Planning Commission - Special Meeting

17th 2026 spending Commission special meeting hearings. I'll call the hearing to order at 3 p.m. Miss carving Can we please have a roll call?

Thank you chair boss. I'll begin with chair boss president vice chair delugio president Commissioner Barnwell here Commissioner bow key your Commissioner Peterson here Commissioner Ward though here and Commissioner whiskum here we have quorum.

Thank you Thank you. We'll get started with preliminary matters. I First topic on our agenda today is the request for continuances, withdrawals, postponements, or ex-agenda items. Ms. Arseniega, do we have any?

Thank you, Chair Boss. We do not.

Okay. And any announcements or appeals?

Thank you, Chair Boss. I do have one announcement for the Planning Commission and the public. I want to let you know that on Friday, October 2nd, we're going to have a special joint ABR and HLC training regarding housing project training. The purpose of it is to help the design boards navigate reviewing housing projects in light of a lot of state legislation and how that impacts their findings for compatibility. So kind of bringing together both their compatibility findings and then in light of state housing laws. So I do encourage those of you interested to watch virtually. We do want all of the Planning Commission to watch, if possible. We just don't want to have a quorum issue in the hearing itself, although it will be physically in the David Gephardt hearing room. Again, I'm going to repeat it. It's Friday, October 2, 12 to 1.30. And it's a joint HLC-ABR special hearing to have that training. And it's around housing project training.

Great. Thank you.

So it will be televised. It'll be televised and you can watch it remotely and it'll be televised live.

On YouTube. Correct.

On the city TV as well as in the Zoom links. Okay.

All right. We're on to item C, review consideration action on the draft planning commission minutes and related resolution from the September 3rd hearing. So we can take that as one action. Are there any Planning Commissioner comments on the September 3rd minutes or resolution?

Okay. Do we have any public speaker comments for the minutes or resolution? We do not have any public speaker slips or comments at this time.

Great. Then can I get a motion to approve the September 3rd Planning Commission minutes and resolution?

I'll move those.

And a second?

Second.

Ms. Carman, can we please have a roll call vote?

Thank you, Chair Boss. I'll begin with Commissioner Bauke.

Yes.

Commissioner Wardlow. Yes. Commissioner Peterson. Yes. Commissioner Barnwell.

Yes.

Commissioner Wiscombe. Yes. Vice Chair DiLugio. Yes. And Chair Boss.

I'll abstain. I was absent.

Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you. It takes us to item D, comments from members of the public pertaining to items that are not on today's agenda. Ms. Carman, do we have anyone in person or remote who would like to give public comment?

Thank you, Chair Baas. At this time, I don't have any speaker slips for in-person public comment under general at this time. But if anyone in the room would like to speak under general, you can approach the podium at this time. And I would also like to remind the audience that if you would like to speak on a specific item on this agenda, you can fill out a speaker slip and bring it up to me, and they'll call your name under that item. But we don't have any participants online with us, and nobody is approaching the podium. But I will just acknowledge that we received written correspondence from Rob Fredericks and give it back to you.

Great. Thank you. So we'll move on to the discussion item, 6210 to 6290 Hollister Avenue. The purpose of this item is to provide input on whether the proposed changes are in substantial conformance with the original development plan approval made by the commission in 2018. So we have staff here to provide a presentation. Introduce yourself, please, during the presentation, and the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Voss, and good afternoon, Commissioners. It's nice to see you all. My name's Carly Ernest, Associate Planner with the Planning Division, and I'll be giving the staff presentation for the project at 6210 to 6290 Hollister Avenue. The purpose of today's hearing is to obtain input from the Planning Commission on a substantial conformance determination request. In 2018, the Planning Commission approved a development plan for a new automobile dealership at the subject property and there are now changes proposed to accommodate Rivian Automotive as the occupant of the dealership. Under section 30.205.130 of the municipal code, following a discretionary approval, the community development director may approve minor changes that remain in substantial conformance with the original project description, findings, and conditions of approval, provided the changes do not increase the intensity of any aspect of the project that could have a potentially detrimental effect. So as noted, the director is responsible for the final determination, and the commission will not be taking a formal action today. However, the planning commission guidelines allow for staff to obtain input from the commission when the revisions are significant or a large project warrants more formal input. Per the guidelines, your role today is to look at whether the revised project is substantially consistent with the original approval, and I'll review those changes after providing some brief history. So for background and to start with the vicinity map, the project site is approximately six acres and owned by the airport. It's located along Hollister Avenue between La Patera Lane and David Love Place. It's also located within the airport industrial specific plan area. It's zoned AI2 or the airport industrial zone except for the portion in gray which is the runway protection zone and is zoned for airport approach and operations. And here's another map, just zoomed out version, to show the city limits and that the property is bordering the city of Goleta with its La Patera Lane sidewalk within Goleta's jurisdiction. And here's another map just to show the specific plan boundaries for reference. The specific plan was adopted by city council in 1998 for 225 acres of city-owned property along the north and south sides of Hollister Avenue. The specific planned land use map identifies the project site as Jeep dealership and commercial or light industrial. The site has a long history of automobile dealership use. Vista Volkswagen constructed a dealership here in 1972 and the property continued operating as an automobile dealership until 2009. Here's a photo of that building which was demolished by the airport in 2013 because it extended into the RPZ associated with runway 15L. And a new dealership was approved by the planning commission in 2018. That 2018 development plan approval authorized a new 40,477 square foot dealership consisting of two buildings separated by a service driveway. The west building would be a 26 foot tall two story building with architectural features extending to 31 feet. And the east building would be a 30 foot tall single story building with architectural features extending to 36 feet. The project included 184 parking spaces and 71 on-site inventory spaces, as well as an existing lease for additional off-site inventory down the street at 200 Frederick Lopez Road. The Planning Commission's approval was appealed by the City of Goleta, and on May 8, 2018, City Council denied the appeal and upheld the development plan. The revised project would continue the same land use as the approved project for an automobile dealership. The proposal is for a single-story 33,866 square foot building with a maximum height of 32 feet 2 inches. The project would provide 76 customer and employee parking spaces and 51 inventory spaces. The off-site inventory lot that was part of the original approval is no longer proposed. And the public improvements associated with the original approval would continue, including the new sidewalk and parkway along Hollister, the MTD bus turnout and bus stop, and a new parkway along La Patera Lane. This table summarizes the primary differences between the two projects. The most significant point for the purposes of substantial conformance is that the project is smaller overall in scale. The floor area decreases by approximately 6,600 square feet. The maximum building height decreases from 36 feet to 32 feet 2 inches. It would be consolidated into one single story building. The parking is also reduced, which is largely a function of the reduced floor area because the zoning ordinance calculates required parking based on that floor area. There would also be fewer inventory spaces and the offsite inventory lot is no longer proposed. So overall, while the physical configuration of the project changes, the use and function remain a dealership and the overall scale of development is reduced. These next few slides are the 2018 approved plans. So starting here at the approved site plan, the runway protection zone is shaded in gray and again is zoned airport approach and operations. And that zone limits uses primarily to runways, taxiways, and open space or vegetation consistent with FAA safety requirements. The project proposed its landscaping and some stormwater treatment in this area. Also identified the two buildings that would be separated by the service drive with the main access to the site taken from Hollister Avenue. And just for reference, the approved landscape plan, again showing the RPZ that would be developed with landscaping and bioswales and then the required parking lot landscaping planters and trees. Just run through the approved elevations this these are the south and east elevations of building number one Which would be occupied by up to five dealership brands? the south elevation at the top is the view from Hollister and building number two is Again, the elevation on the top is the view from Hollister, and this building would be occupied by Infinity. And on the left, you can see the service drive-through area that connects the two buildings, and just a rendering for a better visual of the full south elevation as viewed from Hollister. These next few slides are the proposed plans with the changes to accommodate Rivian as the new occupant. Here's the site plan also showing the proposed landscaping. The RPZ area would remain as landscaping and partially used for stormwater treatment. There are changes in the site planning, and you can see there's now only one building instead of two. The project would still provide the required parking for customers and employees, as well as inventory parking. And again, the public improvements would remain consistent with the original approval. And here's the proposed north and south elevations. The south elevation at the bottom is the view from Hollister. And here are the east and west elevations. This east elevation at the top is the primary customer entrance into the building. And again, a rendering of the proposed design for a better visual as viewed from Hollister. Important consideration that staff looks at for the revised project and if it's in substantial conformance is if there would be changes to the original conditions of approval The conditions of approval are contained in the City Council resolution that was attached as exhibit C to your staff report packet staff has not identified any original condition that would need to be modified as a result of the proposed changes and This includes a condition resulting from the City of Goleta appeal requiring a fair share contribution of approximately $345,000 towards traffic improvements in Goleta. This condition addresses specific plan policy VC2 that requires any specific plan build out project generating net new trips contribute towards identified traffic mitigation projects. Other relevant conditions are the ones implementing the Transportation Demand Management Program that would also remain in effect, including measures related to transit, van pooling, guaranteed ride homes, bicycle storage, and shower facilities for employees. And again, public improvements would remain the same, and the applicant would also obtain appropriate permits from the City of Goleta for the improvements along the La Patera Lane frontage. Regarding design review, although staff considers the revised project generally consistent with the prior land use entitlement, the architectural design is substantially different from the previously approved. So the project is not relying on the prior design review approval and will require a new approval from the ABR. ABR has reviewed the project twice. At its June most recent concept review hearing, the board found the revised project generally met the city's compatibility criteria and requested some further refinements. If the project is ultimately found in substantial conformance, it would return to ABR for project design approval and final approval. And we do have ABR board member Will Sofrin here to speak to that as well. Lastly, regarding environmental review, this has not yet been completed for the revised project, but staff anticipates that an addendum to the specific plan environmental impact report would be the appropriate level consistent with the approach used for the original approval. The addendum would evaluate the revised project, any change circumstances, and updated technical studies. But given the reduction in overall scale, staff does not currently anticipate that the revised project would result in new or more severe environmental impacts than those previously analyzed. To conclude, staff is requesting the commission's input on whether the revised project is substantially consistent with the 2018 development plan approval. Staff believes it's generally consistent given the continuation of the dealership use while reducing the project's floor area, height, parking, and inventory storage. And we did not identify any aspect of the project that would result in an increase in the intensity or that would have a potentially detrimental effect. Following today's discussion, staff will consider the Commission's comments for the Community Development Director to make the final substantial conformance determination. That concludes staff's presentation, and I'm available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I believe we have applicant representatives as well. Okay, come on up. I think we'll do questions after the applicant presentation.

Thank you, good afternoon. My name is Trish Allen, I'm with CEPPS Land Use Consulting. I really appreciate Ms. Ernest's very thorough presentation. I only have a few comments to make, not a full presentation. So up on the screen, I have our project team, most of which are here in the room today. Lucas Dobbins with Rivian is here, if you have any questions about operations. Rod Zamparo from Arco Murray, our design build team. David Sabunas, architect. We're not going to present architecture, but we do have the building elevations available if you want to look at anything and ask David any questions. Sonya's not here. Chris Gilland, our landscape architect, is going to come up and just walk you through the landscape plan because I think it's worth highlighting. And then that's me. And then here's all our people. So I just have an aerial of the site. Ms. Ernest had all the vicinity map for you, but this is a nice shot showing the vacant site. And really, you can see where the previous dealership was located and demolished. And that's basically the runway protection zone that we've been talking about. And then I just have the landscape plan. I also, I believe, I don't know, my line's a little bit different than where staff was showing that determined boundary of the RPZ zone, but I thought it was that boundary, and I highlighted that. That was something that we talked about when we did the site visit. So as Ms. Ernest mentioned, we have been to the ABR. We were there in June. They did ask and give us some design direction. So the plan set that is in your packet does incorporate some of those revisions, whereas the board asked for some reduction in some of the parking that was out front and additional landscaping. And so Chris will walk you through that. We haven't completed, in this plan set that you have, we haven't completed all our revisions that would be brought back to ABR, but those are in progress. This is a substantial conformance discussion item and we're interested in getting your comments today. I think that staff has done a really good job of explaining this process in terms of the project still carrying forward, all the project conditions of approval, the significant public improvements, the traffic mitigation fees. We understand all those things and agree and all those things will be carried out I meant to say at the very beginning that after all the hard work we all did on the previous entitlement, I personally am thrilled that Rivian has come to our community and that they're going to bring this dealership here to our community and build out this site. So I think that's pretty exciting. I'm sure you all agree with that. So with that, I'd just like to turn it over to our landscape architect to just highlight a couple of things. landscape plan and that's that's the pointer right there that green line okay thank you trish um

Madam Chair, Commission members, good afternoon. Chris Gilliland with Common Ground, landscape architect. And I'll just spend a few minutes kind of walking you through. As Trish mentioned, we did go to ABR twice. So this plan is the next iteration. So we took some of their comments to heart already. We have another plan over the last few weeks that we've been working on fine-tuning and going even a little bit further. Basically, the most important bit is probably, you know, what the public sees from along Hollister here. And one of the comments from the ABR was to sort of reduce the parking along the frontage because it was fairly continuous along that stretch. And so we've actually removed, I don't know, 10, 12 plus parking spaces along Hollister and really increased, especially at the entry, the landscape area to provide more of a buffer from the street between that and the building. We also have a little sort of display plaza here for a few vehicles. And this is what we're calling the jewel box. That's sort of the showroom, if you will. And this is the where... warehouse but there's the shop basically where the Repairs happen delivery is here for customers, but you know from a landscape perspective We're following all the rules we have a sort of low hedge along Hollister that will help to sort of hide those those cars and you know very far more landscaping as you can tell from the previous iteration in 2018. And so yes, a lot of trees. The stormwater plan is a little bit different in that Robert Schmidt from Flowers and Associates basically divided this site into four quadrants. And each quadrant drains to a bioretention basin, one, two, three, and then four or five here. But that will change slightly because it has not taken into account the reduction, additional reduction in parking. So those will actually get smaller. We may reconfigure them slightly. But this is, you know, the basic gist of the direction we're heading. And one of the things that I really liked about the way the parking area was designed was the, you know, we don't just have, like, little four-foot planters in between each row. So, you know, 10, 15 feet, which enables me to provide, rather than just a straight line of trees here, a little bit of rhythm and movement, especially along Hollister. just a little bit more natural, so it's not just a straight line of trees, which I really liked having the opportunity to do. And then I guess off to the west here, the airport approach zone, the plan is to basically seed that with native grasses, wildflowers, and with temporary irrigation, and it'll just be a big open field for the time being. So with that, I'll take any questions anyone has.

Thank you very much. Does that conclude the applicant present? Okay, great. Thank you so much. And I apologize I skipped over our ABR representative. I know we had the minutes from January and June, but did you also have a statement you wanted to make?

Good afternoon. Will Soffer in ABR. Just want to, you know, make a comment that, yeah, we did find this project in conformance with We found that the applicant was amenable and agreeable to recommendations and suggestions. And as you can see from the original approval, you know, this project has been scaled down. And even just the presentation that we saw where there was that increase in landscaping on the street front sort of really helped us find support in the applicant.

Great. Thank you very much. That takes us to comments from members of the public pertaining to this specific item. Ms. Carman, do we have any?

Thank you, Chair Boss. At this time, I don't have any speaker slips for in-person public comment. If anyone would like to speak, you can approach the podium at this time. Otherwise, I will move on to virtual participation. But I'm not seeing any movement towards the podium. We don't have any participants online with us, and we didn't receive any written correspondence for this item, so I'll give it back to you.

Great. Thank you. I'll open it up to my fellow commissioners for questions, and then after, we'll move to comments. Commissioner Wiscom.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the presentation, Ms. Ernest and Ms. Allen and Mr. Gillian. I just have really one question, and that is, and I don't know whether this goes to Mr. Doymas or in the resolution, there are some very specific things that I think maybe need to be changed. Okay, on page 20 of 40, which is in the resolution on number 18, The bicycle parking specifies 28 bicycle parking spaces, and this project requires 12. So how do we assume that there's some sort of revision process from this resolution that goes in, or do they have to provide specifically 28 bicycle parking spaces, even though they're not required to?

I don't know if staff has first the background as to that issue.

Through the chair to Commissioner Wiscombe and Mr. Duimas, we did look at that with transportation planning and recognize that the resolution as well as the project description has a different number of parking spaces, both vehicle and bicycle. Staff's interpretation is that they just need to provide the proportional amount for the zoning ordinance for this project. So even they're still complying with the zoning ordinance requirement, which the previous project was doing. So although it's not the exact number we're interpreting, that by them complying with the zoning ordinance requirement, it satisfies that condition.

So the 12 is fine then? And should there should there be some sort of document that that just says because of the the change the zoning change that this is These things get changed in here.

I Don't think they're a Chair chair boss through to come share this come I think the document would be actually amending the resolution for clarity purposes not only for today, but going forward. So I think the amount that is acceptable should be reflected accurately.

So we would do a clarity document. Commissioner Wiscombe to the chair.

That's what the substantial conformance determination letter would do. So the purpose of it is to document any changes to the entitlement and identify what those changes are and why we found them in substantial conformance with the original entitlement. So in any areas where there's a difference, we describe that and then we have to explain why we found it to be acceptable and within range. So that would be one of the clarifications. Same as the project description, number of buildings, all those things we explained. Those are different than the original entitlement. However, we find them to be in conformance with the entitlement and why.

And that would protect the property owner as well, and therefore that documentation would suffice in the file.

Yeah, that's what I would think. Okay.

And then I just want to add that the Planning Commission gets a copy of that letter as well as the applicant, and it goes in the property file. Okay. Okay. And then I was on the commission when we put together these very specific things. In number 12, I'll just make the comment again, a minimum of 16 preferential parking spaces for carpools shall be designated. It seems to me that this project is a lot smaller, a lot less parking. 16 seems excessive to me. So I hope that that also gets looked at in the substantial conformance document. I don't know why we, I can't remember why we were so specific on that, but, and I couldn't find that number of parking spaces in here, but, and I know in the shower and locker facilities, they did, the drawings do show two showers. So. Commissioner was come just to touch on that portion.

The floor plans currently, only show one shower, but they will be required to show two.

Oh, okay, because I thought I saw two on the thing. They will be provided two. I'd make the comment that it would be nice if they were just unisex because they're in a place where I don't think they're in specific locker rooms for males and females. They're just out there and... rather than have a male one and a female one, but that's just a comment on my part. Okay, I think that's, those are, those are all the questions that I have. Thank you.

Commissioner, Vice Chair DiLugio.

Yeah, that was one of my questions. So, in other words, when the compliance letter comes out, you're going to go through all, you'll go through this resolution that was issued, or the conditions of approval, and and the compliance letter, you'll go through everything, and anything that's changed will be in the compliance letter. Commissioner DiLuccio, through the chair, that's correct. You'll reconcile everything. Okay. So I have a private question for the applicant, if one of the applicants wants to come up. A couple of questions was the landscaping. I don't know if you want to put that back up. And then when the landscape person came up, they made a comment about you're replacing 10 to 12 Spaces else is it elsewhere on the site or you're removing those spaces? the comment that the design at ABR was to Remove some of the parking spaces in the front are those going away or they've been replaced someplace else Commissioner deluccio those will were removed not relocated Yeah, we have more parking than we actually this is staff agree with that I

That's correct. These current plans are providing the zoning ordinance requirement for their parking. The previous iteration had a surplus.

Okay, so when they move the spaces, they'll still have enough parking. Correct. Okay, next question. The RPZ is the zone that we looked at yesterday. You didn't go over that too much. I know you did some stuff around the perimeter. Is that for stormwater? Is that why you...

We have a bio detention basin here and here. This area is not needed. This open area is not needed for stormwater treatment is my understanding from the civil engineer.

So is that a color illustration or is it going to be that color in that area? Is that going to be landscaped?

Commissioner Delucio, thank you for the question. It was taken into account when Robert designed the stormwater, but there's no impervious area, so we didn't have to capture that water. And yes, the plan is for that to be landscaped lightly. So basically, native seed, temporary irrigation, kind of a meadow, if you will. OK.

So I have a question for Jessica from the airport. She knows the question I'm going to ask. I believe the RPZ zone is not being leased to them, correct? That's airport property, and the airport would have to maintain it. So I'm not following why they're doing all that. It's nice if they want to, but is there some kind of agreement?

Yes. Through the chair, Carly actually found the condition from the previous approval. that had the previous approval taking care of that area, even though it's not part of the leasehold.

Okay, so that's the reason for you guys looked it up, because I think I questioned it the other day. One other question, traffic management fees. I know we don't want to go there, because that was pretty lengthy. So the project is actually, those fees, I guess, were established like eight years ago. The $344,000, $334,000 fee So time to change eight years later you've downsized the project quite a bit and but I know Prices go up but has it has so that so the Goleta City is going to stay with these fees is the way they are But they did increase No one it was actually 334 when I went to City Council Commissioner delugio grew the chair the amount would remain the same as listed in the condition of approval as

The way the condition reads, this is on page 24 of your packet, is that it's at the discretion of the city of Goleta to apply those funds to the applicable capital improvement projects that are more current.

Have you spoken to them? They're going to go along with this eight years later?

Commissioner DiLiccio, we did meet with the city of Goleta, and this condition is expected to be satisfied.

Okay.

Yes.

Why did I just question it? Because I mean, I know that this is just a contribution toward a couple of traffic improvements. I don't know if those traffic improvements have even been started, have they?

So Commissioner Delucio, through the chair, there is quite a bit of history here with this being the whole appeal issue and the reason the city of Goleta appealed it to city council. Part of that appeal issue was looking at which projects and the correct cost estimates for those projects. Currently, the condition allows those funds to either be applied to the Equal Street Extension project, which is currently under construction for those of us at the site visit. If you drove down Hollister, it's those two roundabouts at Hollister and the 217 off-bound ramps that are under construction. So the funds could be applied to either that project and this is reading from the condition, or a substitute capacity improvement project at Hollister Avenue slash Fairview Avenue, if included in the Goleta Capital Improvement Program and determined to be feasible.

Okay, that's fine then, because I feel like it was based on a, you were paying a percentage of the total project cost, and then, but times have changed. This project is smaller now, but costs have gone up too, so I If you guys are dealing with it with Goleta, that's fine. I'm just going to call it out. So hopefully it'll all work out. So I do have one more question, though. Actually, I was reading the resolution or the conditions of approval on page 22, if you can go to that. This project is eight years later, am I correct? Because it says actually that the development plan shall expire four years from the date of approval. And then after that, unless it's There's two ways it can continue. One would be if the building had gotten started, which it didn't. And then the second one was a community development director, he can grant an extension, one-year extension, it says. Can they do multiple-year extensions? Because it only reads the community development director may grant one one-year extension of the development plan approval. It doesn't say may grant, you know,

You know in more than one year says so you can clarify that for me, please Yes, Commissioner into Lucio through the chair There was an error in the City Council resolution that said the development plan shall expire four years from the date of approval Within title 29 the airport zoning ordinance it allows development plans to remain active for eight years we did discuss this with the city attorney's office and because there's a reference to the municipal code and that states it's active for eight years. That clarifies. So they need to get finished. So it would have expired this past May. They submitted an extension before that expiration date. So it's currently set to expire May 8th, 2027, and they only get that one extension. So they do need to have a building or grading permit issued before that date.

You may want to clarify that in your compliance letter also, uh, I'm not trying to hold up your project. I think it's a wonderful project. I'm only asking questions.

Mr. DiLuccio, I'm appreciating that you've found all these details, so kudos to you. Thank you.

Okay, those are my questions.

The Planning Commission resolution had the right time frame, had eight years, and then later under appeal, it was just a really clerical error.

Thank you. Those are my questions.

Thank you. Commissioner Bauke.

My questions are to our airport rep and First question is this a ground lease that you're doing with them, or is this a sale?

That's question one through the chair commissioner bulky. I'd actually like to introduce you to our properties manager Mr.. John felt hands, so that's why he said okay and

Awesome. Thank you. John Feldman is the airport property manager. This will be a ground lease with Rivian. The airport does not look to sell property around the airport because FAA doesn't like us to sell the property.

That was one of the reasons why I was asking that question. And number two is we have this area at the RPZ, which is, are they leasing that piece, or do you have some kind of use agreement or something that, you know, gives them the ability to go do what they're doing out here and be responsible to make sure that our meadow, we'll use the term, continues in good condition or not turn into like a vacant parcel that's detrimental?

So I think we're going to, it's not going to be part of the premises, but we're going to put it in the lease that they're allowed to do the improvements that they need for the project. And I believe part of the development plan is the actual airport has to maintain that after it's all said and done and established if I'm correct.

That's correct. You've answered my questions. Other questions is purely and maybe this goes back to the specific plan that was done a long time ago. I was actually curious the first time I saw this is considering Hollister is a very, very busy high speed street. Why are we adding entrances off Hollister when you have David Love Place adjacent and it's on a corner? Was there any traffic analysis that thought that was a good idea, or is the idea of this side lane to mitigate that issue? We don't have a traffic study, so I was just wondering, was there some conversation of that in the past that got us to where we're at?

Commissioner about you through the chair. There was a traffic study prepared for the original project by ATE planning and transportation planning did not request a new traffic study just because of the overall reduced scope, but that was all analyzed in that prior 2017 study and there are public improvements to help with that. Entrance off Hollister understanding that it is a busy street and that's that median that you can see on the plan there So as part of the public improvements They will be required to install that median which basically present prevents a left-hand turn out Of the property on to Hollister. They can only make a right-hand turn and it is that is the primary entrance, but the entrances on David Love Place and maybe the applicant can speak to the circulation better, but that's information on the median at least.

And while Chris is coming up, is that a bus pullout lane or what is, you know, we have a little inset here on right there. Yeah. And so is that for a future bus?

That's correct. Yeah. Did you want to hear more about this? So in terms of the, uh, through the charity, Mr. Bucky, um, the previous project, it's been a little while. However, we did, uh, The circulation, the traffic along Hollister, how this site works, that was all taken into consideration. Derek Bailey, transportation operations and transportation planning staff definitely made a lot of comments along the way with the previous development. And we're okay with having, we only have a single point of entry here, and then as Ms. Ernest mentioned, we can only turn right out here. There is an alternative for folks to come off of David Love Place. This is really important for the operator to have that primary access right there, and also, for delivery service, for the trash hauler, those types of activities are all gonna be directed back here. So I think we're really taking care of all that kind of service related traffic and making sure that we're not overly impacting Hollister Avenue with those kinds of trips.

I'd be very concerned about backing issues if somebody was, if you have a whole bunch of cars trying to get in and sometimes dealerships are always an interesting place because sometimes there's CARS BEING MOVED AROUND FOR TEST DRIVING AND ALL THAT AND HAVING CONFLICTS BACK INTO HOLLISTER. ABSOLUTELY.

I THINK RIVIAN WOULD LOVE IT IF THERE WERE THAT MANY CARS QUEUING UP TO COME AND PURCHASE CARS THERE, BUT ALSO BEING VERY MAKING SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS SAFE AND CIRCULATING PROPERLY WOULD BE A HIGH CONCERN OF THEIRS, I'M SURE.

THANK YOU.

Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.

Yes. Hi. I have two questions. One, I believe, maybe I missed this. Rivian is the applicant. This is only a Rivian dealership, right?

Commissioner Peterson, that's correct.

Okay. But in the slideshow we were seeing, there was... That's the old one, right? Okay, understood. That's what I was thinking. My second question is in the conditions, the conditions of approval, right? On page 18 of our staff packet out of 48, number five is use limitations. It says, due to potential traffic and parking impacts, uses other than automobile, trailer sales, parts, storage, and automotive services are not permitted without further environmental and or planning commission review and approval. What if, say Rivian's a great company and they want to do something charitable for the community and have an event or a non-profit or something that they choose to have a community benefit and they want to have a Saturday resource fair on their property. parking lot. Not that they would, but if they wanted to have something, are they allowed to or it has to only be their business?

Commissioner Peterson, through the chair, I would need to take a closer look at the Title 29 airport zoning ordinance for the allowed uses in that zone. I know there are temporary events that are allowed by right. I'm just not sure the frequency or limitations on those. Ms. Arceniga, are you familiar with the temporary events or

trying to think. We don't have that often. Yeah, I don't know that I could answer.

So we don't know if they're allowed to have a charitable event on a Saturday there?

It's not permitted as part of their scope of work, so they would have to come in separately for it. The use that they're permitted is the car dealership, right? So They could ask for it, but I don't think it's inherent in the land use of car dealership.

Through the chair, Commissioner Peterson, my interpretation of the condition is should some time in the future Rivian decides to move out of this building and a new tenant move in and a different land use, then a new application would be filed and analysis would happen. So something like an event, I don't think Rivian is interested in having a non-profit or charitable event at their dealership. Maybe there would be a sale and trying to bring more customers in. But again, the primary use is an auto dealership. So even if if they decided to apply for some kind of temporary event to help, I don't know, a local nonprofit, we would have to contact city planning and airport and see if that type of temporary use would be allowed. But again, the way I interpret that condition is for the long-term use and any future changes to that. Does that get close to your question?

I'm just curious about, like, any type of temporary flexibility they're allowed. Like, they have to come back to Planning Commission if they want to have a birthday party in their parking lot?

So I'll say anything that's inherent in the land use as an auto dealership, so event sales or balloons, and they have promotional things that's within that expected land use intensity, that's permitted and accepted. But it's when it goes beyond that land use designation, then it would be a new ask. And I'm not certain that temporary events would go to Planning Commission. We'd have to look at where that is. I don't think they do.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Commissioner Barnwell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So just there is a driveway off of David Love Place, right? Okay. Mr. Bauke touched upon a couple of things that I was curious about. And another one that I want to make sure I completely understand is the lease to Rivian, the airport guy may know this better, the lease to Rivian does not include the landscaped area, but the cost to put the landscaping in does fall to them, and the maintenance in the future falls back on the airport. Did I hear all that correct? That is correct. Okay, so... How many parks and open spaces for public use do we have in that neighborhood? And has anyone given consideration to this being such since it's public ground?

So the RPZ is a restricted zone for the FAA. So the FAA doesn't like to have a A congregation of people under the flight path of the runway 15 left. So more than likely it's not going to be allowed to be a park or anything else like that. And we would want people not to have birthday parties or anything in that park just because of it is right under the flight path for 15 left.

Can they use the park? Can they walk on the park?

They can traverse it, but they can't like stop and have a picnic or anything else like that.

And we're going to enforce that?

If we have to, yes. I think we would, yes.

And you're pretty confident when you say right here, right now, that that kind of thing is against the FAA regulations in terms of having people. I know it's against regulations against buildings, et cetera, but against having people walk because there's a road right there and there's a sidewalk right there.

So there's, in my understanding, that there's a difference between driving through it and then staying in the actual zone itself. So we don't want a large, where a plane could potentially crash into a large number of people. That's the idea.

Okay, that answers my question.

And just to add to that, one of the best parks that we have that I go to all the time at lunch is literally a block just up the street. It's beautiful. It was put in as mitigation for another project in the specific plan.

Thank you very much. And to the architect, what does the Galita side, which I think is the west side of our building, look like? Could we look at our elevations one more time?

I'm not the architect.

Well, I got all four of them working over there. So Did anybody at the ABR speak to that bottom? Because that's the view to the parks, I won't use the word, to the open space side, correct? And there was discussion in the code and a few other official documents about how we have to tip our hat to Goleta because La Patera is their road, not ours. And I wondered, how, why could we throw some little treatments along that wall? Because that's a pretty, I mean, how long is that wall? That's a big, long, blank wall. And it's on the side which the code specifically addresses as take care of the view from Goleta. I remember reading that a couple times. Do we consider this taking care of the Goleta side? And I'm not necessarily talking about punching doors and windows, but just some kind of an architectural treatment along that wall. Anyway, I'm just mentioning it, okay? I don't have the authority to do anything, but I would hope maybe the ABR would give some thought to that. I have no idea. I have no more comments. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much.

Okay. Any other questions? Okay. If not, I want to return to making sure that we're providing the input that is requested for today. My understanding is the purpose of the discussion is again to provide input on whether the proposed changes are in substantial conformance with the original development plan approval made by the commission in 2018. So are you looking for a motion or additional comments? Chair, boss, I believe individual comments.

If there's agreeance between all of you, then maybe one summarizing statement from the chair. If there's disagreements, then we could reflect that in the individual comments.

Great. Then I'll open it up for comments from commissioners. Commissioner Wiscombe.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Excuse me. I'm pretty excited that Rivian, and I know quite a few people are excited that Rivian's coming to the area. I think the plan is very nice. I appreciate the, what was it called? Hold on here. I'm sorry. The rhythm. That's the word that Mr. Gilliland used. The rhythm along Hollister with the trees. I think that was very nicely done, and I think it probably satisfied some of ABR's comments. I like the organic shape of the meadow. I think that's really, really nice, and I appreciate the abundance of shade trees in the parking lot. I think that also works really well. Commissioner Barnwell's comment about the blank wall on the west side there's next to the adjacent to the meadow between the meadow and the building there's low landscaping and maybe that can I don't know if the airport would allow that but maybe it could be beefed up a little bit along that building edge on that side there seems to be a pretty good buffer of Um, I know if you put up the landscape plan, the, um, I think it just said ground covers and, and lower shrubs in that, in that area. So I would, um, I think that that would be good. Um, I am perfectly in favor of this as long as the substantial conformance agreement with the community development director, um, does protect this applicant and protect the airport with the changes in the parking, the changes in the number of bike spaces, and the shower facilities if we need to. And also, I think there's a need to address the whatever it was, 16 or 18 carpooling spaces that seemed excessive for this development since it's so much smaller. And perhaps even the height of the building, I don't know if that came into account in the original resolution, but that was a two-story building, this is not. So I think that might be another one to have a look at. So I think once those comments are incorporated into a substantial conformance agreement that that supersedes and works with the original resolution, I think we're in good shape. And I appreciated ABR's comments, and I think that they're being addressed very well in this iteration, and I'll be looking forward to seeing what ABR's comments are when it goes back there. And thank you for all your work. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Vice Chair DiLuccio.

Thank you. I think what we need to come up with is reduced project scope, is that to make the findings. So in order for them to keep the entitlement they have, this whole project has been downscaled. It's gone from 40,000 to 33,000 square feet. It's gone from 184 to maybe less than 75 parking spaces. And it also, there won't be the inventory kept off site. They don't need to move. I think the original proposal is like 200 cars are going to be moved off site. So I think those are the things we need to look at. There's not an intensification of use here. There's less intensification. And for those reasons, I can support this project. And also, it's going to do something I think we need to do more of in this city is bring revenue in. And it's going to bring more tax revenue into the city, which is really key. And I like that you only have one more year to do this, because then it looks like it's going to get done. and we really welcome your business to the city. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Barnwell.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am in complete approval that the revised project is consistent with the original approval. I would offer the suggestion that you re-look at the Galita side of the building in some way that you might enhance the, or you might reduce the ponderousness of what it looks like. I also am happy that Rivian is there, my esteemed council member. Mr. DiLucchio just touched upon how much that brings to the city coffers. Brings up another question that I have, though, for somebody associated with the airport. Does the income from the north side of Hollister, does that go to the city or does that go to the airport?

Through the chair, commissioner, the taxes generated from that portion of the airport property go into the city's general fund.

The city's general fund. Okay. Well, and so do the lease. You said taxes, but the lease income goes there as well, right? Yeah.

Wow, I'm talking a lot more than I thought I would. So the revenue from the lease stays with the airport itself because we're an enterprise fund and all that. But the taxes will go to the city.

Hmm. And that's true of all the land north of the airport. So whatever's in there, the lease income goes to the airport. But the tax, the real estate taxes, is what goes to the general fund. Is that correct?

So there's possessory interest tax on the properties. That goes to the county, actually. But the revenue from the leases goes to the airport themselves.

Ouch. Huh. Okay, thank you.

Excuse me? The sales tax goes to the city.

Oh, the sales tax does go to the city. The sales tax does, yes. And the lease income stays to the airport. Correct. And then the real estate taxes... They go to the county who distributes them in the standard way that the county does. Okay, thank you.

Do you have a clarification from the city attorney?

No, I just don't want to go too far astray in terms of revenue and taxes and all that in terms of what our scope and jurisdiction here is today. I seem to be the only one that gets called on the carpet by the city attorney. I do too. Anyway, thank you very much. I try to do my best not to. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Wardlow. Thank you. I'm strongly in support of the project. I view this as definitely substantially conformance. The project is reducing the intensification, so I feel very confident moving this forward. I also really like Rivian. I think it's great that they're coming to our community. And I do want to clarify, and I don't want to get in trouble for what Barnwell was talking about, the commercial linkage fee that's associated with this is going to the city of Goleta, correct? The $350,000.

Commissioner Wardlow, my apologies. Yes. That fee is going to the city of Goleta.

Great. Just so we're all clear. I think that's a really good example of what the city of Goleta has done, something that we should consider, but that's for a different day. Overall, I'm excited about this project. I think you guys have done an amazing job, and thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Bauke.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Definitely support the project. definitely find it in substantial conformity, and Vice Chair DiLuccio outlined all the reasons why you're in substantial conformance. This is a less intense, smaller project, a well-designed project, and I think we all would agree with that. I do support the comments that Commissioner Barnwell had about THE GALITA SIDE, WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING THE ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD ADDRESSES OR DOES IT BY USE OF LANDSCAPING, THAT ONE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY VISIBLE BECAUSE THE RPZ IS JUST A VERY LOW-LEVEL LANDSCAPE AREA, SO WE SHOULD DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. BUT OVERALL, I FIND THIS IS A GOOD THING FOR THE CITY, GOOD THING FOR THE AIRPORT, AND ACTUALLY A LITTLE GOOD THING FOR GALITA TOO.

Thank you. Commissioner Peterson.

Thank you. For those of you who don't know, the city attorney kind of leans in on Commissioner Barnwell every now and then, and so that's why he's making the comments that he does. I'm supportive of this project. I think it's great that we have an electric car dealership coming to the city of Santa Barbara and a California company at that. For the economic activity it will generate. I like that there's canopy of trees around the dealership, at least according to the images that we saw. You don't see that a lot, and so that's nice. My only concern, if it is a concern, is just that they have the freedom to do what they want to do and contribute back to the community if they so choose. Thank you.

All right. I think I'm going to try to summarize our comments. I don't think I have anything further. So the comments that I have are that everyone's excited about Rivian. Appreciate the additional landscaping, specifically the trees and meadow open space. Appreciated the ABR comments and recommendation to consider enhancing the Goleta side, understanding that that would go to ABR. Substantial conformance letter should protect the applicant in the airport in terms of reduced project scope and incorporating changes to parking and carpool parking, bike spaces, showers, height, and anything else that needs to be specified. And I think I heard agreement approval of substantial conformity. One maybe question that I have is if we want to include comments about considering taxes or commercial linkage fee. the summary to community development director no okay I'm seeing no okay so then I think the you're looking for a motion correct no motion okay okay so I've summarized our comments did I miss anything okay yes Commissioner Barnwell Thank You madam chair I meant to add

We're in a world now of e-bikes, not just bicycles, and I don't know if there's a different kind of parking associated with them or if some other category of lining them up, but I just offer that as another thing to think about when we talk about bicycle parking because I know they aren't considered that way when they're on the road. They're different than bicycles. Thank you.

All right. Well, then I will note that if the community development director with our comments finds the project in substantial conformance, or return to ABR for project design approval and final approval. Okay, I think that is it for this item. Thank you very much. And thank you all for your time over the past eight years and going forward. We'll close that item and move to our administrative portion of our agenda, beginning with committee and liaison reports, starting with the staff hearing officer liaison report.

Yeah, we'll speak along on it. There was a hearing yesterday. It was 1080 Coast Village Road, converted business into a market with a little outdoor seating for 18 seats. And it was approved for a front setback modification, coastal development permit, and CEQA exemption. So that's my report. Thank you.

Great, thank you. And do we have other committee and liaison reports? No. Not hearing any. Moving on to the discussion on subcommittee and workshops. I want to thank staff for preparing a long-range plan and housing element update today. I know we're excited to receive it and look forward to continued conversation. I did want to formally make a request that we have a similar presentation or related presentation from, I think it was the finance, so that we have a better understanding of all the the departments and efforts that are related to the long range planning or housing element progress. Commissioner Wardlow.

I just have one other question on that topic. I do really think that the timing of how we do the city-owned lots program versus the better buildings program is really important, and I don't want to five months from now see that the better buildings program is moving forward and we haven't done the work on city lots. Is there a way that we can prioritize a discussion on this? the Planning Commission level to give a formal recommendation to the city administrator and council on the importance of getting the timing right on this that at a minimum they move forward together or they move forward with city-owned lots first because it's really difficult for us to evaluate the point system and the better buildings program without us understanding the true affordability that we'll get from the city-owned lots program and so I was a little concerned to hear that like there may be difference of how those are moving forward because I just don't see how we do the right approach on better buildings if we don't know where we are with the city-owned lots so that was longer than I was expecting of talking but that can we make sure we like can weigh in on this or make sure we do this like the right way because the Planning Commission will be asked to evaluate the better buildings aspect and that's difficult to do if we don't do the city-owned lots piece first so I just want to make sure we're being really thoughtful on the timing of these programs

Commissioner Wardlow, through the chair, I hear the comment. I'm rolling over the appropriate response to that. So we know the leads in terms of better building ordinance. I believe they both rest with the finance office, right, on the program. So I think part of that can be discussed in the request for the finance department to do a similar briefing. We can definitely, you guys could comment on that time. If that's not sufficient to communicate that out, then let me think on how we get that to the appropriate time.

That would be great. I just want to know how to appropriately engage on that, because I think it will be unfortunate if we don't get the timing right. It'll just make both programs more difficult, and that would be unfortunate.

If I may, Chair, maybe we'll talk offline with staff, and maybe it'd be appropriate especially considering today's luncheon to do a presentation with finance before planning commission and in terms of the process, how it goes about to get planning commission's input. That would probably be the easiest way.

Wonderful. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Any other comments on the discussion on subcommittee and workshops? Yes. Commissioner Wiscombe.

I just want to agree with Commissioner Wardlow. I think that's, and hopefully Mr. Domas can get that going in the proper order because I think you understand what we want up here. So thank you.

Great. Okay, well then it is 4.08 p.m. and that concludes our September 17th Planning Commission hearing. Our next meeting is tentatively scheduled for Thursday, October 1st. Thank you.

Thank you.