Goleta Council Upholds Appeal of Citrus Village

» Jon Martin on 06.04.09 @ 07:15 AM

The fundamental problem with Mr. Foster’s argument is that for years we have been driving up the price of housing in this area by cutting back what the zoning allows property owners to do.  The project meets the allowed zoning density, yet the project is deemed “too dense.”  When will we stop making every clever argument in the book against housing proposals that meet their allowed zoning density, and allow people to use their land in the way the law said they could?  And by the way, how would you feel if the written law said you could use your property in a certain way, and then the City Council gets to tell you that the rules they adopted do not apply in this case!  Talk about a fairness problem.

The 3-story issue is a smoke screen.  The “modification” matter is a smoke screen.  What matters in the end is not whether there are “modifications,” but whether the project is attractive architecturally.  The community has a right to reject unattractive proposals - it shoudl not have the right to arbitrarily cut the allowed use.  In this case, no one seems to be complaining about the project being archtiecturally attractive - they just want less homes.

If property owners cannot rely on the allowed density of the zoning of the property, and are consistently told to build lower density at the whim of the neighbors, the result is more expensive housing.  Developers make up the density cut with larger, more expensive homes.  The neighbors like that because higher prices in their neighborhood help their home values, but it comes at a cost to the needs of the rest of the community.  What our community needs is LESS expensive housing, not MORE expensive housing. 

If the anti-housing politics of the last 35 years have taught us anything, we should all now know that cutting allowed density gives us unaffordable housing. Wake up, Goleta City Council!  You are the ones who are supposed to make wise decisions.

» Richard Foster on 06.04.09 @ 08:25 AM

Mr Martins comments fail to conside that zoning density is laid out on a flat piece of paper not based upon topo’s and feasability studies.  A property might be zoned for 12.3 units but not have sufficient space for both the units and the zoning required infrastructure.
He seems to say zoning density’s are guarantees that one can put 12 units on, but zoning rules about set backs and private open space do not apply if they are inconvinient.
These units are so large the parking lot will not fit without modification.  The problem is not the number of units, but site conditions and the square foot size proposed.  Are hypothetical 3000 sq. ft. units the same as 300 sq. ft units?  Obviously not.  Will they fit on the same parcel?  Likely not.
If higher density equates to lower price, then why does Manhattan or Hong Kong have some of the highest realty prices in the world? 
Is Mr Martin implying that we should build ten or twenty story buildings so that prices will fall to the point where anyone may buy?
Is he also telling us that Ag land should never be rezoned?  After all if zoning density is sacred then why should we grant residential status to land people bought knowing it was zoned only for AG?  Re-zoning cannot be a one way proposition.
If you like Orange County,then ignore zoning regulations.  If you like Santa Barbara you can thank zoning regs and those who have fought to produce products that are not only profitable for the developer but also benificial to the community.
As for Mr Martin I appreciate the discussion of the issues, Thank you.

» AN50 on 06.04.09 @ 10:22 AM

Both of the responders to this post make good arguments. Richard is absolutely correct in driving the zoning regulation path home. The original project on this site was a poster child FOR zoning regulations and was hotly contested by nearly the entire El Encanto Heights neighborhood. The rezoning of commercial land for high density “infill” residential development must stop. The reason so many people in this area knee jerk to the no-nothing-never position is we keep handing the wrong kind of development in the wrong place to the community. I also agree with Jon’s assessment on the trumping of property rights whenever a development is proposed by local residents. However that just re-enforces my original assessment of Richard’s argument, you have to follow the zoning. The reason these two gentlemen come out on the opposite side is that the zoning on this particular project was changed from what made sense to the ridiculous and mostly for political expediency rather than making the neighborhood better. I agree with Jon that a lot of the “issues” with this project are “smoke screen” in nature and that the architecture of the building is what ultimately matters. However, a buildings use and context in its surroundings is one of the most important architectural features of a building. Case in point, the Francisco Torrez towers in Goleta may be architecturally satisfying in their own right but their location is absolutely horrible for their size, height and density. They would have been more at home in a city center surrounded by other like height and density buildings rather than low rise, low density suburbs. This is the biggest argument I have with the height limiters in SB. If not there, where? The rezoning of industrial land between Hollister and the rail road tracks is another example of misguided building uses that defy good zoning regulations. I argued vociferously with the first Goleta council over putting high density dwellings in industrial land rather than around urban cores where there are more residential services available and you could take advantage of the density and location to offset traffic. No one was listening at the time. It was far more important to cover the city’s required dwelling unit build out by the state and do it where there would be little or no “neighborhood” rejection. This is what animosity and politicking have done to our communities. We chuck out what makes the most sense for what can be done politically and therefore resulting in the exact opposite of what both Richard and Jon are looking for. Time we hit the reset button. We need to look at what we want out of our government and stop brow beating our neighbors. The Citrus Village project should be thrown out and the land rezoned back to neighborhood commercial. The developer, who I am no fan of, has been run into the ground by a schizophrenic government and hammered by the community, should at least be given an opportunity to recoup some of the costs incurred by mismanagement at the county level (the city should not have to bear the cost, however). Let’s start by doing the right thing and maybe we can start backing down from the brink of civil war and actually get something worthwhile done here.

» Richard Foster on 06.04.09 @ 01:50 PM

I live in El Encanto Heights, I do not live next to this project.

» Karen Lovelace on 06.04.09 @ 08:01 PM

Read AN50’s comments. He’s obviously followed the project.
The Goleta General Plan left the zoning for the site as DR 12.3 because the Council legally had to - there was an 16 unit 100% affordable apartment complex development plan approval for the site. Mr. Peikert then let that DP expire, bought the land with its 12.3 u/acre DR zoning from the non-profit Community Housing Corp. for $800 and morphed the project into a market rate project with more unit square footage than the affordable project. Up until then, you and me taxpayer were footing the bill for everything. As we learned, there was a very curious relationship between the housing non-profit and the County. In fact, they are effectively partners, using OPM to fund their ventures. This neighborhood witnessed multiple examples of outright fraud following the development of this project site. What neighbors took away from the experience was to never, ever trust a developer. Can you honestly blame them? As far as the architecture, “California Craftsman” built cheaply looks bad, really bad. Check out Mr. Peikert’s California Craftsmen @ “Willow Creek” in Old Town. Look up under the eaves, look at the woodwork inside. Cheaply built junk. Better to keep the styling simple and build with quality.

» Richard Foster on 06.05.09 @ 04:48 AM

Mr Martin and poor leadership both say if this is zoned 12.3 it should be built at 12 units.  I never said it couldn’t be 12 only that is should conform to the rest of the zoning code too.  If they cannot have a legal drive without having sub-stabndard landscape borders, if they can only put in private space at 50% of what zoning requires, then they have failed to design the project to fit the site.  The Peikert Group has designed units that are too large, that is his fault not the neighborhoods.  If he wants to stick to 1,800 sq ft units he will have to build fewer units, and even then there is probably inadequate room.  Developers need to stop selectivly reading the zoning code.

» LongTimeGoletaResident on 06.05.09 @ 06:03 AM

Mr. Martin failed to state that he is a partner in Martin Farrell Homes, that build GIANT housing tracts and shopping centers in Santa Maria, Orcutt and Lompoc, as well as on the Board of Directors for the Coastal Housing Coalition. Check out this CHC newsleter at http://www.voicesforhousing.org/new_site/2007Spring.pdf, as well as the Martin Farell Homes website.
Also in that same newsletter the developer’s lead planner is quoted “We’re going to have growth on the South Coast. It’s happening whether we plan for it or not. It makes more sense to plan for it, so we don’t create sprawl.”
Lisa Plowman
Peikert Group Architects
Yes we can PLAN for growth. We must plan sensibly, following ALL of the zoning laws, not making exceptions to shoehorn project into the building site.

» JDO on 06.05.09 @ 07:56 AM

I’m delighted to finally see Council guide a development into some moderation.  “Infill” should not violate zoning standards, maximize density, and build compressed neighborhoods that defy common sense.
  My hat is off to Mr. Bennett too.  He questioned the design of vertical units.  Single floor designs are superior.  Why do we even consider three story townhouses with interior stairs as a norm?  If anyone likes interior stairs, they are simply too young to think clearly.
  And finally, why not give the land owner commercial zoning while planning an exit/entrance off Hwy 101 using the south portion of the lot?  Seems like a win win to me.

» Richard Foster on 06.05.09 @ 05:34 PM

I appreciate Mr. Martins comments.  Not all the units are 1800 only the 3 bedroom, the range is from 1200-1920 gross including a 1 car garage.
But space on the lot is what drives the third floor that I have a problem with as precedent setting in the area.  At the appeal hearing is requested 8-9 units because thats what the parcel will support with the proposed square footage.
The high rise arguement is of course somewhat hyperbole.  But that is the opposite extreme of no growth at all.  And I thinnk the value of these discussions are because we are all somewhere in the middle of that range.
Personally I think any project that conforms without modifications request should be able to pass through the system on some sort of fast track, with reduced fees.  After all they should be less controversial.  My fear of granting modifications is that each one becomes a precedent or caseexample for the next person who may have more money for lawyers.
To all a great exchange of thoughts!

» Harry Rouse on 06.05.09 @ 06:49 PM

The Citrus Village controversy apparently overlooks the added traffic congestion that would result from this outsized project. Along the overcrowded two-lane, 45-mph stretch of Calle Real between Ellwood Station Road and Glen Annie Road are twenty local streets and driveways, carrying thousands of commuters, students, shoppers, local residents, trucks and buses every day. There have been several traffic fatalities on this roadway in the past few years, and one more multi-vehicle driveway could only make matters worse (that driveway is the only possible access to this site).  And, this does not take into account the cumulative traffic impacts anticipated from the 60-plus Kenwood homes envisioned for a large vacant property a short distance east of the proposed Citrus Village project. Note also the existence of the nearby ill-fated Robinson Tract, with several unfinished and unsold homes going to ruin. Enough already! Let my people be!

» Hope Nasty developer loses his shirt on 06.06.09 @ 11:14 AM

reply to Richard Foster.

You are right.
I hadn’t intended to Disparage or vilify Mr Pieker—the developer and the architect.
and I sure hadn’t intended to be ‘disagreeable”.

I know Mr Piekert, and as an individual he is a real nice guy, and appears to have good intentions, and appears to be reasonably moral and reasonably honest.

It all has to with his designs!  They are all, in a word, bulky, dense, too tall, overbuilt monstrosities”!  They may be appropriate for dense and tall L.A, but not for Santa Barbara, or Goleta, where the vast majority of the residents desire to preserve a low density small town character, and despise his designs and projects.

Of course he has a right to stay here and keep being at odds with the majority of the public.  If that is what he desires—constant opposition, appeals, delays, and a dislike ( understatement) for his bulky and tall designs and projects. 

I was merely suggesting that it would be better, for all concerned, if he moved somewhere where the residents appreciated him and his designs and projects.  He could make twice as much money, have less aggravation and opposition and be liked and respected, instead of hated because his work is ruining our beloved town.

» As seen on TV on 06.07.09 @ 04:25 PM

Always keep in mind that your elected officials determine the outcome of all development through policy. Ever since the pro-development majority took office and began the process of gutting the General Plan (I believe it was 4-1 vote with Margaret Connell being the only council member taking a stand) to no one’s surprise, Goleta has witnessed a barage of major project applications (and approvals) If the Goleta General Plan were “tweeked” like they all campaigned for, this project would be almost half the size and scale. The goal of this council is obviously to facilitate massive development in Goleta. It’s been happening and continues every other Tuesday. Next up, 250 houses on Glen Annie Golf Course?!!!!

» reply to AN50 on 06.14.09 @ 06:46 PM

[Editor’s note: Just curious how you are replying to AN50 on this post and, one minute later, you’re AN50 on another?]