Tensions ran high among the Goleta City Council on Monday evening as the members continued to discuss rezoning sites in the city to allow for more housing, as some took issue with the density and distribution of housing.

The Goleta City Council and the Planning Commission held their third joint meeting on Monday to consider rezoning properties to be added to the city’s Housing Element, after the California Department of Housing and Community Development rejected the city’s original plan in March.

Councilman Stuart Kasdin started the meeting by reflecting on the council’s response to Santa Barbara County’s Housing Element — particularly focusing on the overemphasis of land near Goleta; the inequity when considering different areas throughout the county, such as the “deliberate exclusion of Montecito and Hope Ranch”; the rezoning of agricultural sites and open space without assessing environmental impacts; and the lack of effort to evaluate impacts on the surrounding areas.

“We seemed to have followed the same path,” Kasdin said. “We overemphasized one portion of the city — that is western Goleta and this is, right now, in the area in District 4 around Hollister. There’s a significant overemphasis there, and there’s no ethos or effort at some sort of sense of shared sacrifice.”

He also commented on how the council and the Planning Commission have been considering more housing in District 4 than in District 1, which he said is “decidedly wealthier and whiter.”

Other council members then noted how they should be considering the city as a whole, not just by district.

“There are times when we’re four districts and there are times when we’re one city with one future,” Councilman James Kyriaco said. “So I’m a little distressed that — because of the pressures, because of our sense of it’s unfair — we’re pitting neighborhood against neighborhood, district against district, community against community. We’re all one community at the end of the day, and the purpose of this exercise is to provide housing for our community.”

Kyriaco also brought up the many developments already planned for his district in District 2, including the 332-unit Heritage Ridge apartment development, the 60-unit Buena Tierra permanent supportive housing project and several other sites being rezoned.

“Do we really want to start pointing fingers at each other and say, ‘You’re dumping housing in my neighborhood and you’re not dumping housing in another person’s neighborhood,’” Kyriaco said. “It’s not about dumping. It’s about people, and people need housing. … So can we please, pretty please with sugar on top, stop pitting ourselves against each other and start doing what’s right for our community?”

Councilwoman Luz Reyes-Martín, who represents District 1, also disagreed with Kasdin’s assertion that some districts are “whiter” or wealthier than others.

“I don’t believe in using race to disparage any part of the community,” Reyes-Martín said. “When I look specifically at the elementary schools within the city of Goleta boundaries — Ellwood, Brandon, La Patera and Kellogg — that is where I see what is most wonderful about Goleta because each of those schools represents the diversity of our community. Despite what some may assume, each of those schools welcomes kids and families across incomes, across racial and ethnic backgrounds, and housing type.

“I don’t believe that we have siloed neighborhoods in Goleta. My experience as a parent and as a school board member has shown me the opposite.”

Following those comments, the council and the commission discussed the Kenwood Village property at 7264 Calle Real, which is zoned for agricultural and single-family residential uses. City staff proposed rezoning the property for high-density residential uses, which would accommodate 284 lower-income units.

Several neighbors spoke during public comment with concerns related to traffic safety, parking and the “alarming” density, as one commenter said. 

Speakers mentioned accidents that have occurred near Calle Real, where the property sits, including a 59-year-old who was killed on the corner of Violet Lane and Calle Real in 2020.

Council members and planning commissioners had trouble figuring out how to approach rezoning the site. They expressed wanting to have enough units in the city’s site inventory to satisfy the state, while also listening to community members and making neighborhoods safe.

No official decisions were made during the joint meeting, but most council members and planning commissioners agreed to direct staff to consider rezoning part of the property for single-family residential uses and part for high-density residential units.

Goleta staff will now take the feedback from the council and the commission to revise the city’s Housing Element that will be resubmitted to the state at a later date.