Goleta Planners Postpone Decision on Condo Project
The Planning Commission hopes a better design will help solve issues with the Citrus Village project on west Calle Real.
The Goleta Planning Commission on Monday evening voted to put off its decision on a residential project in western Goleta in the hope that a better design could solve some issues that cropped up at Monday evening’s public hearing.
Citrus Village is planned as a California Craftsman-style complex of three-bedroom courtyard condominiums in western Goleta, with buildings facing one another over a long road that also would function as a driveway, running from the complex’s entrance off Calle Real to the back of the property.
Despite the massaging of the project between the city’s planning department and the project’s designers, which resulted in a floor area ratio above what is considered the standard for residential projects in the city, in-lieu fees instead of the city’s affordable housing inclusionary rate, but also 40 percent common open space on a lot that’s just a shade smaller than one acre, the commissioners Monday night were not comfortable enough with the project to push it through.
“This project sets up conflict in the community,” Commissioner Julie Solomon said. One aspect she pointed out was the plan for a “tot lot” closest to a bar on the other side of the property line.
While the panel praised the project’s courtyard design for the use of common space to drive in and out of their homes, the commissioners were not convinced that cars backing out of their garages into the 27-foot-wide common road/driveway would not back into each other or another car passing through.
Meanwhile, members of the public criticized the project for its siting near Highway 101 and the air pollution from the freeway, lack of parking, as well as the modifications needed to push the project through, although several modifications are required because there is no standard in the city for courtyard-type projects.
The city and the applicant, architect Detlev Peikert, representing an entity called 7388 Calle Real LLC, agreed on a two-week continuation that could allow for a redesign. City planners and the project’s proponents will meet again Sept. 8 for a workshop to determine the viability and feasibility of the project. If the Planning Commission denies the project, the applicants may file an appeal to the City Council.
Noozhawk staff writer Sonia Fernandez can be reached at .
» wrote on 08/26/08 @ 09:04 PM
The original project was killed because it was a poster child for why you have zoning laws to begin with. It is the reason Gail Marshal did not win re-election. Susan Rose was accused of stealing IV’s redevelopment money to fund the property purchase and the county ceded public roadway right of way to shoe horn the project in. Is it any wonder developers have such a hard time getting anything approved in this town when that kind back handed government corruption is at play in some “social consciousness” experiment? I can still remember the buss loads of IV Hispanics being shuttled into neighborhood meetings to bolster support for the project. Kill this thing permanently, turn the property back over to commercial development (its original and best use) and throw the government bums who concocted this abomination in jail. As someone who has fought the NIMBY, BANANA and N3 culture here for years, the last thing we need is wretched garbage like this giving the no-nothing-never crowd ammunition.
» wrote on 08/26/08 @ 01:40 PM
The review of this project gives quite a bit of insight into the mindset of the current Goleta Planning Commission. If a project doesn’t follow patterns of typical 1960’s track-home development then the Commission probably won’t approve it. With the exception of a few, there is not a lot of vision among the members of the commission.
» wrote on 08/26/08 @ 10:20 AM
Why does the issue of the tot lot come up four years into the process? You would think if this was such a big issue, someone would have commented sooner? Why does a 9-unit project need a tot lot? Will any tots live in the development? This is just another example of making up the rules as you go along at considerable expense to all involved.