Remarks by Katie Maynard
91 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 3 of 4
- Play at 2:51:33
“I would also like to see that, and combined with a staff report that helps pull it together, I think we don't want to lump everything, but I do think there's some value in trying to understand sort of the total number of events, total number of events over 195, those types of Assessment is helpful, too, because I know I can get a little lost with the 15 different names of events. I'm like, OK, wait. So how often is it big? How often is it small? So I think trying to kind of group small events, medium events, large events is helpful in that description.”
Planning Commission · Jul 13, 2026
- Play at 2:56:12
“There was a couple of other things that came up in our discussion that if we're continuing, I'd like staff to think about in terms of the conditions of the agreement. There was a question about if one of the parking MOUs goes away, so maybe a requirement that they notify the city if any MOU is discontinued for reassessment of parking availability. potentially having some sort of reporting system of number of people at events so if there was an estimate but they far surpassed the estimate that there'd be some communication with the city on that there was some inconsistency between some of the…”
Planning Commission · Jul 13, 2026
- Play at 3:01:33
“Just on the bike path, I think the only thing that I remember reading in the land trust letter was that there was some restrictions the land trust, I think, might have had about having open pedestrian or bikeways through the property. And I'm going off of memory from the hundreds of comment letters I read over the weekend, so I may not be accurate on that. But we should double check with the land trust guidelines there.”
Planning Commission · Jul 13, 2026
- Play at 3:02:27
“I make a motion to continue. Can I get a second? I'll second that motion.”
Planning Commission · Jul 13, 2026
- Play at 4:34
“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.”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 42:07
“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.”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 42:44
“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?”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 43:29
“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.”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 44:26
“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?”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 45:27
“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?”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 45:47
“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.”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 46:11
“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.”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 47:04
“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?”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 47:43
“You had the slide that talked about the 136 foot versus 100 foot. Yeah. Can you bring that back up again?”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 48:27
“So it's 136 feet between the orange and the blue line?”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 48:33
“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.”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 49:05
“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.”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 49:44
“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.”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 50:12
“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?”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 50:31
“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.”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 50:47
“And then the highest thing after that is only about 27 feet. Is that correct?”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 50:53
“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.”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 51:58
“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?”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 52:25
“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?”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026
- Play at 53:27
“Did you look at any spaces would be closer to the building that would reduce not having to do trenching?”
Planning Commission · Jun 22, 2026