Carpinteria officials review Lomita Lane plan for up to 93 townhomes; no vote taken

Carpinteria city council members, planning commissioners and the architectural review board on March 31, 2025 held a joint concept review of a proposal by City Ventures to build townhome-style condominiums on an 8.64-acre parcel at 6380 Via Real. Staff and the applicant presented a schematic plan for roughly 90–93 units; no vote or formal action was taken.

The concept matters because the site sits next to the existing Lagunitas neighborhood, borders a sensitive creek corridor and is in a zone that could be rezoned under the city’s housing-element work. City staff noted the project would use state tools such as SB 330 and density-bonus provisions that affect allowable standards and vesting.

City staff’s presentation described the Lomita Lane Residences as 18 buildings containing townhome-style condominiums with two- and three-story structures, 73 three-bedroom units and 15 four-bedroom units (the applicant and staff used slightly different unit totals in their remarks). The developer said each unit would include a two-car garage and the site would include about 29 additional guest parking spaces. The proposal lists 10 moderate-income units and two above-moderate units to meet inclusionary and density-bonus thresholds. Cindy Souder, a city planning staff member, summarized the procedural limits: “The decision makers will provide feedback and comments. No vote or any other type of formal action will be taken at this meeting.”

Staff and commissioners focused on several technical and policy questions. On zoning and vesting, staff explained that an earlier SB 330 application tied to a prior apartment proposal “locks the zoning in place,” and the new concept submittal included its own SB 330 filing, which likewise vests the site under current MRP standards. Staff also clarified how the city counts gross and net acreage for landscaping, open space and density calculations and said the creek buffer, the detention basin and Lomita Lane easement are treated differently for different standards.

Drainage and grading were discussed at length. Staff and the applicant said a detention basin on the north side of the site currently receives runoff and that future grading to elevate the low-lying “bathtub” site is likely; the plan as presented did not include a preliminary grading plan. The developer and civil consultants said they would prepare hydrology and civil studies for a formal submittal and that the project could include infiltration systems beneath landscaped areas.

Height, massing and neighborhood compatibility drew repeated public concern. The concept included two-story buildings roughly 32–32.5 feet tall and three-story buildings around 41 feet. Multiple speakers, including residents of the adjacent Lagunitas neighborhood, said the three‑story massing and the proposed roof pitches appeared tall in relation to nearby homes and asked the team to explore options such as lower plate heights, flatter roofs or moving taller buildings away from shared property lines. A resident said, “I have real concerns that this property is not going to provide any time for, any place for recreation for these kids,” citing limited on-site open space for the number of bedrooms proposed.

Parking and household vehicle assumptions were another area of concern. The developer said the unit plan provides a two-car garage per unit plus approximately 29 guest spaces; staff and several board members noted enforcement history in Carpinteria has sometimes left garages used for storage and encouraged conditions and CC&Rs that require garages be kept for vehicle parking. The applicant said tandem garage parking could be pursued as part of a density-bonus or waiver request; staff said whether tandem parking can be accepted depends on the density-bonus and waiver review.

Affordability and unit mix were repeatedly raised. Council and commission members asked whether the developer would consider smaller units or a different affordability mix to produce more workforce units. The developer said the product targets families and buyers seeking larger townhome-style living, but that the team was willing to explore smaller units or other affordability mixes in a formal application. Staff described the city’s inclusionary requirement (12% above-moderate units under city ordinance) and the density-bonus options for moderate/low/very-low-income set‑asides.

The applicant, Nick Patterson of City Ventures, described the company as the developer and home builder on the project and noted the firm’s experience with infill and all-electric building techniques. He said the team will refine the design and civil work before submitting a formal application. “We are the developer and the home builder on this project,” Patterson said during his remarks.

Public commenters and several board members suggested specific changes and additions: more and larger on-site recreational space (including a request that a nearby city-owned parcel be improved as a park), lower building heights or reduced plate heights, stronger guarantees that garages be used for parking, and exploration of underground parking options to reduce apparent massing and free up surface open space.

Next steps the city staff described: the applicant may submit a formal project application with full civil, grading and drainage studies; staff will return the item to the advisory bodies for design review; and any requested concessions or waivers under density-bonus law will be evaluated at the discretionary phase. The meeting closed without action; staff and the applicant were asked to return with more detailed plans, graded sections, parking and affordability options.

The concept review brought early public input on height, parking, stormwater and affordability that staff and the applicant said they will address in follow-up materials for a formal submittal.