whether something would impede view. And that's, I wonder if there's any way to either shorten the buildings slightly because they, right now the poles kind of loom And they block the view of the mountains. So I don't know how major a concern that is for the town. But I just wonder whether they can be some way, either the tall trees, something that screens some of that height in some way makes it less just you're looking at a building.

Yeah, absolutely.

There's nothing else that's three stories up there.

Yes. First, I did want to also just note on the plans or in the staff report and also on the waivers that are listed, it does list that our buildings are going to be 41 feet in height. We did want to just correct that, that the highest any of the buildings is going to be is 38 feet 6 inches. And so I just wanted to note that's only 3.5 feet above the 35-foot height limit. I understand, obviously, it is, you know, you're still using a waiver. I just wanted to make note of that. Second, to answer your question about, you know, the screening, we will have landscaping along Hollister Avenue the best we can to have, you know, mature plantings when we do install all the landscaping there. That will help screen the frontage of those buildings. It'll probably, you know, get most of the first floor being able to be screened, but also that is most people's front door, so that'll help kind of also give them privacy It kind of works both ways that way. As for the building heights, we try to keep all of our floor plates at 9 feet 1 inches for just livability. It's really hard to have these units have 8-foot ceilings. It just makes them feel really small and not something that is very enticing to future homebuyers. When you walk in, it just feels a little bit tighter. So that's kind of our standard is to always have 9-foot ceilings. We also do have pitched roofs here with the factor of all of our HVAC units are on the roofs and they're screened by our pitched roofs. That was something I think that's in the city's code or just was a request from staff to have all of our HVAC equipment screened from the public right-of-way. So when you are standing on the street or driving by, you won't see any of that. And that does have to do with our roofs being a little bit higher at their peak, their highest point there, just so that all that can be screened.

The other thing, and then you mentioned in the plan about sidewalks and bicycle paths. Now, there are sidewalks there currently, and there's a big multi-bicycle and walking path on the other side of the street. Oh, of Hollister. So what are you planning when you say you're going to improve the north side of Hollister

you know, with sidewalks and bike paths, but... Yeah, I think that might have just been a miscommunication. We will obviously improve the sidewalk along Hollister, you know, as part of our construction and cleanup, just to make sure that, you know, it's all brand new when we are finished. And then the bike paths and the walking paths, I think it is more so on our site. There's, you know, walking paths that connects all the buildings to each other, just so if you have a friend that, you know, lives on the opposite side of the site, you do have a clear path to walk to them.

And I promise this is my last, I won't keep badgering you. Just out of curiosity, and maybe you can't tell me this, when you say, you know, very low income and low income, what will the rest of them be? And, you know, what's kind of price differential? How affordable are they? We're talking about this being affordable. I'm just curious as to what you see the market rates going for and the others as well?

Yeah. So I know that the very low units that we are providing on site, it's all determined by the HCD at the time. And so every year it does change. So it's hard to identify. I think this year it was just above $100,000 for those very low income for a four-person household. The market rate units, the rest of the units, they do range. We really try to price our units to be at the bottom end of kind of the market right now. And so the city of Goleta, we try to get under where the single family resales are so people can have the option of a new townhome or a single family detached home where they're kind of at the same price. So we really try to review the markets and in real time be updating those prices so We're not overpriced or not just very underpriced.

Probably around a million?

No, lower than that.

I'm thinking about what I see on the market in Goleta.

Yeah, we try to be under that, so you have the option to get in.

Yeah, I think that pretty much, Mr. Clerk, do we have any? Ah, I'm sorry.

Commissioner Maynard. Vice Chair Saratkin, I realize we forgot to do ex parte communications earlier. Can we please get that done before public comment?

Does anyone have any ex parte communications to report? No. And I don't, so do any of us? I don't think so.

OK, so the record will reflect that planning commissioners have not had any ex parte communications about this project.

OK. Vice Chair Sorokin, two things. One, I did the quick measurement. This property has a frontage of 224 feet approximately, where Shelby was over 675 feet. So Shelby was almost three times that amount of frontage. And then if you are interested in the income limits for affordable units, it is available on the planning web page under housing implementation. And Mr. Patterson is correct that according to the chart that we have that the income limits for a four-person, very low family is $91,050. And that would be the annual income. And the chart is depending on family size and income category. Thank you. And that is as of May 26 of this year.

Thank you. That's very helpful. Commissioner Maynard.

Commissioner Fullerton, do you have any other questions? I think you were in the queue before me. OK. I'll go for it. Just a couple of quick clarifying questions as we were talking about the other things. Looking at the landscaping plan, I actually don't see any trees along Hollister. So I don't think there's any landscaping right along Hollister there. Is that correct?

Yeah. I think that that was something that was picked up during the design review board. So those plans might not show the final. But that's definitely something during final engineering and CDs we'll pick up and just have as much screening as we can there. I think the design reviewer wasn't a big fan of the seating areas along there, and so they thought no one's going to sit there. So we decided we'll add some plantings there to kind of help screen that.

Can I just add that there is a high-pressure gas line in that area? So I think that there is concern. They will work on where they could put trees, but they have to work around that. And SoCalGas is usually pretty particular about what can be put on top of a gas line, and particularly one that's high-pressure.

That seems like a good choice. Well, thank you. I'll actually go to staff on this one. So there was a discrepancy there of the staff report saying 41 feet was the maximum building height, and the applicant mentioned 38 feet and 6 inches. Is that just the difference of electrical or HVAC equipment, or is that a change in the building height? From what's being proposed, I just want to clarify that.

Yeah, I can answer that. I can't remember if 41 feet was just an old number that we might have missed, but we were able to kind of flatten out just the pitches a little bit to help with the height while also still keeping the 42-inch parapet kind of under those roof pitches for the mechanical equipment as well.

Steph, that seems accurate to you all. OK, thanks. And then can you put the turn map that you just had up a second ago? Yeah, that one. So I think in comparing this to some of the drawing ones, so the entrance Because this beautifully displays the Cannon Green entrance. But the new entrance of the property would come into that green triangle in the middle. That's kind of like where it's across from that green triangle in the middle. Is that right? Is the entrance to this property.

Commissioner Maynard, thank you for recognizing Cannon Green and Hollister Avenue. We were trying to come up with a graphic that helped describe what we were going to try to do in the meeting. And this is best we could come up with. Unfortunately, it doesn't show the project.

Yes.

Okay. So if you look at the lower picture, I would say their driveway might be in the vicinity of that bus on the north side of the road.

That's what I was looking for. Thank you. Yes. Okay. That was all my questions.

Commissioner Fullerton, did you have anything else you wanted to ask?

Okay.

So I think now we're ready for public comment. So Mr. Clerk, how many do we have?

Yes. Thank you, Vice Chair. I have two speaker slips and one hand raised on Zoom. For those of you on Zoom, please use the raised hand icon and I will call on you. Looks like we have three total speakers.

Okay. Thank you. And to the speakers, you have three minutes.

Okay, we'll go with the in-person speakers first. I think she may have left Irene Russo. Is she still here? So Irene Russo has left. Rachel Murphy.

Good evening, Goleta Planning Commissioners. My name is Rachel Murphy, and I am a proud native and current resident of the South Coast region. And I am also a public policy coordinator for the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce. Our chamber currently represents hundreds of businesses across the city of Goleta, and we're here today to strongly support the proposed housing development at 7360 Hollister Avenue. City Venture's model offers an important opportunity to expand attainable home ownership, which is currently limited in the city of Goleta. Home ownership is absolutely critical because it anchors the workforce and families to our community, fostering lower employee turnover and a thriving local economy. With housing options becoming scarce and increasingly more expensive, more home ownership opportunities support people like me who grew up here or those who moved to the region to work, to lay down permanent roots, and continue working in the community rather than being driven to other parts of California or to even other states. As the chamber, we consistently hear from employers that the lack of available housing is a top challenge for their employees. The 59 new units this housing project adds will certainly help to alleviate this issue. And these units will be close to jobs, businesses, schools, public transit, and beautiful community amenities. 7360 Holliser is also located on a housing element site that is specifically identified for future residential development. This means the project is a vital opportunity to advance the implementation of the city's housing element and contribute to meeting the city's RENA goal of 1,837 newly constructed units from 2023 to 2031. Overall, the chamber respectfully urges the Planning Commission to approve and move forward the 7360 Hollister Avenue project. We believe that City Ventures is a trusted community partner that has worked diligently to thoughtfully design, appropriately scale, and create a legally compliant housing development that delivers necessary housing for the local workforce and for the overall community. Thank you.

And the last call, for those of you who wish to speak to this item in person, please hand in a speaker slip to me. Those of you on Zoom, please use the raised hand icon. Steve Hathaway, would you please unmute yourself? You have three minutes.

I'm speaking as the owner of Elwood Station, the manufactured home community located immediately adjacent to the proposed development. Because Elwood Station's a lower profile, single story residential community, the developer's request for an extreme height waiver up to 41 feet will cause severe, irreversible damage to our living conditions, safety, equity, and basic residential privacy. You are urged to abide by the existing 35 foot limitation. 41-foot vertical tall buildings built adjacent to our property line will completely destroy any notion of neighborhood compatibility. I urge the Planning Commission to deny this height variance based on the following critical impacts to our community. Manufactured homes in Elwood Station are low profile, single story structures. Placing massive multi-story structural barrier adjacent to our community creates jarring, oppressive transition that will loom over our community and permanently damage the physical, visual character of the West Goleta Corridor. I mean, if you viewed the story poles that are adjacent to the community that are out here, they're absolutely massive. And the waiver is not necessary for the requested density. At the design and review board, as the applicant said, the height is 38 feet 6 inches. Reducing each floor to eight foot plates would bring it within compliance of the height limitations to 35 feet. Redesigning the site plan so the proposed common area would be adjacent to the existing residential instead of adjacent to DOG would be a big benefit and not cause as much impact on our site . In addition, at 41 feet, the upper stories, the multi-level windows, and the private balconies of those townhomes will look directly down on our patios, windows, homes, the swimming pool, the families in our community will lose all reasonable residential privacy due to this massive, unmitigated, overlooking effect and destroy all privacy. The LEED's planning guidelines exist to protect low density neighborhoods from high density projects, granting a height waiver to compress maximum density Right along our property boundary completely eliminates the physical setbacks and safety barriers that our community is legally entitled to. The impacts from the massive buildings will negatively affect the property values of the homes within Elwood Station. In addition to that, the surrounding neighborhood is already severely impacted by overflow parking.

Thank you very much. Does the staff want to clarify anything on the record in light of public comment?

Yes, I would. This is Sophia Tatlian. I wanted to just clarify that looking at the project plans, the requested height is not 40 to 41 feet. It's actually 36 to approximately 39 feet. So I just want to go ahead and note that. So in addition to noting an administrative error with regards to the number of total buildings being proposed from 13 to 12, staff would also like to acknowledge if approved, we would modify the requested max height from 40 to 41 feet to approximately 36 to 39 feet.

Thank you. Does the applicant want to clarify anything on the record in response to public comment?

Yes, I will kind of just go down the list. So obviously, the height is the biggest concern, it sounds like. In addition to the height being corrected from the 41 feet to the 38 and a half, I also just wanted to point out that our site is slightly lower than Elwood Station. Hollister does have a little bit of an upslope going from our site to our property to their property. So there will be a little bit of a retaining wall on that western property line of our site. So it will help offset the height of our buildings compared to theirs, probably enough to be very close to the 35 foot building height. So that will help. Regarding, you know, patios and, you know, windows facing their property, we won't have any patios that do face the property the patios face. north and south, so just looking at only our buildings or Hollister Avenue or the train tracks are really the only views from those patios. And regarding overflow parking, we will have CC&Rs, part of our HOA, that will restrict our residents and guests from parking only on our property site. In our garages and in our guest spaces, we would never be parking along Hollister. I don't think there is parking along Hollister. we definitely would not be parking in a neighboring property as well. So we'll be monitoring that. That'll just be part of our HOA going forward. I think that's all the questions.

Thank you. Do any of the commissioners have any other questions for staff or the applicant? Okay. Commissioner Penniman?

So given that this site is subject to SB 330, And the state density bonus law, if we did want to make adjustments for height or neighborhood compatibility, maybe this is a question for legal, what recourse would we have or do we have any recourse as a planning commission?

I think the simple answer is we have to provide the concession that they've asked for, which is the variation in height.

Thank you.

Does any other commissioner have a question? I have one that when you talked about the undergrounding, and I'm not sure whether this is staff or whether this is the applicant, the undergrounding of the power lines, have the adjacent properties been approached about it? Do they know that they're going to have to pitch in to help pay for it?

Vice Chair and Commissioners, the applicant will be required to underground the utilities on their property and not outside the property, and the adjacent property owners don't have to do anything. Oh, okay.

That wasn't clear, so thank you very much. Okay, at this point, yeah, did you have?

And I think that's why we're omitting 15AV. Correct. Because 15AV would imply that. Right. Yeah, okay.

OK, does anyone else have anything? OK, in that case, I'll now close the public comment portion of the hearing. And planning commissioners would now deliberate. So if you want to provide your comments. Anybody want to say anything? Did you want to say something? Sure. Okay. Oh, yeah, now I see it. Commissioner Fullerton.

Okay. Yeah, overall, I think it's actually a nice project. I like the architecture. I like the way it looks. I like that it's solar and that you have chargers. I don't love that, you know, there's so few low-income. I wish that there were more low-income units, and I wish that the units were not quite so – close to DOG because it's easy to say now people are going to buy it. But people buy houses by the airport, and then they complain about the airplane. So I think there's going to be people complaining down the road. But if you're going to buy a place next to a dog thing, it's such a place. I know a lot of people go and bring their dogs there. So I would not want to have their business impacted because of this. But overall, I support this project. I know we have limitations because of state law, so there's only so many things that we can ask for. So I think as is, I support it.

Thank you. Somehow I lost Commissioner Bennett on there. I'm not used to all this.

No worries. No worries. So yeah, I think that we have this extra density because of state laws. But within the framework that we have to work with, this project is less dense than entitled under the state bonus density law. More parking than is actually required under the state law. You know, not our ideal mix of affordable housing, but not as many as actually we would like to manifest instead of in lieu fees. But, you know, yeah, I think it's a project I could support.

Okay, thank you.

And Commissioner Maynard. This project has met the requirements in order for us to approve this project, and we are bound by state law to approve the height increases as well as the traffic reductions. I do have some concerns with the project, but not ones that I think we're in a good position to be able to argue against given the restrictions of state law. I think they met the requirements that they had to to get the project approved. And so I will support the project as is.

Better said than I.

And I would also say I think it's attractive. I think that I'd like to see both the applicant and the city talk to the railroad about that possibility of extending entrance road around the back. I think it would be to the betterment of both Elwood Station, you know, the Elwood Mobile Home Park, for fire and emergency vehicles to be able to get back in there. And I, too, would like to see more affordable housing because, I mean, I'm glad I'm in a position that I'm in and not, a new young couple trying to find a place to live in this area. I agree with the public speaker that it is. It's very difficult. It's very painful to watch a lot of young people be unable to find a place to live. And even older families who've been renting and houses are being sold out from under them, Really kind of sad. So I'm glad that you're doing this, but I wish there were more lower income units involved. But I would support that's not enough to vote no. Does anyone on the commission want to make a motion?

I think it's probably my turn.

Do we do one at a time, or can we put them both together? Okay. All right. So I make a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Number 26-20. entitled A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Goleta, California, approving vesting tentative tract map 32074 to create a 59-unit condominium residential community located at 7360 Hollister Avenue and finding the project exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15332. APNs 073-020-034, 073-020-003, and 073-020-035. Case number 25-001-SUB. And that's all I got.

Do I have a second?

Actually, can I just ask for a quick question? Do we need to add the errata to this first motion or to the second motion?

To both, actually, because the first condition is relative to the vesting map. The second condition is relative to the development plan. We also need you to amend, and we'll fix it soon, about the... Building height, because I believe that's in the description of the project, the building height and the number of units. Number of buildings, not the number of units. From 13 to 12, and that the building height wouldn't exceed 38 feet 6 inches. Yeah. And so we would need that amendment in both resolutions.

Okay.

So for Chair, Commissioner Penniman, for what you just read, can you please amend your motion to include Errata 15-4? Mm-hmm. and to modify the height to 36 to 38.6 inches, I mean height, feet, as well as modify the number of buildings from 13 to 12. 38.5, 38 and a half, 38 and six inches, yeah. Okay. Okay.

All right. Yes, I'd like to amend my motion to include condition 15A4 and also the number of buildings from 12 to 13, sorry, 13 to 12, and the height limit from 41 to 38.5. Do we have a second? I second.

So I guess now we would vote. We'll call a roll.

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

Yes.

Commissioner Maynard?

Yes.

Commissioner Penniman? Yes. Vice Chair Starotkin?

Yes.

Chair Miller is absent.

Okay, and then... We need a second motion, I guess, for the second resolution. Yeah.

All right. So I motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Number 26- entitled A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Goleta. California approving development plan and granting preliminary design approval for 59-unit condominium residential community located at 7360 Hollister Avenue. APNs 073-020-034, 073-020-003, and 073-034. 20-035 case number 25-0003-dp and 25-0018-drb with the amendments of the amendment to condition number 42 that all underground utilities to serve the project site are as required by condition 15A4 of the vesting map and the change of the number of buildings from 13 to 12 and a height change of 41 feet to 38 and a half feet.

Okay and do I have a second?

I'll second.

OK, so we're ready for a roll call.

Commissioners, please lock in your votes. Commissioner Fullerton? Yes. Commissioner Maynard?

Yes.

Commissioner Penniman? Yes. Vice Chair Sorotkin?

Yes.

Chair Miller is absent.

OK. Mr. Imhoff, do you have a roll call?

I'm sorry. Vice Chair Sorotkin, for procedural purposes, can you close the public hearing?

Oh, okay. So I guess we close the public hearing? That's it. That's all you need to do. Thank you. Thank you all for coming. Okay. Now, Mr. Amol, do you have a report?

Yeah, thank you, and good evening, commissioners. I really don't have much of a report tonight. Our next scheduled meeting is on September 14th. We have no items yet, but stay tuned. We might. The following meeting will be on September 28th, and we will have at least one item on the 28th. Also, it is not too early to say mark your calendars ahead for the upcoming Goleta Lemon Festival, which will take place on the weekend of September 26th and 27th. with all kinds of fun events for the whole family, and we hope to see everyone there. And that is all I have tonight. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Do any commissioners have comments they would like to share? Okay, then I will adjourn. That concludes tonight's business, and do I have a motion to adjourn?

I'll motion. I'll second.

Second? All right. So I guess we need to vote.

Yes, thank you. Commissioner Fullerton?

Yes.

Commissioner Maynard?

Yes.

Commissioner Penniman? Yes. Vice Chair Sirotkin?

Yes.

And Chair Miller is absent.

Oh, yeah, right. Oh, no, I didn't want to do that.

I don't know why you did that.