12 Sites Identified for Goleta Rezoning After 3 Study Sessions

August 7, 2023, 9:04 am 12.0k Views 51 Comments

By Amy Reinholds

After three study sessions with the elected city councilmembers, the appointed planning commissioners, and city residents who spoke during public comment periods, the City of Goleta now has a list of 12 sites to consider for rezoning to meet state requirements for its Housing Element plan.

At July 20, July 25, and July 31 joint study sessions, city councilmembers and planning commissioners heard comments from community members who spoke or submitted written comments and then reviewed and discussed options with planning staff, consultants, and each other. They took informal straw polls and gave general direction to city planning staff about what new zoning they supported for each of the parcels in a site inventory list.

The next steps are for the planning staff to integrate the proposed rezoning in the Goleta Housing Element document and post a draft. There will be a 60-day public review period. The city will also get a response back from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, and the city planning staff will release an information packet for an upcoming planning commission meeting that will include the updates. Before any rezoning happens in the City of Goleta, both the planning commission and then the city council will need to formally approve the revised Goleta Housing Element at their upcoming meetings. There will be public comment again at both of those meetings. All meetings will be listed on the City of Goleta Housing Element 2023-2031 web page.

State law says that if a jurisdiction doesn’t get the state to certify its Housing Element within 120 days of Feb 15, 2023, it one has one year to rezone, Housing Element Consultant Veronica Tam explained at the July 20 study session. So the City of Goleta needs to complete rezoning by Feb 15, 2024.

Zoning defines the type of development that is allowed on a site but does not predict the exact project that will be built on a particular parcel. Every project will have a site specific analysis when each specific project application comes before the city.

Why the rezoning?

Goleta’s original submitted Housing Element didn’t include rezoning in its plan to meet the requirement of land for 1,837 units of new housing by 2031. But feedback from the State Department of Housing and Community Development told the city it can’t rely solely on “underutilized” sites, which have some buildings on them already, and must consider vacant sites to meet the required numbers of land zoned Residential High Density. Proof of property owner interest and involvement is also critical for underutilized sites but less relevant for vacant sites.

“We were hoping to meet the state’s requirements without having to deal with the rezoning impacts to neighborhoods,” Mayor Pro Tempore Kyle Richards said at the July 31 study session. “For too long, in too many cities, the non-vacant sites, they haven’t resulted in new housing. It was our hope that we could use just underutilized sites, that it would be far superior to develop those instead. But now we’re having to look at vacant sites to meet the state’s requirements.”

The state’s Housing Element process has gotten more specific and more strict after new legislation in recent years. The process requires cities and counties to increase the amount of land available for housing to make up for years of little or no development across the state. The City of Goleta staff and city council have described that they look for ways to use the tools that the state allows to keep development processes in the control of the city instead of the state, wherever possible, so they can work in a way that’s right for the city.

“The state has eliminated our ability to say no in many cases,” Richards said. “So we’re doing what we can to get more housing to meet our state’s requirement. We can all agree here that we want to preserve the character of Goleta. We want to keep what’s left. We want to fight vigorously against sprawl.”

What happens if Goleta doesn’t rezone

For communities that want to keep local control over development, it’s in the best interest to get the Housing Element plan approved. In the non-compliance window before the state’s Housing and Community Development has approved the Housing Element plan, the so-called “builder’s remedy” law allows developers to bypass a city’s zoning code—as long as a minimum 20% of the residential units are set aside as affordable monthly housing payments for incomes in lower incomes.

The area median income (AMI) definitions of low income are defined for all federal housing programs and are dependent on the geographic area (for example, Goleta follows in the Santa Barbara County AMI). “Affordable” means no more than a third of the household monthly income goes to the housing payment. Commonly, developers might partner with a housing authority or nonprofit to manage the apartments that are part of the 20% affordable to low incomes.

“We’re already at the edge of losing control and not even having meetings like this if it goes to the builder’s remedy,” Planning Commissioner Katie Maynard said during the study session.

How low-income and affordable housing fits in

As described in the previous section, “affordable housing” typically means affordable rents or mortgages that are kept at no more than one-third of monthly income for households who fall into those specific AMI income limits. Usually that means the housing costs are protected from the volatility of the housing market, subsidized with money from government programs, housing authorities, or nonprofits. This includes rentals that are funded by Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and home ownership that is deed restricted.

But the term “affordable” literally means what someone can afford, and it means different amounts for different people. General use of the term can cause confusion. Sometimes the term “affordable by design” or “naturally occurring affordable housing” refers to rents or purchase prices that are still market rate, but at the lower end of the market because of size, or location, or amenities.

The state Housing Element process adds to confusion by using the terms “Lower,” “Moderate,” and “Above-Moderate” terms related to the density of the zoning. These categories linking the density to the perceived cost of building the units, assumes a higher density makes the monthly housing costs lower for the people who will live there when it’s built. But in reality, these state categories are really just measuring density, not affordability based on AMI limits for subsidized affordable housing.

All development applications in the City of Goleta, since the city established its inclusionary housing requirement in 2019, requires 15-20% of the residential units to be affordable to low income households.

At the July 31 study session, City Councilmember James Kyriaco asked what authority the city has to require affordable units above the 20% inclusionary policy.

Planner Anne Wells said “We have other tools such as grants and connecting to other programs to encourage more,” which includes what is described on the city’s affordable housing implementation page. But she said the city probably couldn’t require developers to increase the inclusionary percentage above 20%.

To achieve the city’s overall goal for actual new housing with limited monthly costs for households who earn lower than the area median income, there are other projects already in the works that aren’t part of the rezoning list. “You’re still going to get affordable housing on your other projects, even if they aren’t high-density [on this rezoning list],” Tam said.

Site inventory list for rezoning—currently vacant sites

Seven out of the 12 sites identified on the site inventory list are currently vacant. Most were already zoned for some residential units, but proposed rezoning would increase those numbers.

60 Colusa Avenue

  • Google Maps link: 60 Colusa Ave

  • Current development potential before rezoning: Intersectional Commercial (CI), which means low or moderate intensity commercial development at intersections of arterior roads, would currently allow 26 residential units.

  • Proposed new zoning: Residential High Density (RH), which means up to 30 housing units per acre. The maximum number of housing units on the parcel would be 39.

  • Which of the state’s categories of density the new zoning would contribute to: The RH zoning counts in the “Lower Income” category for the state Housing Element, which means that the density will allow lower costs to build. This state category does not require every unit built on that property to be an affordable rent or mortgage cost for low-income households.

The property owners are in support of moving forward with housing development, which is another expectation from the state for parcels that Goleta includes in the inventory list for locations for future residential development. At the July 20 meeting, one of the property owners spoke in support of rezoning, stating she would like to give back to the city by helping to see that affordable housing is built on the parcel.

Also at the July 20 meeting public comment, one homeowner in the area said he thought only 6 units would be appropriate for the parcel. Another nearby resident stated that allowing some mixed use or commercial use on either 60 Colusa Ave or the nearby 7020 Calle Real site would enable people who live there to walk or bike to stores without having to drive over the freeway.

7264 Calle Real (also known as Kenwood Village)

  • Google Maps link: 7264 Calle Real

  • Current development potential before rezoning: This 9.48-acre site is split into two parcels. The parcel to the north is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RS), and the parcel along Calle Real is zoned Agriculture (AG). Current zoning allows 28 units of residential development on the site.

  • Proposed new zoning: After hearing from many nearby homeowners and other residents during the public comment on July 31 about concerns with high density residential development, the city councilmembers and planning commissioners directed staff to use Residential High Density (RH) on part of the site but keep the total density to 190 total residential units, reduced from the original proposal to allow 284.

  • Which of the state’s categories of density the new zoning would contribute to: The RH zoning counts in the “Lower Income” category for the state Housing Element, which means that the density will allow lower costs to build. This state category does not require every unit built on that property to be an affordable rent or mortgage cost for low-income households.

A history of the property owner proposing development with opposition from homeowners in the area includes a previous project plan submitted to the city for 60 homes that was never approved because water wasn’t available from the Goleta Water District.

Nearby homeowners and other residents attended all three joint study sessions to oppose this site being rezoned, and the July 31 meeting set aside time to hear comments for this particular site. The property owner said he wanted to see more housing, noting that he owns own two businesses in Goleta and has always struggled to get employees who can afford to live in Goleta. The South Coast Chamber of Commerce supported the rezoning, but most other speakers were homeowners in the surrounding areas who were against rezoning to high-density. Concerns centered around dangerous traffic, including past accidents and a death, but also concerns about wildlife and schools. Some speakers said they now supported the property owner’s previous plan for a total of 60 homes that they had opposed in the past.

Planning Commissioner Jason Chapman, the only renter out of the ten people sitting at the table for the joint planning commission-city council study session, called out the concerns for both road safety and the need for more rentals in town. “Renters are really feeling it right now… and it keeps getting worse” he said, noting that his own rent is increasing. “We shouldn’t accept dangerous roads anywhere in town.” Several of the commissioners and city councilmembers talked about opportunities for a pedestrian or bike path and following up on traffic concerns. “Putting affordable housing near schools could be an opportunity for students to be autonomous and walk or bike to school,” Chapman said.

“I think that pedestrian improvements can be part of the development process. There’s a potential connection to make in the north side as a pedestrian or bike path,” Richards said. “We are listening, and this is part of our consideration.”

City Councilmember Luz Reyes-Martín said that an existing Goleta elementary school that is currently leased to a private school is a 7-minute walk from the site. When the short-term lease expires, it could be considered to meet future needs for an elementary school in that neighborhood.

Recommending the total density at a maximum of 190 residential units was the compromise that the majority of the city council and planning commission could agree upon.

7190 Hollister Ave (North Parcel)

  • Google Maps link: 7190 Hollister Ave

  • Current development potential before rezoning: 7190 Hollister Ave is 10.72 total acres split into two separately zoned parcels. The vacant parcel to the north of the building with the Jubilee Church tenant is currently zoned Residential Medium Density (RM). Current zoning allows 39 units of residential development on the site RM site.

  • Proposed new zoning: Changing the vacant Residential Medium Density (RM) parcel to Residential High Density (RH), means up to 30 housing units per acre, and the maximum number of housing units built on the parcel would be 59.

  • Which of the state’s categories of density the new zoning would contribute to: The RH zoning counts in the “Lower Income” category for the state Housing Element, which means that the density will allow lower costs to build. This state category does not require every unit built on that property to be an affordable rent or mortgage cost for low-income households.

The property owners are in favor of the rezoning, and had also asked the adjacent sites also be allowed to be rezoned. Councilmember Stuart Kasden expressed concern about the total number of new residential units proposed with new zoning at the 7190 Hollister area, mentioning effects on traffic at the Pacific Oaks intersection and preserving remaining viewshed of the mountains. He was willing to go with RH zoning on this northern parcel behind the existing building now used for the church, but he didn’t support RH zoning on the southern parcel or parcels to the east.

Parcels to the East of 7190 Hollister Ave

  • Google Maps link: east of 7190 Hollister Ave

  • Current development potential before rezoning: Like the 7190 Hollister site, these two sites (both vacant) are each split into two portions. The portions to the north are currently zoned Residential Medium Density (RM), and the portions along Hollister are zoned General Commercial (CG). Current zoning allows 82 units of residential development on the site.

  • Proposed new zoning: Residential High Density (RH), which means up to 30 housing units per acre. The maximum number of housing units on the site would be 205.

  • Which of the state’s categories of density the new zoning would contribute to: The RH zoning counts in the “Lower Income” category for the state Housing Element, which means that the density will allow lower costs to build. This state category does not require every unit built on that property to be an affordable rent or mortgage cost for low-income households.

Councilmember Kasdin didn’t support the RH zoning, but the straw vote still passed in support of keeping these parcels on the inventory list.

625 Dara Road

  • Google Maps link: 625 Dara Road

  • Current development potential before rezoning: This 4.23 acre vacant parcel is currently zoned Residential Single Family (RS), which allows building 12 houses.

  • Proposed new zoning: Instead of Residential High Density (RH) zoning, the city council and planning commission directed staff to go with Residential Medium Density instead (RM) zoning. They were originally looking at the RH zoning that would allow as many as 127 residential units, but instead the RM zoning would allow 84 residential units.

  • Which of the state’s categories of density the new zoning would contribute to: The RM zoning counts in the “Moderate Income” category for the state Housing Element, which means the density allows moderate costs to build. This state category does not require any unit built on that property to be an affordable rent or mortgage cost for households of any particular income.

35 Ellwood Station Drive

  • Google Maps link: 35 Ellwood Station

  • Current development potential before rezoning: The current zoning for the 4.87-acre site is General Commercial (CG), which allows no residential units, although it could include commercial development instead. It is currently used for industrial outdoor storage.

  • Proposed new zoning: Residential High Density (RH), which means up to 30 housing units per acre. The maximum number of housing units on the site would be 146.

  • Which of the state’s categories of density the new zoning would contribute to: The RH zoning counts in the “Lower Income” category for the state Housing Element, which means that the density will allow lower costs to build. This state category does not require every unit built on that property to be an affordable rent or mortgage cost for low-income households.

The property owners for this site are the same as for 7360 Hollister Ave. This parcel is surrounded by office park land, and no public commenters spoke in opposition. All city council and planning commission attendees supported the proposed rezoning.

6470 Hollister Ave

  • Google Maps link: 6470 Hollister Ave

  • Current development potential before rezoning: The current zoning for this 0.58-acre vacant site is General Commercial (CG), which allows no residential units, although it could include commercial development instead.

  • Proposed new zoning: Community Commercial (CC), which means a total of 17 residential units could be built.

  • Which of the state’s categories of density the new zoning would contribute to: 9 residential units would count for the “Moderate Income” category for the state Housing Element, which means the density allows moderate costs to build, and 8 for the “Above-Moderate” category. These state categories do not require any unit built on that property to have affordable rent or mortgage cost for households of any particular income.

Although the site was originally an “alternative site” at the earlier meetings in July, the straw poll at the July 31 study session was to add it to the Housing Element as Community Commercial (CC) instead of High Density Residential (RH). City planning staff was not able to confirm if the property owner was interested in residential zoning, and the city council directed staff to continue to follow up with the property owner.

Site inventory list for rezoning—“underutilized” sites

Five out of the 12 sites identified on the site inventory list are deemed underutilized, which means there are current buildings on the site, and zoning changes would allow that they be replaced or rebuilt into residential buildings instead.

7020 Calle Real

  • Google Maps link: 7020 Calle Real

  • Current development potential before rezoning: The site is currently zoned as Intersectional Commercial (CI), which means low or moderate intensity commercial development at intersections of arterial roads, and has a market and liquor store. Current zoning would allow 5 residential units to be built.

  • Proposed new zoning: Community Commercial (CC), which also allows a total of 5 residential units could be built.

  • Which of the state’s categories of density the new zoning would contribute to: 2 residential units would count for the “Moderate Income” category for the state Housing Element, which means the density allows moderate costs to build, and 3 for the “Above-Moderate” category. These state categories do not require any unit built on that property to have affordable rent or mortgage cost for households of any particular income.

This is the same property owner as 60 Colusa (see above) who is supportive of building residential units. The city council and planning commission decided to propose that most of the increase in residential density to RH zoning should be on that northern adjacent parcel only, which would allow 39 units at 60 Colusa. The proposed CC zoning for the 7020 Calle Real parcel would still allow 5 residential units, not changing the number of homes that could be built there under the current CI zoning.

7360 Hollister Ave

  • Google Maps link: 7360 Hollister Ave

  • Current development potential before rezoning: This 2.93 acre site between the Ellwood Station mobile home park and the Dioji dog daycare includes some single unit dwellings and also an undeveloped portion. It is currently zoned Community Commercial (CC), which allows a total of 32 residential units to be built.

  • Proposed new zoning: Residential High Density (RH), which means up to 30 residential units per acre. The maximum number of residential units on the site would be 69.

  • Which of the state’s categories of density the new zoning would contribute to: The RH zoning counts in the “Lower Income” category for the state Housing Element, which means that the density will allow lower costs to build. This state category does not require every unit built on that property to be an affordable rent or mortgage cost for low-income households.

This site has the same owners as 35 Ellwood Station Drive, and they are interested in residential housing on the site. The consensus of planning commission and city council present supported the proposed rezoning.

469 and 449 Kellogg Way

  • Google Maps links: 469 Kellogg Way and 449 Kellogg

  • Current development potential before rezoning: These two sites, a total of 3.02 acres, are used for outdoor RV storage. 469 Kellogg is currently zoned as Planned Residential (RP) and 449 Kellogg is currently zoned as Business Park (BP). With current zoning, a total of 25 residential units could be built on 469 Kellogg.

  • Proposed new zoning: Residential High Density (RH), which means up to 30 residential units per acre. The maximum number of residential units on these two combined sites would be a total of 73 (60 at 469 Kellogg and 13 at 449 Kellogg).

  • Which of the state’s categories of density the new zoning would contribute to: The RH zoning counts in the “Lower Income” category for the state Housing Element, which means that the density will allow lower costs to build. This state category does not require every unit built on that property to be an affordable rent or mortgage cost for low-income households.

The property owners are supportive of rezoning. The city council and planning commission members present all supported this proposed zoning for the parcels.

The only public comment was someone who advised the councilmembers and commissioners that there will be a need for vehicle storage that is currently on the site if it goes away. But he also said affordable housing makes Goleta a “complete city” so people with jobs that pay $20 or $25 an hour don’t need to commute from Lompoc, Santa Maria, and Oxnard because they can’t find housing.

490 South Fairview (Yardi)

  • Google Maps link: 490 South Fairview

  • Current development potential before rezoning: This 8.32 site is currently zoned Business Park (BP) and is used for offices at Yardi. BP zoning doesn’t allow any residential units.

  • Proposed new zoning: High Density Residential (RH) Overlay (on top of the existing BP zoning), which would allow a total of 198 residential units and allow the basic use as an office park to continue.

  • Which of the state’s categories of density the new zoning would contribute to: The City of Goleta doesn’t get to count it as the “Lower Income” category for the state Housing Element because it’s an overlay zoning and also an underutilized site (existing buildings, not vacant). Instead, 99 of the 198 residential units will count in the “Moderate Income” category, which means the density allows moderate costs to build, and 99 of the residential units will count as the “Above Moderate” category. These state categories for the Housing Element don’t require any unit built on that property to be an affordable rent or mortgage cost for households of any particular income.

When it comes to actually measuring the affordability of the residential units built, if more affordable to low-income households are built on this site, it will help balance out other parcels that might have fewer low-income homes.

Ben Romo, a consultant representing the Yardi family, said that they plan to “deed-restrict” a specific number of units to be below market rate. Yardi won’t submit a formal proposal for the project until after Goleta rezones the land, but Romo has been sharing ideas with local business, government, and community stakeholders. He said the entire proposed parcel would be all rentals and include a child care center. Romo said the residential development will use the footprint of the existing building so there will be ample parking and they can preserve trees.

The Yardi project is also expect to take advantage of the state density bonus.

7190 Hollister Ave (parcel along Hollister with church building)

  • Google Maps link: 7190 Hollister Ave

  • Current development potential before rezoning: This 10.72 acre site has two separate zoning areas. The parcel along Hollister, where the Jubilee Church is a current tenant, is zoned General Commercial (CG), which allows no residential units, although it could include commercial development instead.

  • Proposed new zoning: Changing the current General Commercial (CG) parcel with the existing buildings to Residential High Density (RH), would mean 41 residential units could be built on the parcel.

  • Which of the state’s categories of density the new zoning would contribute to: The RH zoning counts in the “Lower Income” category for the state Housing Element, which means that the density will allow lower costs to build. This state category does not require every unit built on that property to be an affordable rent or mortgage cost for low-income households.

As described in the vacant properties section above, Councilmember Kasden expressed concern about the total number of new residential units proposed with new zoning at the 7190 Hollister area, mentioning effects on traffic at the Pacific Oaks intersection and preserving remaining viewshed of the mountains. He was willing to go with RH zoning on this northern parcel behind the existing building now used for the church, but he didn’t support RH zoning on the southern parcel or parcels to the east.

The city council and planning commission members present at the earlier meetings in July discussed avoiding High Density (RH) zoning for the CG parcel adjacent to Hollister, but the final version of the updated staff presentation for the July 31 meeting still showed the proposed zoning as RH to allow for 41 residential units.

Previously removed from the housing inventory list

The study sessions earlier in July previously considered the following sites as additional options for rezoning to higher density, but the city council and planning commission removed them from the list.

  • 7780 Hollister Ave (frontage), 5.71 acres currently zoned General Commercial (CG) is currently used as a parking lot. The property owner is not interested in rezoning.

  • 7780 Hollister Ave (real parcel), 2.1 acres behind a senior living facility is zoned General Commercial (CG) and also used as a parking lot. The city council and planning commission noted that there was community support for development on this parcel, but the property owner has not yet indicated interest. They directed planning staff to continue to reach out the property owner for discussions.

  • The Viajero site (no current address) at roundabout on Viajero, is a vacant lot of 2.1 acres near a senior independent living facility is currently zoned General Commercial (CG).

Other housing already proposed or underway in the City of Goleta

In addition to the proposed inventory of sites for rezoning to meet the state requirements for the city’s 2023-2031 Housing Element plan, there are some projects for new residential buildings already in the pipeline for the City of Goleta.

  • At 6491 Calle Real, architects from RMM Design Group presented a plan for a mixed use building near the Los Carneros roundabout with a total of 14 one-bedroom apartments. Two of the apartments will be deed-restricted affordable housing units for households who earn no more than 80 percent of the area median income (AMI). The remaining 12 will be market rate. All will be rentals. The project just made it through the first Design Review Board meeting on July 25.

  • Heritage Ridge was approved this spring for 332 residential units (102 of those to be affordable housing units managed by the Housing Authority of Santa Barbara County — 40 for low-income seniors and 62 for low-income families).

  • The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara is building Buena Tierra at the former Super 8 Hotel, expected to be completed by the end of the year. All 70 residential units are supportive housing for people transitioning from homelessness.

Upcoming meetings

The city will continue to post meetings on the City of Goleta Housing Element 2023-2031 page. People can subscribe on the city web page to receive texts or emails for all city news, including information about future meetings about the Housing Element.

For more information about the City of Goleta Planning Commission and other citizen advisory boards and commissions, see the City of Goleta Boards and Commissions page.

Did I make a mistake or miss something? Comment here and let me know! My goal is to help readers understand the complex California Housing Element process, what it means for the City of Goleta, and how all residents, whether property owners or not, can participate in the process. Thanks for reading to the end.

Amy Reinholds

Written by Amy Reinholds

Amy Reinholds is a content designer and journalist who lives in Goleta.

What do you think?

1 Point

Comments

16 Comments deleted by Administrator

Leave a Review or Comment

51 Comments

  2. That law requires that every community do its share to add 441,000 houses, apartments and condominiums to the nine-county region by 2030. Statewide, the goal of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration is to build 2.5 million units by Jan. 31, 2031, with 1 million of those affordable.
    Why should a state mandate how big & fast a city should grow? Shouldn’t it be left up to the local governments and communities?

    0

    • My article is not about whether a state should mandate numbers, but it’s about the current situation that the City of Goleta is in today, and what the current options are.
      The state’s Housing Element process has gotten more specific and more strict after new legislation in recent years. The process requires cities and counties to increase the amount of land available for housing to make up for years of little or no development across the state. The City of Goleta staff and city council have described that they look for ways to use the tools that the state allows to keep development processes in the control of the city instead of the state, wherever possible, so they can work in a way that’s right for the city.

      0

    • Sac- My bad. Deflection? Whataboutism? My experience on ED HAT is that anyone who isn’t a liberal is a racist, homophobic, uneducated moron and a Trump supporter. No matter what is said by the non-lib. I know it’s all a bunch of trolling idiots that proclaim that and certainly would not act the same in real life. Still annoying. BTW, bet you a beer you voted for the fool anyway!

      0

    • OG – I agree. However, many here (not you) conflate “opinions” with incorrect statements of fact, racism, etc. Opposing/degrading those comments isn’t opposing one’s opinion, yet I get harangued constantly about it. Opinions and ideas are great. Making up facts, supporting and defending bigots, etc, is not great and will be challenged, as it should be. Words have meaning and consequence.

      0

    • OG – Yeah, I voted for him. Same way I voted for Biden. I don’t like 100% of their policies and probably wouldn’t vote for Newsom again, but I vote Dem because I REALLY don’t like Republican policies. Shouldn’t be a surprise.
      And no, not “anyone who isn’t a liberal is a racist, homophobic, uneducated moron and a Trump supporter.” Just the ones who make comments that out themselves as such. I used to have great conversations with people here who were cons/Repubs, but lately it seems like the most vocal ones are also the most far right. Like their leader is finding out now, words have consequences. I miss guys like Duke Munson and others who were actually interested in civil debate without the lies, deflection and insults.

      0

    • Sac- Of course, you did and so did the majority of my close friends and family. Even my kids did. It’s just sad that some people, mostly online, can’t have a civil discussion and respect other people’s views. They go right to name-calling and try to degrade on each other. I don’t participate in most discussions, because I fall into the trap more times than not. I honestly have learned more from opposing opinions to form my own than anything else. When you get an opposing opinion from here though… it doesn’t shine that bright.

      0

    • Sac- I agree. Racism, homophobia, etc. Can’t be tolerated and I have zero tolerance for that crap. There are very few posts on here that qualify as anything close to that. It’s mostly people looking for a reason to call names and piss someone else off. Facts are pretty easy to check, but a lot are opinions with a little fact presented as the truth. Just like all of our media and politicians!

      0

    • OGSB, here’s the thing dude. I can’t remember a single instance of any of the constant commenters on Edhat ever, ever, responding to a rationally presented idea with the response, “huh, good point, you’ve changed my mind on that.”
      People really don’t come here for substantive or intelligent debate. I used to, but there are almost zero takers. So, now, I just come here to troll the shit out of a couple of people in order to entertain myself. If anyone ever wants to have a real discussion, I’m always up for it, but it doesn’t happen. All you get is recycled talking points and shallow thinking and then when you ask pointed questions it’s a freaking trigger fest.

      0

    • Alex- Actually it’s the trolling that’s the problem. I get that it’s kinda fun… However, you’re not going to get any rational discourse immediately after trolling someone. Everyone, myself included, is going to get defensive and do the same. We should all be better than that.

      0

    • OG- but have ever seen anything even closley resembling “rational discourse” from Voice or Basic or Fondofsb, etc? Nothing they’ve ever posted has been for the purpose of anything other than hikacking threads to whine about covid, insult and berate people, or simply spout hysterical nonsense? They’re here not to learn or appreciate local issues, but simply to butt heads. Hopeless to even try engaging in a normal discussion with their ilk. Sadly, I tend to easily fall into then troll traps.

      0

  4. Kudos to the author of this article. It is very nice that Goleta plans to include a lot more low-income and affordable housing, unlike what SB has done. The inclusion of more homeless housing also shows how willing the City of Goleta is willing to go to help those who need the most help. A true “model city” as one would want to live and thrive in. Go Goleta! Go!

    0

  5. The state legislature has intentionally made it difficult, if not impossible to comply, with their inflated mandated housing numbers. Goleta has built so much housing in the last 10 years including more affordable housing than anywhere else in South County. UCSB continues to lack adequate housing for the students and faculty it brings into the community, resulting in major impacts to the surrounding area. The decision of SB County Planning Dept to place nearly all of the South County allocated units in the Eastern Goleta Valley and along Goleta’s northern border will also impact the city.
    It’s unfortunate that local representatives from the 230 jurisdictions that don’t have compliant housing elements didn’t fight the state legislature. Instead they allowed their districts to be stripped of local control by 4 Bay Area politicians with hidden agendas.

    0

  7. Thank you for the very informative article! Was there any mention by the powers that be about how they are planning on relieving the traffic congestion at the Glen Annie offramp/intersection? This heavily used off-ramp and intersection will be hit hard by some of these proposed housing additions……..you can only have traffic backed up onto the freeway so far. I applaud the idea of a pedestrian bridge but the pedestrians aren’t going to be the problem. I’ve lived in Goleta all of my 53 years and in the recent years have had to do a lot of traveling to OC and LA, and I’m sad to say Goleta is starting to look very much like everywhere else that has been overdeveloped. Thank God for the Bishop Ranch, when it goes, so do I.

    0

    • Spanky- Nope. Just like when all this other crap got built, no concern about infrastructure. This crap is on all you liberal voters. 100%. Almost nothing or anyone I vote for happens. ( ya thank goodness, right? We might not be in this.) Just build to make money and worry about water and roads later… Dems.

      0

    • Hi, SPANKY17. I attended or watched all three of the meetings, and traffic was discussed for specific areas. The traffic issues didn’t stop the immediate need to come up up with the inventory list that the state requires so that the City of Goleta can meet its Housing Element requirements. But dealing with traffic is part of the process when any development is proposed for those specific sites in the future.
      What people who care about this issue can do: In the next phrases of approval of this Housing Element plan, there will be more opportunities for people to comment. The next steps are for the planning staff to integrate the proposed rezoning in the Goleta Housing Element document and post a draft. There will be a 60-day public review period. The city will also get a response back from the State Department of Housing and Community Development, and the city planning staff will release an information packet for an upcoming planning commission meeting that will include the updates. Before any rezoning happens in the City of Goleta, both the planning commission and then the city council will need to official approve the revised Goleta Housing Element at their upcoming meetings. There will be public comment again at both of those meetings. All meetings will be listed on the City of Goleta Housing Element 2023-2031 web page: https://www.cityofgoleta.org/your-city/planning-and-environmental-review/advance-planning-division/housing-element-update-2023-2031

      0

  8. So as a Goleta resident and native, WTF is going on? We have limited space and resources. I hate that everything is about tourism and commercialism. What about the people who live here or want to start a business here? Nope. It’s all about selling housing to people from LA. Not about our locals. There is zero attention to infrastructure or water. Everything built here will be bought by out or town people. Not going to help our local population. Build where there is room to grow if people want to come, uggggg!

    0

    • Hi, OGSB. Thanks for your comments. Portions of each new development will be required to be affordable to households that fall in the low category of the area median income (AMI)
      In the “HOW LOW-INCOME AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FITS IN” section, I wrote about how all development applications in the City of Goleta, since the city established its inclusionary housing requirement [https://library.qcode.us/lib/goleta_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_17-part_iv-chapter_17_28] in 2019, requires 15-20% of the residential units to be affordable to low income households.
      I agree it’s important for the community to understand what percentages of new developments will have this requirement, and what will be market rate. Watching all three of the meetings, I can say that there were several other residents who serve on the City of Goleta planning commission and the city council who also expressed concern over the same issues you brought up: the need for new residential units to be for people who live and work here and don’t make a lot of money.
      One challenge I see is that renters are particularly affected by the current market. Homeowners don’t have the same degree of volatility of looking at higher rents every time a lease is up, needing to consider moving and being out there in the market on basically a yearly basis.

      0

    • Hi, TLACHIQUERO. The state is requiring this planning process (including the rezoning to allow more residential units that the City of Goleta considered at the 3 meetings in July that I wrote about), regardless of whether the local water districts have decided to release water for development. However, the City of Goleta does have information from the Goleta Water District that it would be looking at releasing water again now that the drought conditions were alleviated.
      If you are interested in getting into the details of what the Goleta Water District is doing, here is a link where you can get involved: https://www.goletawater.com/agendas-and-minutes

      0

  11. I think that there are some quite simple solutions to some or the concerns brought up by some of the commenters here.
    1) Land/Space: Goleta has plenty of space as compared to other places. One solution is to simply “build upward” and allow for multiple-story housing developments. There should be no valid objections to five-story (up to eight) buildings. Much more practical than building single-story ranch-style homes used by one family. A good spot would be to build the Yardi property to say three stories. There is plenty of parking at that location, it’s close to transportation (MTD 6/7/11/12x), as well as shopping and restaurants in Old Town Goleta.
    2) Water: As more and more agriculture departs the area, there is a continued increase in available water resources. Goleta is also a prime candidate for a desalinization plant, which means nearly unlimited water to support the increase in housing/population. So, water is not ever going to be a serious issue.

    0

  12. Imagine what will happen when around two hundred vehicles too large to park on the street have to be removed from the 469 South Kellogg Way site and relocated, when at the time of research there was no storage available in Santa Barbara or Goleta and only one space available in Carp. How about storing your work truck, boat, RV, camper, container in Santa Paula or Santa Maria? How is this land underutilized? Taking it for housing will just create other problems for our city residents, who are relying on this place as the only available storage for their oversized vehicles. Do we need to concurrently change our laws allowing oversized vehicles to be stored on the street? How then do we keep people from living in their RV’s on the street?

    0

  13. We really have an obligation to our support workers to provide low-income housing to allow those people who commute every day from Oxnard and Lompoc and even further to actually live in the community and spend that three hours with their families while avoiding the expense of vehicle operation and maintenance and vehicle gridlock. Local employers need rested employees who are properly supported and rested and can properly do their jobs. We need a whole city that provides all workers with housing. Just bulding expensive housing for single families brings in more people that need even more support workers to allow them to live here. Let’s find ways to make more affordable housing. Then we can have a normal complete city with a normal society.

    0

    • Thanks for your comments, HUMANITARIAN2003. Hi, OGSB. Thanks for your comments. At the meetings, I heard several other residents who serve on the City of Goleta planning commission and the city council who expressed similar viewpoints.
      In the “HOW LOW-INCOME AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FITS IN” section, I wrote about how all development applications in the City of Goleta, since the city established its inclusionary housing requirement [https://library.qcode.us/lib/goleta_ca/pub/municipal_code/item/title_17-part_iv-chapter_17_28] in 2019, requires 15-20% of the residential units to be affordable to low income households.
      It’s important for the community to understand that the minimum requirement for each new development in the City of Goleta will have this requirement for 15-20% affordable to low-income households, and that 80-85% of the residential units will be market rate. Some specific projects will offer more units affordable to lower incomes, but they aren’t required to. What are ways the community can encourage more options for rental costs or home ownership costs to be affordable for low and moderate income households (below market rate)?
      I also mentioned in another comment that a challenge I see is that renters are particularly affected by the current market. Homeowners don’t have the same degree of volatility of looking at higher rents every time a lease is up, needing to consider moving and being out there in the market on basically a yearly basis. Of of the ten people on the planning commission and city council, I think only one is a renter.
      I would encourage more renters in the City of Goleta to get involved and give their input to the planning commission and city council at upcoming meetings. See the links in my article for upcoming meetings and ways to subscribe to be notified.

      0

  17. Thanks for the information, Pete. It looks like they didn’t have any statement on https://thegoodlandcoalition.org/ about the current rezoning work that the City of Goleta is doing in for the Housing Element, but I’ll continue to watch.
    I’ll also look into Measure G from 2012. I’m having a hard time finding where Measure G made it into City of Goleta town code at https://library.qcode.us/lib/goleta_ca/pub/municipal_code

    0

  18. UPDATE since this was published:
    Goleta’s Housing Element Revisions Now Available for Public Review [news from City of Goleta that I’m sharing with readers here]
    7-Day Public Review through August 17
    The public is invited to review and provide feedback on the City of Goleta’s revised Draft Housing Element now available on the City’s website at http://www.CityofGoleta.org/HousingElement. The public review period is open through August 17 for a seven-day review required by the state. Comments can be sent to HousingElement@cityofgoleta.org.
    The City submitted its adopted Housing Element 2023-2031 to the State for review in January 2023. On March 20, 2023, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued a letter requesting that the City revise its Housing Element to address comments and meet the State’s required Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
    In response to HCD’s comments and based on feedback received during three study sessions in July 2023 with the City Council and Planning Commission, City staff has drafted revisions to the Housing Element. The draft revisions are now available for public review. After the public review period, the documents will be submitted to HCD for a 60-day review, at which time the public can still provide comments to the City. After that review, staff will address any comments received and proceed to the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption of the revised Housing Element 2023-2031.
    For more information on the City’s Housing Element Update project, go to https://cityofgoleta.org/HousingElement. If you have any questions about the project, please email City staff at HousingElement@cityofgoleta.org. For inquiries in Spanish, please contact Marcos Martinez, Spanish Engagement Specialist, at (805) 562-5500 or mmartinez@cityofgoleta.org.

    0

  19. In your next article, you can always write about the multiple land and air animals that live on the Kenwood Village Property at 7264 Calle Real, like over 70 plus land animals such as skunks, rabbits, raccoons, opossums, squirrels, snakes, voles, gophers, butterflies etc. alone that I have counted with the security camera I have on my property at Baker Lane, which is on the opposite side of the Kenwood Village Property from El Encanto Creek. There are also multiple birds that use the land, including protected animals like House Finches, Red Tailed Hawks, Turkey Vultures and Great Egrets, whose nests are considered “sensitive” by the California Fish and Game Department. I have included pictures of the birds in my comments/objections to the City. This does not even include the protected water animals that live near/at the creek. Even if the water animals may have the Creek to live in, I am not sure how many animals that live on/use the Kenwood Village property are supposed to die in exchange for high density housing when there are other sites that can be used to build. The property is landlocked, so there is no place for them to go if the habitat is destroyed. Feel free to come near the property any morning at dawn and you will hear the chirping of multiple birds all over the property. I have not heard of this problem with the other sites, though I am not an expert.

    0

Greek Gyro Grab-Go Returns!

Local Chumash Chairwoman appointed to Federal Ocean Research Advisory Panel