The Carpinteria City Council and other groups on Monday reviewed a proposed development with 93 townhouses and told developers to consider shorter buildings.
Members of the City Council, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and the public expressed concern that the project wouldn’t have sufficient parking, lacked open space, would not provide affordable housing, and that the townhouses would be too tall for the neighborhood.
The development, proposed for 6380 Via Real, would include 78 three-bedroom units and 15 four-bedroom units. Each unit would have a two-car garage, and there would be 29 uncovered guest parking spots throughout the development, for a total of 217 parking spaces.
Mayor Natalia Alarcon said she would like to see the height, which would range from 32.5 feet to 41 feet, lowered and more recreation space added. She said she also worried that the site wouldn’t have enough parking.
“Although I believe that the state is requiring 155 spaces, you’re going a little bit above that, which is great. However, I still think for this part of the city of Carpinteria and in that neighborhood, that is not enough parking spaces,” Alarcon said. “I feel like that is a problem that is going to get dumped onto the city and surrounding neighborhoods, which is really concerning.”
She added that she would like to see more affordable units for teachers and low-income households.
Ten units would be set aside for moderate-income residents and two units for above-moderate income units; the rest of the development would be at the market rate.
Nick Bobroff, Carpinteria’s Community Development director, said it’s estimated that the three-bedroom, moderate-income units would sell for $350,000 to $400,000 and four-bedroom units for $400,000 to $450,000. The sales price would depend on interest rates and average HOA monthly fees, he added.
Councilwoman Monica Solorzano said that while she thought the site would be great for a residential development, she wanted to see more affordable units.
“What I want to see is residential development that serves more of Carpinteria than what is proposed,” Solorzano said. “I think that 12 units of moderate and above-moderate rate housing is not enough when you’re building 93 units.”
She said she would be more excited about the project if there was more affordability, even if that meant increasing the density.
Monday’s hearing was not for the city to make any official rulings on the project, but gave residents and the city a chance to provide initial comments.
Planning Commissioner Glenn La Fevers said he had some concerns about the development being compatible with the rest of Carpinteria, particularly because of the height.
“Most of my concerns are driven by the mass and the size and scale of this,” La Fevers said. “We need to look at whatever we can do to lower the heights of these buildings. I’m OK with the number of buildings and general layout, but we need to lower the heights.”
Many others agreed that the height was excessive. Councilman Wade Nomura suggested that the developers get rid of the pitched roofs to help reduce the height.
Nick Patterson from the development team said they could explore switching to a flat-style roof. He explained that they proposed the pitch-style roof because they wanted the design to be cohesive with the rest of the area and because it makes the buildings feel more like a single-family home than an apartment.
After the hearing, the developers can submit a formal application for the project. Once the application is deemed complete, an environmental review would be done followed by a formal review by the Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council, and the California Coastal Commission if appealed.
This property has been eyed for development for decades. Last summer, developers proposed a mixed-use apartment project.
At the time, board members, commissioners and City Council members said they wanted lower density, more functional open space and shorter buildings.