Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the meeting of the City of Toledo Planning Commission for June 22nd, 2026. Please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic from which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Could we get a roll call of the planning commission, please? Of course.

OK. Now is the time for the public forum. And at this time, the public shall have an opportunity to comment on any non-agenda item only relevant to the jurisdiction of the city. Do we have any speakers for the public forum?

Thank you. Now, Director Imhoff, do we have any amendments or adjustments to the agenda?

Okay. We're going to move on to the administrative agenda. And this is for item A1. Mr. Clerk, could you please read item A1 into the record?

Discussion on the minutes from any of the commissioners? Seeing none, do we have any public comments on the minutes?

Thank you. Do we have a motion to approve the minutes?

OK. Could we get a roll call vote, please, on the minutes?

Aye. OK, next we'll go to item B1. This is a public hearing. Mr. Clerk, could you please open the public hearing item by reading the title of the agenda item into the record?

Very good. Commissioner Penniman, did you want to make a statement?

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

Thank you, Commissioner Peterman. We'll give you a minute to step outside. Okay, we're now going to check on ex parte disclosures. Do we want to go start with Commissioner Maynard, please?

I have had no ex parte communications, but I have visited the sites to view the story poles and surrounding area, and that's all I've got today. Okay.

I have also not received any communications. And I didn't quite make it up there to see it, although I have driven past it several times.

OK. I have visited the site, but no ex parte communications. All right. I'd like to invite the staff to do their presentation now. Go ahead.

Yes, we'll do questions after the applicant presentation. So you can go ahead over to that. I would like to read this into the record, however. To the applicant, you have a total of 20 minutes to give a presentation and rebut or clarify anything after the public comment. Please reserve time for the latter, that would be the public comment, if you intend to respond to the public comment. The Planning Commission may have questions for you, but your time answering our questions does not count towards your 20 minutes. OK? So go ahead.

OK, I'll just note that you have three minutes and 43 seconds left to use during your rebuttal, if you so choose. OK, we're now going to go to commissioners' questions to staff and or the applicant. So did you want to start, Commissioner Maynard? Thank you.

Good. A couple of questions. This one might be for the church to start with. I know you've got the non-fixed seating 500-person auditorium, and then you also have the education buildings to the side. During service, will you also have like kids' Sunday room classes and things using the other spaces, or are you only using the auditorium on Sundays? Yeah.

OK, thank you. And then a follow-up question for staff sort of related to that. My understanding of the parking requirements is that they were based on the square footage of the non-fixed seating 500-person auditorium. Why didn't we also include the other spaces if they're used at the same time?

But I guess I'm asking about the things that are happening on Sunday. So it sounded like they're doing Sunday services outside of the auditorium, so wouldn't all the square footage be counted? I guess I'm just understanding the process.

And then I was really impressed that the applicant had talked about eliminating large outdoor events and all exterior amplified noise, but then there's this garage door has come up a number of times in public comment that the area where a lot of the amplification of noise would be happening indoors has a garage door that can open up and then allow that noise to come out. What's the rationale of needing that garage door to open? Is there any thinking about maybe not having that garage door open when amplified noise is occurring indoors. So can you speak to that?

In the acoustic survey, I know there was a really helpful map that I enjoyed looking at that had kind of like a heat map of where the noise limits were. Was that based on the doors being opened or closed in that particular map?

Okay. I'm just curious. I didn't see two maps, like one with it open and one with it closed, so I'm not quite sure which one I'm looking at in the acoustic report.

That's helpful. Thank you. For Stowe House, when they do events that have amplified noise, do they apply for special permits? Is that a special event that they apply for special permits for? Or do they generally do that? have permission to do amplified noise outside at Stowe House. Do we know that? Just for a comparison of a related project.

No, this is for amplified noise. I was curious if events that are at Stowe House typically apply for a special permit when they're doing amplified noise, or they just generally can do amplified noise, and that's something they generally do at that space?

You had the slide that talked about the 136 foot versus 100 foot. Yeah. Can you bring that back up again?

So it's 136 feet between the orange and the blue line?

And then to staff, though, I mean, our code is based on the distance to the red line, not to the blue line. Is that right? Because it looks like, I mean, that's the 100-foot line. Or, like, the orange one is their 50-foot line, and the green one is the 100-foot line for us. That's what we're showing you there, Commissioner Mayer. I'm sorry, this was a question for staff. Oh, apologies. But, like, by our calculations and the way we calculate buffers as a city of Goleta, It's 50 feet at the orange line and 100 feet at the green line. So I just want to make that consistent as we're looking forward because the way our city of Goleta guidelines, it's not 136 feet by our guidelines.

Okay, I'll move on to my next question. We talked about that. I think this was mentioned, but I just wanted to clarify because there's been a lot of different concerns about height. So the elevator shaft goes up to 33 feet, but question to staff, that is allowable in our current code. That is not a height modification.

So there's a small cross, which it's a very tall cross, but a very thin cross that is similar to the one that's already at the CLC site that is also the same height as the CLC height at 33 feet. Is that also correct?

Yeah. So CLC has an existing cross that goes up to 33 feet. In this project, there's also a proposal for a new cross to go up to 33 feet as well, and it's kind of dimensions similar to the existing cross that's there. And then the highest thing after that is only about 27 feet. Is that correct?

And so I watched the DRB meeting. There was some arguments there that were made about the reason for the height modification was to allow for more obscuring the view of the equipment more so to create more of an angle going up from the height that's allowable up to the other height that's allowable for the equipment. So that's what we're looking for an exception for is just that 25 to 27 feet change.

And I guess a question to the applicant, and this is based on something I think I did hear you say in the DRB meeting, which was a public record. But I think you said that if the height modification wasn't approved, you'd go back to the allowable height, but the equipment, the elevator would still go up to 33 feet because that is also allowable. So we just lose that sloping. Is that right?

One more question for the applicant. This goes back to the CLC site. So I recognize that we're not going to get more parking in an existing built parking structure. It's hard to design additional trees into an existing parking structure. So some of those made usually when we give exceptions for historic is because you've already laid out the space. But I was surprised to see the modification To not put in a single e-bike parking space That seems more achievable to me. So I'm curious Can you talk about any cost estimates you did to determine that that would be infeasible for CLC?

Did you look at any spaces would be closer to the building that would reduce not having to do trenching?

That's helpful. Thank you. I guess one last question for staff, and then I'll pass it to my other commissioners. As we were talking about the CEQA exemptions, one of the things that was noted, I think, on one of the staff slides was site has no habitat value, but we also are in a butterfly buffer zone. So can you kind of help us reconcile the no habitat value versus this is within the buffer zone we've sort of identified as a city? And how do I think through that as a commissioner?

Oh, actually, and then one last question. In the 50-foot buffer, so I wanted to just make sure I'm understanding that that will be separated by a split rail fence, and there won't be any gathering in the 50-foot buffer that's just used for that stormwater management and restoration area.

Commissioner Sirotkin, do you have questions?

Yes, I do. And I think some of these may be really for the pastor. Sure. There's been a lot of talk about the 500-seat sanctuary. Could you tell us a little bit about your parish, I mean, you know, your congregation? How many are there? Where do they live? Where are they coming from? You know, what their demographic is. I mean, are they the people who would have child care needs and just if you could tell us a little bit about

And then now you're saying you would have three services. How on Sundays? How would that mesh with CLC? I mean, when do they have their services? Are they going to be at the same time? Are they going to be staggered?

Thank you. If that makes sense. And this one, I mean, I've been quoted in the newspapers for always worrying about traffic. And I have my questions for The traffic expert, who I think is here? Yes? No? So my question is, let's say things go your way and you do have enough for three services. We're not talking about just 500 people additional traffic in that neighborhood and in that area. But it could be 1,500 if you grow to the size you're talking about or on the holidays. That's kind of a small residential. And you did a traffic study and said that the intersection would be fine the way it is

Okay, thank you. You're welcome. That helps to know. And then one other question I have. is the exemption. I think somebody else brought that one up, that it's an infill, an urban infill, and that there's development around it. Well, there's only a limited, there's nothing on the other side of Los Carneros. The area, the stow is not To me, that is not an urban location. Let me put it that way. That's the most succinct I can be about it. And so I'm not quite sure how that exemption was arrived at as it being infilled because it's kind of suburban or rural right there rather than urban.

It just seems odd to me that in one place we say it's urban and it's surrounded by development, and then in another place in all the documentation, it said that that's a scenic route, that Los Carneros there is a scenic route, which it kind of is. You know, that whole side of town is really kind of scenic. It seemed inconsistent to me.

Are you done for now? Yes. OK. OK. I will ask my questions now. I would like to follow up on the noise issue. And this would be, I guess, a question for, well, I'm not sure who is. We'll go to the staff first. And you can tell me whether it's better suited for the applicant. But Goleta's noise ordinance states that its purpose is to preserve the public peace and comfort of the citizens of Goleta from unwarranted noise and disturbances of including but not limited to that of amplified music played in or out of doors after certain hours. This ordinance also prohibits noise that constitutes distu

Yeah. I guess what I'm asking though is when you have the ambient noise of lots of people, hundreds of people talking at once, kids playing, vehicles driving in and out, that's additional noise on top of the noise that you're talking about or the sounds that are coming from within the complex.

So when the music is being played, let's say, there won't be anybody outside? Everything is going to be contained within the building, and there won't be any people coming in or leaving with their cars, and there won't be any people outside enjoying a nice day or the kids playing.

Yeah, and I guess the other issue about the ambient noise is that it – so there may be, like you said, 40 minutes of music. Right. But then there's all the time that people are coming to convene to the services and in their cars, talking, saying hello to one another, kids running, playing. You said you have a lot of children in the congregation. But would that not extend the noise? I don't know if it would raise the level but it certainly would extend the time period of the noise.

OK, thank you. I think that answers the question. My next question relates to traffic. And this would be perhaps for the pastor. You talked about how there would be monitors and that you would have staggered services. staggered services, and traffic monitors. So number one, let's talk about the traffic monitors first. Are these volunteers?

OK. And then also on the cars, the vehicles coming to the next service and the first service, the vehicles leaving. I understand you would have staggered times. How do you plan on controlling those staggered times? Because after the first service is over, do you just go on a loudspeaker and say, okay, everybody who's here for the first service needs to leave? I'm just asking because it seems to me during these times, you know, I remember when many years ago when I attended church services on a regular basis. And particularly when there's a lot of children and a lot of families and a lot of you

Right, so your congregation is used to just the one service where everybody comes together. Correct. And everybody can hang out as long as they want after service, right?

Right, right. But they're all together. So this is going to be something brand new for them. So, you know, to try and, you know, get used to a new system. Is that correct?

And that's just in a figuring out mode at this point. It's not really an exact thing. strategic plan at this point?

Mm-hmm. Yeah. Yeah. OK. So let's see. Where do I want to go with this? I'll just talk about the traffic a little bit more. You're going to have your largest parking lot congregation ingressing and egressing onto Los Canarios Road, correct?

Okay. Los Caneros is a two-lane road. There is no... as far as I know, there's no left turn lane that people can veer into to get into the parking lot or come out of the parking lot. So it's really going to have, and there's no traffic light and there's no stop sign and there's no, there's nothing. And that I just, I'm just having a hard time visualizing and understanding how how that flow is going to occur on a two-lane road without a middle turn lane or an outside turn lane, without widening the street. And I know that's not part of the deal. So if you could talk about that a little bit.

Does that also include the bike lanes, the safety of the bike lanes? I mean, did you take that into account?

OK, and then because it's been the history that anybody that can't get into that parking lot does their overflow parking in the neighborhood. So as a service is getting out and those that had to park in the overflow in the neighborhood, there's going to be a lot of pedestrians. So did you also take into account that there will be pedestrians to watch out for?

OK, yeah. Yeah. OK, you did not. You did not. We did not. OK. Pardon me?

Yes. Yes. Just a question for city staff, though. It looks like there is a sidewalk that is being added. I don't know if it's already there is being added, but I see a sidewalk along North Los Canaros Road along the stretch of the project. Is that right?

Okay. And I think... question, at least for now. This is for the staff. Is there a precedent in the past where the city of Goleta approved a project of this size? And this is the city, not anything that was here prior to Goleta being a city. Is there a precedent in the past where the city of Goleta approved a project of this size in a residential zoned area? One that had this number of assemblies and size of assemblies and amount of traffic up past that you folks have worked on?

Yes, at the roundabout. Yes. Okay. So, but that...

They don't have daycare, and they don't have nursery schools, and they don't have Sunday or after. They don't have children's classrooms.

OK. And both the Islamic Center and the synagogue, do they have the same number of congregants?

Okay, okay. So there's nothing, there's nothing, you can't, can you really say there's been a precedent or maybe you're not sure because of, there's some similarities but not, you don't know if there's 100% similarities. Is that what you're saying?

Okay. Great. Thank you. Any additional questions at this time?

We'll take a 10-minute break. Excuse me, everybody. If we could get started again. We're going to move right into public comment now. So I'm going to turn it over to our clerk for that.

Okay. Thank you. So each of the speakers will have three minutes, and we'd like to keep you to the three minutes. If you start to go over the three minutes, I will likely stop you at that point. Okay? Thank you.

Thank you. Yes, I'll address that in my letter. Thank you.

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

OK. So you'd like to have them use their 3 minutes and 43 seconds. OKAY.

Okay. Thank you. Next, we will see if there's any additional questions from commissioners to either the applicant or the staff. Commissioner Sirotkin.

I think, you know, just listening to everybody, everyone is so, I think everybody feels so strongly about both sides of the issue. And I can understand why this congregation wants a home and certainly should have that. And I can understand why the neighbors have serious questions. some stemming from poor experiences with the church in the past when they were in the tent, and others with concern for the neighborhood. I think a lot of it, a lot of the objections, at least from what I'm hearing, is based on the size. And I understand that the church wants to grow and is building for growth.

And I just want to make sure there's a question here.

Yeah, there is. And so my question really is, does it need to be that size? And perhaps that would alleviate some of the objection. If it wasn't there for $1,500 as a goal, which is probably terrifying to people who live in a neighborhood. And the other question is, are church members neighbors? Is there an overlap between the people who live in the neighborhood and the members of the church, rather than the church being an outgrowth of the people that live in the neighborhood?

I wanted to ask Council, there's a couple of public comment letters that came up. One of the challenges we have is that there is limited parking at Lake Los Caneros. And so there's been a lot of overflow from that use into this parking lot. And so far, the church has been generous with sharing some of that space. But that's not dedicated parking for Lake Los Canaros. To my understanding, I guess I want to verify this with you, we can't require a property owner not to use their space. So we couldn't require a project to not build anything there. That would be considered a taking in some ways. C

Thank you. And then a question, going back to the transportation for a second. So there are two transportation analysis, VMT and level of service. We have switched in many ways to looking at VMT for many things, which we know doesn't address traffic. But the level of service is... is something that's still required by our city that helps to look at traffic congestion. I noted, like in this project, we are below the requirements of the general plan for level of service. So we are thinking about traffic congestion as a part of this. I want to clarify one thing that level of service was level of

Could we verify? I think we have some transportation planners either from our team or from the – Sure.

Just was – to what extent was level of service assessed on Sunday and the types of traffic that would come up on a weekend –

Okay. So for both level of service and VMT, the weekend traffic was not accounted for. Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's all my questions.

Any additional questions? I don't have any additional questions myself. Since we have no additional questions from the commissioners, I'm going to close the public comment portion of the hearing. And we're going to go into deliberations now. So the public hearing is now closed. And Commissioner Maynard, would you like to start us off on deliberations?

Sure. Thank you very much. First, I just want to thank everybody who came out tonight. We've heard a lot of different perspectives and a lot of experiences. And I really appreciate getting to learn from all of you tonight. And for you to be out here late on a Monday and putting in that dedication to the community. So thank you for doing that. As we look at this project, I think as planning commissioners, we are a semi-judicial board. We are not a fully... there were different from city council in that sense the planning commission is here to help to interpret the zoning ordinance and the gener

I have very mixed feelings, I have to admit. Now, one of the things that troubles me is the reluctance to make it smaller. I was a college vice president in another lifetime, and that is a big building that far beyond what 55 daycare and 55 preschool takes up. And I understand to have facilities, but it just seems to me that what's happened is that The remaining property is being paved. And to get at your question about the buffer, part of it is because it's so big and that the two-story, the education building, is the one that really strikes me as being way bigger than its neighbors because n

Well, as Commissioner Maynard said, I just want to thank everybody, to all the staff for your work, and thank you to the public for your many comments and concerns, ideas, and thoughts. It's really obvious that our community, Goleta community, is a caring and thoughtful one, and each of us wants what's best for our city and our neighborhoods. And it is our job as commissioners to look at the findings, listen and read with an open mind to all the pros and cons and evaluate the land issues for any project that comes before us. It is also our job to make sure that these issues comply with our gen

I still struggle that we're holding them to a different standard. And I think that's the thing that keeps coming back to me here. If the primary concerns are parking and transportation, they're not backed up by the analysis or the standards set by the city. And so if there's concerns with parking at the levels that are here, we need to change the zoning ordinance. we need to change the requirements of the community assembly to include not just the assembly area but other parts of the project or to require more parking for a project of this scale. That's not what our zoning ordinance says. And

I don't think I'm asking necessarily for the parking to be changed. for the parking lot to be changed. What concerns me more is the overflow and disruption into the neighborhood. And it also concerns me. even though the level of service wasn't done on Sundays, we know, it's obvious. I mean, it's pretty 100% clear to me that, yeah, that level on Sunday, whether it was studied or not, is going to be pretty heavy on Sundays. between Stowe Park, the railroad depot, the railroad museum, Lake Canaros, the proposed church, and then... You know, if there happens to be – there's also sometimes special

Shall I try to make a motion? I'm going to try a motion. I don't know if it'll work, but I'll try it out. I do want to make an amendment to the motion around the e-bike parking space. That's just a small thing that I want to put back in. Should I do that in... Motion one or motion two? Item one or two?

OK, so the first one is about the notice of exemption. So my first motion is, after considering the evidence presented during the public hearing, adopt Planning Commission Resolution Number 26-underscore, entitled A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Goleta, California, Adopting a notice of exemption and approving parcel map 32- or 32,072 to create two lots located at 6595 Covington Way, APN 077160-022, case number 24-0002-sub. So we'll start with just that motion and see if there's agreement on the first before we go on to the second. Do you want to do a vote?

OK. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

MY SECOND MOTION IS AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 UNDERSCORE ENTITLED RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF GOLITA, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENT WITH ADJUSTMENTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH ADJUSTMENTS For development located at 6595 Covington Way, APN 077-160-022, case numbers 24-0004-CUPAM 24-0010. DPAM 240005-CUP, 24-0009-DP, and 24-0030-DRB, with the exception that we do not approve the requested exemption of the

Let's see. Yes, this amendment. With the revision to condition one, as noted in the staff slides. Sorry, can you put that back up so people can see it while we're voting on it? I saw it a second ago. Oh, there it was.

So we have a motion. Do we have a second?

I just want to clarify this. We are now making a motion that we approve or acknowledge the fact that all of this now will be affecting. OK.

Yeah, so the motion is proposed in the staff report. This would close out approving the project if you were to choose to approve it. This would add in not allowing the requested exemption of not moving forward with the electric bike parking space. And then, sorry, go back to the other slide real quick. And then it also includes adding this underlined language. Mm-hmm. So you can second, you can choose not to second, or you can also make a friendly amendment to the motion. Just throwing another option out in case you would prefer to make a friendly amendment. And then if you propose an amendmen

Would this be a chance that at this moment we could indicate if there was something that would make the project more palatable to the Planning Commission? Are we looking to suggest things that we would like to see changed in the project? Or are we just looking to give guidance to the staff to come up to develop a report that shows findings consistent with what we talked about tonight? I guess I'm trying to understand. What type of feedback do you need from us in advance of the August 10th?

OK, then do we have a motion for findings of denial?

OK, OK. Do we have a motion? Yes? No, no, no. OK, I'll make the motion. We would like to direct the staff to come back by a date certain with findings for denial.

If that's acceptable to you, yes. By August 10th, yes. So I made the motion. Do we have a second?

I thought I had my script, but I don't see it.

It's like, oh. It's like, oh. It's like, oh. I can't take it. Rome.

Okay, thank you. We need to finish our meeting. We need to finish our meeting, everyone. So we're going to go to item C, which is planning director comments.

OK, thank you. Do we have any planning commission or other comments? Planning commission or me? Sorry, I'm losing it. Do we have any commissioner comments? OK. There goes the door again. How about do we have a motion to adjourn? A motion to adjourn. And I'll second the motion. OK. Roll call vote, please.