Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

This doesn't change.

Welcome to the June meeting of the Carpentry and Planning Commission. Can we have a roll call, please?

Yes, good evening, Commissioners. Commissioner Van Antwerp?

Here.

Commissioner Lefevers? Here. Commissioner Allen? Here. Vice Chair Benefield? Here. And Chair Moyer?

Here.

And to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

And to say to God.

introductions presentations announcements Thank You chair yes I actually have several of those for you this evening first up I wanted to let your Commission know and anybody watching this hearing that this Thursday June 4th city staff will be holding a town hall meeting here in the council chambers from 530 to 7 p.m. The purpose of the town hall meeting will be to share information about the city's budget challenges and the proposed revenue measure and also to seek input from the community on priorities and essential services that the city should focus on. This goes hand in hand with the survey that went out a couple weeks back that a lot of the Carpinteria residents probably received. So again, that's town hall meeting this Thursday, June 4th at 530 here in the council chambers. Also, just wanted to remind folks that the 30-day public comment period on the notice of preparation and scoping for the environmental impact report for the general plan coastal land use plan update process will wrap up on this Friday, June 5th at 5 p.m. So again, we're soliciting feedback and comments on what we should look at and evaluate in the EIR, the environmental impact report that's being prepared for the general plan coastal plan update. We've got information on our city website. If you go down to the bottom of the homepage under hot topics, you can click on the button for the general plan update and that'll take you to the landing page where you can find more information both about the public scoping and the project as a whole, or you can email our long-range planning staff at gpupdate at carpinteriasca.gov. And then finally, just to save the date, we are getting ready to kick off the environmental impact report process for the proposed farm residences project next door on the T-Time property. Tentatively, we're looking to launch the 30-day public scoping and notice of preparation comment period on June 11th, and that will run through July 10th. and we're planning to hold a public scoping meeting both in person and on Zoom here in the council chambers on Tuesday, June 30th at 5.30 p.m. We'll make sure we blast that out on social media and on the city website and everywhere else once that date is finalized, but that's how things are looking at this point. So again, that would be June 11th through July 10th for comments on the scoping of the EIR for the Bluffs project and a public scoping meeting on Tuesday, June 30th at 5.30. That's my introductions and announcements for you this evening.

This time on the agenda provides an opportunity for the public to address the Planning Commission on items within the jurisdiction of the Commission but not listed on other sections of the agenda. And I have one speaker slip for Ann Sly.

Good evening. I think it was last week that Wade Nomura and Jane had a meeting, and there was a graphic that was up. And if I understand it correctly, there were 218 short-term rental permits in the Beach community, and that 11.5% of them have not been assigned. If my understanding is true, what I would like to see is that the 11.5% not be assigned and that 218 number be reduced. I do understand that means that we would be giving up bed tax money, but that could possibly be made up by finding illegal rentals and fining them and making them pay the back taxes. We also have six new hotel rooms on the Carp Avenue property that will be bringing in bed tax. And the people that I know that live in the beach community say that they would much rather have long-term rentals in their neighborhood and as their neighbors than short-term rentals. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else that would like to address the commission? Is there anybody online?

If you'd like to make a public comment, please raise your hand, and we will allow you to speak. At this time, there is no public comment.

OK, thank you. Oh, sorry. Approve the minutes of the meeting held April 6. Any comments? Motion.

I'll move to approve.

Second.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? So passes. Verizon Wireless Community. and you have a staff report.

Yes. Good evening, Chair Moyer, members of the Planning Commission. It's nice to see you tonight. This item is a request by Verizon Communications to install a wireless facility at 912 Linden Avenue on the Sushi Terry building And this item was last considered on April 6th as a continuation of the meeting held on February 2nd to allow Verizon additional time to explore an alternative location for the installation as you recall after The April 6th Planning Commission continuance of Verizon contacted the city in May, early May, to ask for another continuance from this meeting on to December 7th Planning Commission meeting to give them additional time to review alternatives to the project location. If you recall at the time of the last continuance Verizon had put a lot of their projects on hold as a part of an internal review corporation wide. Since that time Verizon has contacted the applicant which is Celeste McGinnis from Centerline Communications to let them know that they could proceed forth with a review of the project alternatives and that then they assessed what it would take to review alternatives to the project location and determined it would take about six months to do so. So staff has reviewed their request and in consideration of how much work they put into the project, even though it was put on hold, we believe that their request is a reasonable request and we would like to support a recommendation for that continuance. A Verizon representative is available to answer questions on Zoom if they've arrived. Otherwise, we are here to answer any questions you might have about the status of the project and the continuance.

All right. Thank you. And any questions of the commission?

Quick question, are there any alternatives that are being looked at other than the Sushi Terry building at this point? Or can you share that?

Yes, through the chair, Commissioner Van Antwerp, there has been interest in a couple of locations. The Channel Islands building has been discussed. The building that houses the Nugget has been looked at, as well as continuing to look at the location at the community center in the clock tower there, in the tower there. So those are the items, or excuse me, the locations that have been brought to my attention. They still have their alternative study that they conducted for this project that they can look to as well.

Okay, thank you.

We'll move on to public comment. Is there anybody in the, would the applicant like to address the commission?

Hi, this is Michelle Duarte. Can you hear me? Yeah. Great. Yes. On behalf of Verizon Wireless, yes, we are looking at an alternative that's building We are just starting our due diligence and site walks for that alternative location here in the next few weeks. And we will be prepared to have a lot more information in the coming months. But I am here to answer any additional questions, but I don't have too many updates as of now, as we did just remove the hold from this project.

Does anybody have questions for the applicant? No questions at this time. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Bring it back to the commission. Oh, I'm sorry. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to address this issue? We'll bring it back to the commission.

I'll make a motion if you like.

Go ahead.

I move that we extend the Verizon Wireless Telecommunications Facility search to December 7th. You know, that's Pearl Harbor Day. It doesn't bode well, but until December 7th, 2026. I'll second that.

Commissioner Van Antwerp?

Yes.

Commissioner Lefevers?

Yes.

Commissioner Allen? Yes. Vice Chair Benefield? Yes. Chair Moore? Yes. Motion carries 5-0.

Thank you.

We'll continue to item number three. The Surf Cottage's condominiums. Do we have a Everybody get ready. Sorry for pushing you.

No.

Thank you, Chair. Megan Mussoff, our assistant planner, is going to walk you through this item for the surf cottages.

Thank you, Nick. Good evening, Chair Moyer and members of the Planning Commission. I'm here tonight to give the staff report for the Surf Cottages Condominiums Project. This project is a request for a development plan and a coastal development permit to do a couple of different things on the site at 4716 7th Street. There is an existing single family dwelling on this site and the project proposes to do both an exterior and interior remodel of the home to construct a new second story addition to the home and a new attached two-car garage. Additionally, to construct a new two-story building, which would contain two dwelling units in it, each with its own attached two-car garage. There would also be a new driveway or motor court going through the center of the site with one guest parking space, which would be located right here. There would also be a new fence along the southern side property line, new landscaping throughout the entire site. And there would also be a removal of the large telephone pole that's currently right in the center of the front of the property and the utilities for the site would be undergrounded. The existing unit is currently a one story, 1,270 square foot dwelling unit, which is four bedrooms and two bathrooms. The remodel and addition would reconfigure the single family dwelling to still be four bedrooms, but add two additional bathrooms. The front door would be moved to face 7th Street, and the new height of the structure would be 23 feet 9 inches. The new two-car garage would be 420 square feet. As for the new two-unit building proposed, unit A would be 1,859 square feet with a 448-square-foot garage. This unit would be three bedrooms, three bathrooms. It would have an upstairs balcony coming out of the primary bedroom facing 7th Street, and its front entry would also be facing 7th Street. Unit B would be slightly smaller, 1,704 square feet with a 459 square foot garage. This unit would be three bedrooms, two and a half bathrooms, and its front entryway would be facing inwards here towards the driveway. The maximum building height for this new building would be 24 feet 9 inches. There have been multiple versions of this project proposed to the city since 2008. The first project proposed in 2008 went through several conceptual and preliminary reviews with the architectural review board between 2008 and 2013. Eventually, though, in November of 2013, the project was closed by the city as an inactive project. However, a new project was brought forth in 2017. This new version of the project addressed more of the ARB's concerns that had been voiced during these previous conceptual and preliminary reviews of the project, and the ARB did give preliminary approval to that version of the project in 2018, and the Planning Commission approved this project in 2018. In 2020, the project and the entitlements came under new ownership, the current ownership, and the city council approved a parcel map for condominium purposes for this project in November of 2023. However, the entitlements for this project unfortunately expired before a building permit was issued. And so to move forward with this project, a new application was submitted, which is the current project for consideration tonight. This project was submitted in February of 2025. Updated special district letters and conditions were received for this project and it was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board this February and they provided preliminary approval of the project with their comments attached, which I'll talk a little bit more when we're looking at the elevations. This project is in the downtown slash old town neighborhood of Carpinteria. Here you can see it's near Franklin Creek, 7th Street here, which is a major connector between, you know, we've got Aliso School here in the downtown. Here's a closer view, a closer aerial view. You can see that this site is surrounded by other multi-unit residential uses. And here is what the site looked like as of last week when I went there to take some pictures. And you can see here, I've got some additional story pole photos as well. But here you see that existing single unit. Here is, again, a slightly larger version of that proposed site plan. Here's the entrance. Here's 7th Street. Here's the entrance to Unit A, entrance to Unit B, the garages for those two units, and the new proposed garage for the single-family dwelling. And here I've kind of overlaid that site plan on top. This is not to scale, but just kind of gives you a little bit of a better idea of how the buildings would be placed on the site. All right, the Architectural Review Board didn't have many comments about the single-family dwellings remodel and addition. They did appreciate the, quote, wedding cake placement of the second story, so it's set back a little bit from the front, from the street. The main change between ARB review and tonight is the color, which same as the two-unit building, went from a fairly bright white to more of an off-white cream color. And you can see the new proposed balcony here facing 7th Street coming off of the primary bedroom. This is the rear of that single-family dwelling. There you go. And the maximum height of this building, again, would be 23 feet 9 inches. Here's the north elevation, which would be the single-family dwelling as seen from inside the motor court with the garage facing the proposed new two-unit building. And the south elevation, this is what would be facing the side yard. And now we've got the proposed two unit building. This is the view from the street. Similarly, the second story piece is set back from the front. And here you can see the proposed balcony for unit A faces the street. Here is looking at that two unit building from the back of the property. All of this here is unit B that you can see on this elevation. Here is the view of the two-unit building from inside the motor court. You can see the entrance to Unit B here and the garage door for Unit A. And on the other side, this is the view along the northern side yard. The ARB did have some concerns with this facade in terms of its overall length and the flatness of this facade and gave some comments suggesting ways that additional variation could be introduced to this facade while also acknowledging that there were some constraints with how much they could do being right up against that side setback. And so the applicant team has responded by it's a little bit hard to see, but I'll try to point here. They've bumped out this second story portion here by a little by around two feet. And they've also added because of the bump out a small hip to the roof here. And also adding some corbels here underneath the new overhang created by the small bump out. And this was all done again with the intention of breaking up the large wall plane a little bit more and just adding some more interest to this side elevation here. And here you have the overall front elevation with both buildings side by side. Quickly, just the proposed colors and materials. The ARB took no issue with the proposed lighting, found it to be night sky friendly. This is the proposed fencing material for that new fence along the southern side yard. the landscaping plan. Mostly just wanted to highlight that there are some new trees proposed as part of this project. All of the existing plant matter on the site is proposed to be removed. So there would be two magnolia trees planted right up along the front which would essentially kind of function as street trees since they're planted so close to the sidewalk and also a jacaranda in the backyard. And there are also two proposed rain gardens in the front. And these are a part of the project's on-site stormwater management to catch runoff from the project. Here's a couple pictures of the story poles. I put arrows, although they're still not showing up super well. These story poles do not reflect the two-foot height decrease that the project currently shows. These were put up back in January before the first ARB hearing. And since then, the overall height of the project has been brought down by about two feet. Here's just a little bit more of a closeup. You can see here the story pulls on top of the existing unit and a little bit further away. All right, looking at Title 14, our zoning code, it does meet the side and rear setback. The majority of the project meets the front setback, but as I'll show in just a couple of slides, there is a modification for this project requested for the front yard setback. I'll get to that in just a moment. The height is under the 30-foot maximum at 24 feet 9 inches. The building coverage meets the 50% maximum at about 48.5%. The density is on par for the zoning district, which is 15 units per acre, so three total units. Common open space, there is a 20% minimum, and this project is exceeding that at 32% of the lot area. And in terms of parking, it meets the parking requirements exactly by providing two garage spaces for each unit, as well as that one uncovered guest space for the project. Another thing that I wanted to touch on tonight is about Chapter 15.50, the city's flood-proofing regulations. Presently, the flood maps for this site do show this location within a flood hazard zone. However, in 10 days from now, on June 10th, New flood maps are coming into effect. These were approved by FEMA back in December. So they will be changing on June 10th and these new maps pull this site out of a flood hazard area. So this site will no longer be in a flood hazard area and therefore would no longer need to comply with the city's flood proofing elevations, or sorry, requirements requiring this building to be elevated. And so that also contributed to the decrease in height of the project was the fact that it will not need to be flood proofed. The front setback modification being requested is for the proposed columns as part of the entryway for the single family dwelling. They would encroach about eight inches into the front setback. And so because of this, a modification is requested. The findings for this modification are in the staff report. I'll also note the architectural review board did not have any issues with this. Staff is supportive of this modification because the front entryway columns help animate the entrance, make it a little bit more inviting, add street appeal to it. It's also a rather minor encroachment into the front setback. And so if your commission is also supportive of this, you can include the approval of the modification in your motion this evening. Briefly, just to review a couple of the key general plan objectives and policies applicable to this project. Objective LU3, which is to preserve the small beach town character of the city while encouraging compatible revitalization and avoiding sprawl. And policy LU3A, which talks about new development occurring contiguous to existing developed areas, encouraging higher density in certain residential neighborhoods, and concentrating development in the urban core, particularly when a site is being redeveloped. Staff notes that this project does meet these land use objectives and policies. It's an infill project in the downtown neighborhood. It's already got one existing unit on it. It would be improving the existing residence while adding units up to the density allowed by the current zoning on the site. And for the community design element, objective CD1, that the size, scale, and form of buildings should be compatible with adjacent and nearby properties. And objective CD2, architectural designs based on historic regional building types should be encouraged. And policy CD5D, which is that houses within a neighborhood may vary in materials and style, but strong contrasts should generally be avoided. Again, staff feels that this project meets these objectives and policies. The overall layout and density of the project is similar to surrounding sites, particularly the neighboring site directly to the north, which is also a three-unit condominium development around a central motor court. The height, as currently proposed, is in line with the neighboring residences, both of which are two-story. As per the design of the project, it's proposing a more modern design but incorporating some of those more traditional and historic styles that we see in the city. And the overall exterior color of the project was softened to a more off-white in response to the architectural review board's comments that the bright white was just a little bit too bright and too contrasting. So that was toned down a little bit. Additionally, just to mention our housing element, this project would be adding two units to the city's overall housing stock, which would fall into the above-moderate RHNA category. This project does qualify for CEQA exemptions under 15301, existing facilities, 15303, which is new construction, and 15332 regarding infill development. Again, as mentioned, this is building off of and remodeling an existing single-family dwelling while adding two additional units to the site as an infill project. And the draft notice of exemption is in the staff report packet. And your commission can include the CEQA exemption as part of your motion this evening. So that brings me to the end of my staff report. Your Commission's action options for the evening are to adopt Resolution PC26004, which would approve the project, approve the CEQA exemptions, adopt the findings, and adopt the proposed conditions of approval. Your Commission may also direct the applicant to revise the project or conceptually deny the project as proposed. So that concludes my staff presentation for the evening, and I'm happy to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you. Thank you.

Do any commissioners have questions?

I do. Go ahead. Thank you. That was a good report. I have two questions. I can't remember how high the nearest building is.

Vice Chair Benefield, I believe I went into the project file for the neighboring condominium development, and that one is approximately 24 feet, so around the height of this proposed project. On the other side, on the southern side, I wasn't able to find any information about the exact height of that development, but out there looking at the story polls, it appeared very comparable in height since the neighboring residence is also a two-story development.

Thank you. And the other question is, when the cars back out of the garage, can they turn so they're facing out to the street?

Yes, this was discussed at the architectural review board hearing. And yes, there is enough maneuverability for all of the cars to adequately back out of their garage parking spaces and drive forwards out of the site.

Not all at the same time, but. Probably not, but. Thank you.

Anybody else?

Go ahead.

Yeah. Thank you. Couple, I guess, procedural question really on the pending change to the flood hazard map. So had a little bit of interest in the process here with regards to us making the findings to approve this project on a, you know, with the current hazard map. The project's not in compliance with the current hazard map. It will be in compliance with the new hazard map that we expect in the future. So I gave that a little bit of thought. I know staff has done some research on that as well. I know that we have that issue addressed in Condition 11, the existing proposed conditions of approval, which I've reviewed. And I guess, so my question for staff is, do you believe that's proper procedure for us to condition into a forward looking change? And then secondly, are there any other conditions that you've considered perhaps adding to the project to further address that issue?

Through the chair, Commissioner Lefevers, thank you for your question about it's true that the current flood maps do show that the site is still in the flood hazard zone. When we received the new flood maps from FEMA back in December, they were issued with letters of final determination. which means that these maps will be going into effect. All of the appeal periods for these maps have ended. So this is a, I don't want to say a certainty, but it's about as certain as it could be that these new maps will be going into effect. I'm not sure, Nick, I don't know if you want to add anything or we may also have our legal team on the line here.

Yeah, I'm happy to jump in. This is Cody Sargent with City Attorney's Office. Are you able to hear me okay? Yes. Great. Through the chair, Commissioner Lefevre's Yes, we looked into this as well and feel the approach is generally acceptable. Because the conditions implemented at the building permit stage, the city can require compliance with the FEMA flood maps as they exist at that time. And so our office reviewed that relevant condition of approval and feel that it's written broadly enough in reference to the applicable FEMA map when the permits are issued. and so with regards to your question on the commission's ability to make the findings we feel that the commission is able to make those findings if they wish to because the findings are as to the project as conditioned which again would take place at the building permit stage so If, for example, while we agree with staff that this is a near certainty that those FEMA maps will go into place in 10 days, if for some reason they didn't, that condition of approval would still be in place and the project would have to comply with the applicable provisions of the CMC.

Great. Thank you, staff. And thanks, Cody. Appreciate that. That was the only question I had.

Your turn.

Yeah. Quick question. This is on the CCNR. I'm concerned about just making sure that that's actually going to happen. Will there be a homeowners association or something like that to make sure? I'm just thinking down the road, if there's issues coming up, that that'll be covered. That's all.

Yes, thank you, through the chair, Commissioner Van Antwerp. Yes, there is a condition of approval in this project that city staff will review the CC&Rs for this project. Additionally, for this project, or when this project records the condominium plan for the units to actually be sold separately, the CC&Rs would also need to be recorded at that point. And of course, with the provisions of State condominium law. Yes, a homeowners association is required for this project Okay, thank you.

Yeah, I was just concerned because I know that The like the rain gardens that's part of the stormwater drainage Stuff so I just want to make sure that's in there.

Yeah, thank yes common areas like this would be addressed in the CC and ours. Thank you

And just to add on to that, it's typical that as part of our staff review of the CC&Rs, we'll go through the document and make sure that any of the conditions that are relevant to these sorts of things, like the long-term maintenance of the rain gardens, are addressed and spelled out in the CC&Rs as part of the maintenance requirements for the development.

All right. Thank you.

We're done. Ask if there's anybody in the public that would like to address this issue. I'll start with the applicant, if they're here.

Good evening, Chair Moyer and members of the commission. I'm Eva Turnchalk. I'm the land use consultant for the owner. We do have the owner and our architectural design consultant here for questions. I did not prepare a presentation because Megan did such a great job. But if you have any questions, we're here to answer those.

Great. Thank you. Yeah, you did a really good job. Thank you. Makes it a lot easier. So nobody else would like to address the commission on this issue. I'll bring it back to commissioners. Would you check online?

Chair Boyer, at this time, there is no public comment.

OK.

I'll bring it back to commissioners for comments and deliberations.

I actually had one question for the applicant.

OK.

It has to do with the height. OK. So you did reduce it. We did. From the ARB comments, their suggestions, correct?

Well, no. It actually came from because of the floodplain change. Staff had asked, hey, would you mind re-looking at the design and lowering it? And when we did, we were able to lower it just over two feet. Yeah.

OK.

Thank you. You're welcome.

I'll go ahead and start. Reviewed the project. I think it's a good project. I like it. It's interesting to look at the history of this project. It's been a long time in the process and just kind of a reminder to us all how how much time and effort and expense it takes to make it through the process. But coming out the other side, I like what I see. I think the project is well laid out. I believe it's big picture. It's appropriate for the For its location for the zone district, I'm pleased to see it developed at a three unit density. I think this area of our downtown we've identified numerous times and through our housing element and other efforts that this is the area in Carpinteria that we feel is most appropriate to increase densities above existing, and this project maximizes that density based on current zoning standards, so I like that. I think the height is, and I think Our ARB did a nice job working with the applicant to provide guidance. And we ended up with a project that fits well on the site. And heights are reasonable. Appreciate the ability to lower it to avoid extra fill and foundation heights for flood impacts, since that's changing. So I like that. And I'm comfortable with the 8 inch encroachment into the front yard setback for the porch elements. I know there was some discussion at the ARB about perhaps some additional porch additions, but I'm comfortable with the project as it's proposed. I think it looks nice. It could be a great addition to that area and will be a nice looking project, so I support it. I would ask staff and commission As we deliberate, if you would consider a change to condition, you know, if we are moving in the direction of approving this project, which I hope we do, Condition 11, which addresses the change to the flood zone map and conditions the project that it comply with, whatever the flood zone map is at the time the permits are pulled, I would ask that we change that condition to bring it back to the Planning Commission in the event that a change is required. The current condition suggests that it go to the ARB for review. and I'd like to see it back here at the Planning Commission. I don't anticipate that being necessary. It seems highly likely that once the flood maps go into effect, they're not going to change. We know it could be some time. I hope not, but it could be some time before permits are pulled. There's two years under the current conditions. To move forward with construction and we know that that can be extended as well. So it could be some time So I would ask the Commission and consider that change to conditional event unless staff has some concern with that I think that would be appropriate. I'd like to see it back if we end up having to redesign it for a change in heights again support the project I can make the findings as proposed and That's all I have

Thank you.

Can I ask a question about what you said, Glenn, about the flood control maps? You're saying that if that doesn't change, if it does change, not to bring it back, or if it doesn't change to bring it back.

Yeah, happy to clarify. So current condition number 11 and the conditions of approval require this project to go back to ARB for redesign if that's necessary to meet the flood zone map requirements at the time that the permits are pulled for the project. That's the current condition. So The expectation is that condition is meaningless because the flood maps are almost set in stone and this project's going to comply with them. So it's almost a moot point. But in the unlikely event that it did happen, I want it coming back to us, not the ARB. And that's the change I'm suggesting. So it's pretty, it's really, yeah, it's pretty meaningless, but that's the intent.

Sure. Sometimes it's easy to go after another commissioner, and I agree with Commissioner Lefevre's comments. All of them all simply highlight the thanks to the ARB for doing a good job through the whole process. I like what – and the applicant, of course, working with them for what we have seen tonight. And particularly, it's always good to see a more street-friendly and community-friendly street frontage. You know, I like the fact they're not huge, but they're there. The front porch is facing the street on the two front units, as well as the upstairs balconies are just huge. a community-friendly look and experience, both for public and people living there. So it's always good to see those design elements carried forward, as well as setting the top units back to lower the perceived elevation.

And when I went out and looked at the story poles,

a little high and then notice that in fact they're lower than what is shown as staff commented. So to cut it short, one other thing I don't disagree with the suggestion that it come back to us. I would suppose that if there were major design revisions that for some reason were being contemplated, it would then Go or we could ask staff could request to go to the air be as well but Seeing that comes to us as well. I would agree with so I'm prepared to support the project And suggest that change along with Glenn Thank you Yeah, I I like the project

I think it's going to look great. I did walk around the neighborhood prior to our meeting, noticed other similar size and height complexes, felt like there was definite neighborhood compatibility that it supports our general plan and that's a big issue for me. And I'm also relieved to hear that the story polls Yeah, we're actually lower because that was just one thing that I saw that I was a little uncomfortable with. But, boy, it's going to make a huge difference to that area. So, yeah, I like it. Thanks.

Okay. Sometimes I look at these cases and I run it by my gut, you know. Would I want to live there? And yeah, I would love to live there. It's really, really sweet. It's an infill. It's attractive. It's going to be better than it is now. I've got no complaints, except I really hate white, but that's me. So yeah, congratulations. Got my vote.

Yeah, I support the project too. The white and black is a style. So I was kind of, my neighbor across the street did black and white. I kind of like it, but I was kind of, I was a little miffed that they didn't stand up for it, but that's water under the bridge. One thing that I like about this project is it's for sale and it's three bedroom units and it's family oriented. People come here with a family and make an investment in CARP and they invest in a lot of different ways. That makes our city stronger and more compatible, I think. I like it that they're big three bedroom units. Somebody make a motion.

I move that we adopt resolution PC26-004 approving project 25-2331 DPCDP to grant a development plan and coastal development permit to allow the remodel and additions as stated and to approve the CEQA exemption pursuant to 15301, 15303, and 15332. of the guidelines, and to adopt the findings in Attachment A, Exhibit 1, and conditions of approval as proposed in Attachment A, Exhibit 3, and to accept the modification to allow the front support pillars, and to propose the revision suggested by Commissioner O'Fever as to condition number 11.

Second that.

Do we have a roll call vote?

Commissioner Van Antwerp?

Yes.

Commissioner Lefevers? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Vice Chair Benefield?

Yes.

And Chair Moyer? Yes. Motion carries 5-0.

Thank you. We'll take a three-minute break now.

Yes. Can I ask you, do they take the story polls down now? Yeah. Get on it. Yeah, there's some ugly polls. Ugly.

We'll continue now with item number four, the caller new residents. And we have a staff report.

Thank you, Chair. I hope not to repeat everything. I hope to keep this somewhat abbreviated for you. I'm going to be filling in this evening. Cindy is out of the office for a few days enjoying a vacation. But we were continued to tonight's meeting date. So I offered to take the reins and do my best to cover this item. I will let you know up front, my presentation probably won't be as well polished as Megan's just was. That's a tall act to live up to. But I will do my best. So this is a continued review of a proposed new residence at 333 Linden Avenue. Your commission last saw this item on February 2nd. Is that right? Yes. February 2nd. At that meeting, we heard from a couple of neighbors who were concerned with the size and scale of the project, also the orientation at the time of a garage onto Linden Avenue, and also some concerns that this residence may be used as a short-term vacation rental. The commissioners were a little bit more split across the spectrum on this project, with a couple of commissioners sharing concerns over size, bulk, and scale. There was, however, some uniformity amongst the commission about safety concerns with the new driveway facing onto Linden Avenue. and whether that was an optimal design solution or if there was a better way to access this site for vehicular purposes off of Dorrance Way. And so ultimately the commission voted 3-2 to continue the item with direction to the applicant to revise the project so that the garage will be located to the rear of the property with access taken from Dorrance Way. and that the overall footprint of the residence, particularly as it relates to the front setback off of Linden Avenue, not be substantially changed. And so the project was continued initially to the May hearing. The applicant wasn't able to attend the May hearing and so it was continued again to tonight's hearing. And so we're picking up where we left off here and sharing with you the revised design. So just a quick recap here of some of the basic parameters of the project. It would be a new 3,520-square-foot two-story single-family residence and a detached 840-square-foot three-car garage on what is currently a vacant lot. Maximum height of the residence would be just over 24 feet. Maximum height for the detached garage would be at 14 1⁄2 feet. Access, vehicular access for the new garage located at the rear of the property would be taken from Dorrance Way through a new proposed 15-foot easement across the neighboring property. The tree protection plan from the original proposal, which preserves the on-site sycamore remains in this revised design, the large palm tree, tall palm tree out there on the Linden Avenue frontage would also remain. Previously, it was proposed to be removed to make way for the driveway. The project would require demolition of the garage on the adjacent property at 355 Linden Avenue because it encroaches slightly over the property line. The applicant opted rather than adjusting around it just to demolish that garage with intentions of, I think, building a new structure there and a future separate application. And then finally, the project also proposes a lot line adjustment between those two properties. I've got a graphic that helps to show that better here in a moment. Again, just kind of a refresher of where we are. These are the two sites here. So this is two parcels, but the interior of the two is the one that we're mainly looking at tonight. That's the vacant lot where the new proposed residence would be located. So here's just a quick exhibit to refresh your memory of the proposed lot line adjustment and then to show where that new access easement would be located. So on the left-hand side of your screen is the existing lot configuration where parcel A is an L-shaped lot that wraps around and behind parcel B. And with a lot line adjustment, that portion there behind Parcel B would be given to Parcel A such that you'd end up with two side-by-side lots of substantially the same acreage. And then that green shaded strip along the rear is the location of the proposed new access easement across Parcel A in favor of Parcel B to get to the detached garage. This is taken out of the plan set, just a site survey, but this detached garage here on parcel A is the structure that would be removed as part of the project. This is the revised proposed site plan so on this image Linden Avenue is on the right hand side of the screen and so the the main residence sits here in this gray form. Detached garage is located here and the access off of Dorrance Way would come down the private drive and into this private motor court here for access to the three-car garage. Quick comparison here side by side of the previous floor plan with the new floor plan. So up at the top of the screen, I recognize it's a little bit small, but this was the original ground floor floor plan that had the garage located at the front of the residence facing Linden Avenue with all the living area behind it. And now you can see the living room has been moved up into that front space and the covered patio has been taken off the back of the property to make room for a small private yard area. And then the obvious big change at the rear of the lot is the new three car garage that sits in the rear. the rear of the property. The setback line from Linden Avenue has not changed, so I know that was important to the Commission, and that design has been preserved and carried forward into this revised proposal. On the second floor, with this change, there was a slight reduction to the square footage of the second floor. I think about 350 square feet was taken out of the single family dwelling, primarily from the second floor, I believe. And the bedroom count was also pared down. I know that was something that the commission or some of the neighbors had commented on before as the original proposal was a five bedroom home. And now it's been whittled down to a four bedroom home. Still a large home admittedly, but they did lose a bedroom and did lose about 350 square feet of living area. This is the front elevation. So up in the right-hand corner is the original proposal with the two-car garage facing the street. And that would have, of course, had a driveway and an apron then facing out towards Linden Avenue as well. And that's been eliminated now in favor of, as I said, moving the dining room up into that front portion of the home with the large picture windows there looking out towards Linden Avenue. And we'll see in a moment here on the landscape plan, but the The kind of patio wall that was proposed across the yard area would now carry across the entire frontage there as part of the revised design. This is the north-facing elevation. So this faces the two-story duplex there on the corner of Dorrance and Linden Avenue. So in this image, Linden Avenue is on the left-hand side of your screen out here. So this is that rooftop deck above the dining room facing Linden Avenue. And now you're seeing the detached garage here on the right-hand side of the screen. Looking the other way, this does show where some of that square footage was taken out of the back of the house there. So you can gain a little bit of a sense of how they carved 350 square feet out of there. And you can see now kind of how the site plan jogs around that large sycamore to preserve it on site. And then the rear elevation, so on the left-hand side is the original rear elevation, which would have just been the back side of the house and the covered patio. And now the rear elevation would instead be dominated by the detached garage. And then this is the roof plan with the original roof plan up at the top of the screen again. Not a substantial change here in terms of the design of the existing residence. The big takeaway obviously is the new structure at the back of the lot with the detached garage. And so here's the proposed landscape plan. And as I mentioned, that patio wall would now run across the entire frontage and create an enclosed kind of front yard and front patio area facing out towards Linden Avenue. No interruptions of the sidewalk, no driveways out onto Linden Avenue. in the revised design. The palm tree, as I mentioned, would be preserved in place, as would the large sycamore. And then for the new driveway coming in off of Dorrance, they're proposing a relatively narrow driveway there, 15 foot wide, and it would have a decorative Hollywood strip or landscape strip down the middle just to soften it up and give it a little bit more of an aesthetic treatment. We believe that with these changes that the project has substantially addressed what the Planning Commission had asked for. We think these changes do help improve the perceived, help reduce the perceived skill of the residents as viewed from the street and also go a long way towards addressing some of the pedestrian safety and cyclist safety and motor safety concerns that were raised at the last meeting by eliminating that driveway off of Linden Avenue. In this revised design, the project still meets all required zoning standards of the PRD zone district. And so we are recommending approval of this revised design. And I'm here to answer any questions.

Commissioner Saff, questions?

Nick, just, and I know it's covered in the staff report, but the demo of the garage on the adjacent property, so the expectation is that that would occur during construction of this project and that's the only change to the other parcel and And then that would leave the other, the corner parcel with no parking. So could you just elaborate on that quickly?

Through the chair, Commissioner Lefevre, yes. Give me one second here just to find my way through my electronic staff report. But in a nutshell, yes. So the changes to the corner lot would be both the lot line adjustment to reconfigure the lot dimensions and then the demolition of that existing detached garage area. that would leave that corner property without a garage here in the immediate future, which under the provisions of Assembly Bill 2097, the property owner is allowed to do. So this is the state law. You'll recall that. prohibits a local jurisdiction from requiring minimum parking standards for any new residential project or commercial project within a half mile radius of public transit of a qualifying public transit stop. And so I recognize it's not a popular law here in Carpinteria, but it is the law, and so we're preempted in this case from requiring a garage. And so we understand that the property owner intends to do something in the future for that back area of the corner lot. Might be a future garage, might be a garage with an ADU on top. I don't know what it'll be or when it will be, but in the meantime, there would not be garage provided for that corner lot.

Okay, thank you. That's all I had.

I'll open it up for the public and ask if the applicant would like to address the commission.

Yeah, good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the board. George Moneris, project manager, Dylan Chappelle, the architect. Well, just you did better than you thought you were going to do, I think, Nick. He covered virtually everything. I think it's just a lot of wins. We got rid of that kind of weird den room, reduced the bedroom count. I think it made the floor plan a little bit nicer. And then obviously, it's a huge win to save the palm tree, to not have another driveway on Linden, and have just kind of a nice outdoor space that You know faces a park and a playground and a beach I think that's all I we have to say we're here to answer any questions or comments I think you could see in that elevation. We just kind of reduced the house and pushed it a little bit forward To make room for the garage in the back so All right.

Thank you

Yeah, just for the record, too, I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that these people have not applied for a vacation rental. I know that's a topic that's been going on and on and on. But this address, there has been no vacation rental application submitted. So I just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you. We have a couple that we'll hear from Marilyn Jenkins.

Marilyn hi I'm requesting that this project be scaled back for the following reasons. It does not fit the goals delineated in the residential design guidelines for the beach neighborhood and Specifically, two of the goals stated in that document. One goal for building scale and massing. I'm quoting the report or the guidelines. It says, create consistency and compatibility in the built environment within the beach neighborhood in support of the small beach town image of Carpinteria. End of quote. This project and the other two homes on this street, planned by the same developer, stand to completely change the character of the Beach neighborhood. They are not small bungalows, as are the majority of the existing buildings. Rather, they are boutique hotels. Four bedrooms, four bathrooms, is not a family home in my estimation. As proposed, this building will dwarf the adjacent buildings, cause detrimental shadowing, and will destroy the historic entrance to the beach neighborhood. The neglect and obvious future destruction of the first hotel in town, that's the house on the corner next to the spot, Is shown showing no respect for the neighborhood one of the Commission members asked last time we met last time you met About this project if building was taking place already. It's not but the site's been used for storage of other projects There's a dumpster there every week before 7 Somebody comes and empties the dumpster. It's other projects for mr. Menouris, I suppose and The second goal stated in the design guidelines that's not been met by this project is as follows. Allow for a diversity of building styles while ensuring that structures continue to complement each other with respect to design and materials to reflect the eclectic character of the beach neighborhood. This couple, this contractor, this architect have three proposed houses, all of the same size, all across the street from each other, all in the same block. The size of the building creates a mini subdivision of mansions in the beach neighborhood, like nothing else that's there. It is not a multi-family home. It is not a single-family dwelling. None of the three are. This is a separate topic. A current goal for all cities in California is to add to the available single-family home dwellings. These three buildings are designed as short-term rentals. hence the number of bathrooms, one bathroom for every bedroom. It stands to reason that at least one of the dwellings should be required to alleviate the housing shortage in town, as well as being a smaller home in keeping with the beach neighborhood aesthetic and the houses next to it. As I've said in the past, my home is 1,900 square feet, one and a half stories tall. It will be completely dwarfed by this project. Now the project's moved forward, so the second story will be even more imposing from my house. I don't expect that there wouldn't be development on this site. I welcome development, but I think that in fairness it should be a single family home. This couple doesn't need to make money. I don't know why the size of the home The Planning Commission, with approval of this project, is not conforming to the duties of the Commission. Two of the five members of the Commission had such significant reservations about this project that they could not vote in favor of it. I ask that the other three members consider what the concerns were. Should the commission relegate their responsibility to just one couple? Should we allow them to have such an impact on our city? Or should you require confirmation to the existing residential guidelines? Once this expansive change is made, the history is gone forever. Thank you. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lisa Wolf.

Thank you. My name is Lisa Wolf. I'm also a resident in the neighborhood. I live three doors away in the same block, basically. Unfortunately, there are only a few owner-occupied houses in that area. And unfortunately, Marilyn Jenkins is the only person who has come in over and over to say, to object to these proposals. I'm going to be pretty black and white with what's happening here. The Kohlers who own these properties They are not even here in the room. They are investors. They are there to get a buck. That's it. It's an investment, and that's it. These guys are respected builder, respected architect. It's a job for them, and it's going to bring in some income. And that's it. But for the callers who are absent, this is just a greedy move. And if you look at everything that's gone in, the very big picture, this is five properties. It's two on Dorrance that I believe have already been approved, five bedrooms, six baths. Two are going to go in on Linden. One of them hasn't even come before you yet, the Steinhaus. It's going to be another mansion rental. It's going to come down. They're proposing it one at a time so that we look at each design as it goes in. But it's going to be a total of five buildings. I'm also including the Playa Lodging that's just down the street within the block. It was the first Kohler property, and it sleeps, I believe, 11, it has 11 rooms that are rentals. Each one of these houses are four or five bedrooms. That means the callers are going to be managing 30 rooms, 30 rental rooms. I have no doubt that the callers were not going to live in any of these buildings, and they are going to be beach rentals, maybe spec houses, but this is 30 rooms that they're managing. we are, the community is having a hard time with a surf liner hotel, which is, I believe, 35 rooms, maybe 36. The Kohlers are going to be managing 30 rooms in the same vicinity. And it's just under the radar because of the way that they're being proposed one at a time. But if you think about driving down Linden and looking at these giant scale houses that don't fit into the small wedding cake design that all of us have been asked to do. Even when Dylan was on the architectural review board, He suggested and helped everybody keep in the small wedding cake design. He protected the small town area. He was really good at doing it. All of a sudden now that's been thrown out. And what I'm seeing is a new precedent coming in each time one of these buildings goes in and is approved. This will be the third one. There's going to be another one. That precedent is just out the door and the callers are gonna just buy another place. And it's going to be another block, a giant concrete rental block. If you can imagine what the community is going to see when they pass the burger place, the spot, it's gonna be just a giant block of concrete. It's gonna look different. It's not about the floor plan. It's about what's taking up the airspace. These are huge, and they're all right next to each other. The Architectural Review Board hasn't said no. You guys haven't said no. I don't know who's going to be able to say no and stop I mean, up until now, the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, City Council has really protected this community and preserved this small town feel. This is preposterous that it's happening right in front of our eyes right now. It's happening. These guys are going to make money on it. Whether they really want it to happen or not, I don't know. But the Colders do, who aren't in the room. And it's just too much. Thank you. Anyway, I hope you really look at it. I hope you just start saying no.

Thank you.

Is there anybody in the audience that would like to address the commission? I'll bring it back to the Commission for deliberation. Who would like to start?

Chair, we should check to see if there's anyone on Zoom.

Oh, I'm sorry. We check online?

Yes, at this time, if you'd like to make a public comment, please raise your hand, and we will allow you to speak. At this time, Chair Moyer, there is no public comments.

right I'll bring it back to the Commission for a deliberation sure I asked to start so that I could listen to all you're gonna say against oh oh oh my god John Moyer I say no It's too big, and I have seen it creep through the neighborhood, usually on the Kohler projects. Some I can't act on because they're too close to my home. But it's really beginning to show. Each one is a little bigger, a little bigger, a little bigger. And the hotel on the corner used to be a hotel, the Steins property. It's just going to rack into ruin at this point. So I imagine it's going to be knocked down and another, as Lisa says, another big monster will be there. It's too big. It's too bulky. It's too everything. The building looks great, but not right there. She's right next to a single family home. And the whole neighborhood is single-family, even though the report says it's all two-story. It's not. It's not. So I say no. Let's not continue to do this. Thank you.

Thank you.

Who would like to go next? When you take the little two-bedroom, one-story bungalow and you compare it to this project here, economically, you just can't afford to do that little bungalow. It just doesn't work. These places are old, and they need to be renovated. Like about 30% of carpentry is old and needs to be renovated. It's a giant issue. You can't expect somebody to build a home at a loss. It's not going to happen. I, for one, appreciate La Playa. I think it's a nice-looking project, beautiful. And those that were around before that was done, it was a low-rent rendezvous. It was just a dump. It was month-to-month rental. It was a bad scene. And that's been a big improvement for Linden, the bottom of Linden. I'm sorry that it affects people negatively to see things get larger. But economically, I don't think there's any way around it. And I appreciate the changes that the applicants made to address the entry onto Linden. I think that was really a good change and a reduction. And the amount of square footage, that was a big change. Get rid of a bedroom and the den. I think that's very supportive. I don't like the idea of demonizing a citizen that has sunk a lot of money and energy into rebuilding CARP. I'm just not in that frame of mind. I'm sorry. But I'm in favor of this project. I can support it. And we'll go on. Commissioners?

Yeah, I appreciate that the applicant has addressed the circulation issue, but I remain to be very concerned about the scale, the pedestrian experience, the overall look down Linden Avenue, so that corridor character, and compatibility of the beach neighborhood. So while I commend the applicant for making meaningful revisions to the project. It has not changed how I felt when we first heard this project two to three months ago. I'm extremely concerned that it does not support general plan findings. It is the project's massing and scale. It's not compatible with the neighborhood. So at this point, that's where I'm at. My concern has never been limited to just the circulation issue.

OK, I'd love an opportunity to go. Thank you. OK, a couple of thoughts. I guess my initial comment is that I support the project. I appreciate the responsiveness of the applicant and their representatives to address The issues that were raised by the Planning Commission, and I know you work with the ARB as well, but relocating that driveway off Linden is huge. I'm glad we had the opportunity to do that with the way the ownership lines up on these parcels. It's somewhat of a rare opportunity to be able to make that big of a change. to a project and that substantially changes the whole character of this project as it relates to its relationship to Linden Avenue and the pedestrian experience along Linden and that view corridor, the whole thing is changed by adding driveways and aprons and to that so i i appreciate that um and you know i know we've heard you know clearly there's um not going to be 100 consensus on the commission tonight um and that's unfortunate because i know we you know we like to work together as a team to to reach consensus on projects. And so I'm just going to share my thoughts with this. With regards to development in Carpinteria, I support and I think the community should support the upgrading of our environment, the influx of interest, and and money to upgrade properties with high quality construction and resulting beautiful homes. You know, I drove around the Beach neighborhood just kind of taking in the architecture, the homes. There's been, you know, if we look at the residential area of the beach neighborhood, sort of the upper beach, Third and Dorrance, you know, there's a real variety of development and property there. Some of the original bungalows are still there. I can appreciate those. Some very beautiful newer homes. Are there really nice architecture and a lot of variety in that neighborhood? So I see this project that we're deliberating on tonight, this one project, that's what we're talking about as being another positive addition to the community and to the beach neighborhood. I'll also note that if you if you look at the the actual dimensions and and compliance and consistency of this proposed development with our standards, our zoning standards, the design guidelines that exist specifically for the beach neighborhood, the wedding cake design of this structure. We've got a 35%, I think, top floor. The project has the ability to go up to 40% with and still be in compliance and that each percent is quite a bit i mean that's you know 50 50 is a box right so we're we're talking you know a very nicely scaled uh wedding cake design um this is a large lot and you know and again we're only talking about this project but the lots that have been discussed, brought up by the public. These are large lots. These are close to twice as big as many of the lots in the Beach neighborhood. And so they support a larger home within the design guidelines. I think the lottery coverage, if I look at the staff report, is 30% of the building coverage, which is well below the 50% max. The project we approved before was right up to that limit. I know it's a different neighborhood, but that was a 48.5%. Lot coverage, the max is 50. This is at 30. We've got lots of open space and beautiful landscaping. We're preserving the street palm. We're preserving the sycamore. This is being built as a single family. Yes, four bedrooms, four baths. I don't know if this will be vacation rental. Perhaps it will be. I think what I'm seeing in terms of developments in the community is that this whole idea of a bedroom and a bathroom seems to be pretty consistent these days in what what people want in the homes that they, that they want. And, you know, in these cases, you know, people have often the means to build a home the way they want. And often that's a, That's a bathroom for every bedroom, whether it's in this neighborhood or other areas in Carpinteria. We saw that with the condominium development pretty much as well. And perhaps that's a sign of higher intensity of use of properties. We see more people sharing bedrooms, so to speak, in condominiums. Yeah. you know I don't want to go on too long because I you know I don't know that I'm convincing anybody here with you know who or you know who's concerned about the character of Carpinteria and the downtown and Beach neighborhood and I'm just trying to explain my perspective as a planning commissioner and as a commission. We have an obligation to review projects independently, individually, without bias, and apply the standards and criteria of zoning code and in this case we have specific design guidelines some of those are subjective I understand that there's some subjective language in our general plan that it's often cited about compatibility neighborhood compatibility I know you know the and you know I understand your the neighbor directly to the south. This is a large home right next to a beautiful home that exists. I get it. That's a big impact. I understand that. But when I look at it from the criteria that we've developed for the community as a whole, and specifically the design guidelines for the beach neighborhood, This is right in there. We're not approving variances. We're not making concessions on the findings. This project meets all the criteria. And it'll be a beautiful project when it's done, based on what I've seen. And that would be my expectation. So I'm going to stop there. There's lots more we could talk about. But I support the project, and I appreciate the work that staff, ARB, and the applicant has put into it.

making this a project that it is thank you sure yes I'm also supporting the project that said as Commissioner Fever said I truly really understand having been in some situations and seen them. Concern of the neighbor, both immediate neighbor and other neighborhoods. I've been having lived here for over 50 years and in this area of California for many years more than that. I'm kind of heart sick at, you know, what we have seen with some growth and kinds of growth. And specifically in the Beach neighborhood, you know, it's saddened me in some respects to see the, we used to jokingly call them the McMansions replacing the Beach bungalows. That said, though, I think in the neighborhoods that are still primarily single-family or smaller multi-family lots like the previous one we saw, I think this city has done a fairly good job of trying to keep community neighborhood and compatibility by not seeing rezoning, for example, for the large, very large structures that we see a block closer to the beach and in the blocks closer to the beach. They also have their place in need. I'd comment that we can't make decisions here on the commission. It's certainly not appropriate or ethical to make decisions based on the character of the applicants who come before us. That comes up now and then. We have approved projects brought before us by some truly horrible people, and we have disapproved some projects brought by some wonderful people because we are bound by the laws and ethics that we are bound to our guidelines and what seems appropriate to us in the context of that structure, that building in our community. And turning to that, yes, I'm very appreciative of the applicant's willingness, because not all are, to work with our suggestions. I would not have approved this project, I don't think. Trying to put my mind back in that setting, it had the driveway to Linden. I think that was a killer. I'm very appreciative and think it's a really great thing that the applicant has agreed to work it so that there's an easement across the back and bringing the traffic in that way. And that also has the effect of making the street frontage so much more pleasant. The structure has set back quite a distance, certainly compared to its neighbor, the existing house and previous hotel. And the second story, of course, set back even more, as Commissioner Lefevre pointed out, that upper story percentage. is considerably less and it and it shows and it makes a difference in perceived size bulk and scale though this is large compared to immediate adjacency it's not large for the overall neighborhood and it's not large as Commissioner Lefevre's pointed out for the lot at all compared to many we see in already existing. I like the look that it presumably will have as it's presented from the street with, you know, a kind of welcoming feeling with the living area and windows to the front, with the plantings in the front, with the second story set back with the balcony above. I think that's a nice feel for streetscape. And the width, it does not consume. And the height is well within. I mean, I remember so many battles. And of course, the flood requirements have made it almost impossible in other areas of each neighborhood. So many battles over structures that have hit or come in exceeding 30 feet. And it's just not. So I think glad to see us not having that fight here. I'm trying to think of what I may not have covered, but bottom line is I do support the project. I appreciate my fellow commissioners who find problems with it. I share their concerns in many respects and in many other projects, but this I think it would be very difficult for me to find reasons other than quite subjective ones to say no.

May I say something? May I add? We are subjective. Goodness. We have rules, yes, but to think we're not subjective is delusional. one thing that should be understood is we are not here to understand the economics of anybody's project we're here for the land use we're here for the compatibility we're here for the community but whether you make money or don't make money you probably always will that's not our concern thank you to the chair

OK, I'll be brief. Just that I completely agree with Commissioner Benefield, and it's a very good point to make that we do not decide projects based on economics. So whether somebody has spent a whole lot of money coming in or has not, should not be why we make a decision based on what's best for the community. So I totally agree on that. And yes, of course, our decisions are subjective, and necessarily so. And we disagree, and it is on. at least partially unsubjective look at how this fits into the standards. So, yeah, I agree with you.

I follow up my comment. I've thought a lot about this project and the issue that what we do is What's before us is whether or not we can make finding A under the CMC14.68.030, which is the proposed development. We have to make a decision on whether or not the proposed development is in conformance with the applicable zoning district, local coastal plan, and implementation programs and the general plan. And I can't. I think there are several inconsistencies with the general plan. I'll start off with LU3I, which directs that development within an allowable range should be guided by what is most compatible with the predominant development pattern of the area. Same is true with CD1, which requires compatibility with adjacent properties and the dominant neighborhood development pattern. CD subarea 1-3 calls for maintaining the small-scale character of the beach neighborhood. So I objectively look at that. It's in our general plan, and that's why I can't approve the project.

Thank you. Are we ready for a motion? Yeah.

I'm prepared to make a motion. I move that the Planning Commission adopt resolution PC26001, thereby approving the development plan, the lot line adjustment, and the coastal development permit for project 23, 22, 32. For the construction of a new single family residence with a detached garage and adjust the lot line with the adjacent property at 355 Linden Avenue. I'll stop there. That's the motion.

I'll second it.

Try to go out of order here this time, keep you guessing a little bit. Commissioner Lefevers? Yes. Commissioner Van Antwerp?

No.

Commissioner Allen? Yes. Vice Chair Benefield? No. And Chair Moyer? Yes. Motion carries 3-2.

Matters other business.

I have nothing for you under other business.

Matters presented by commissioners.

I do. A reminder to the public, perhaps, that although the city ordinance closing the seal sanctuary area sunset a day ago, or June 1st, That's not the only law that applies to protection of our harbor seal who reside full time on the beach in Carpinteria and one of only two places where the public can see them in Southern California on the beach. regularly and having their pups. They are still protected all year round. And in our situation and the way the beach is configured with the bluffs immediately adjacent, If you walk along the beach or bike along the beach at any time during the year, you are going to either disturb the seals and likely chase them into the water, or you're going to prevent them from coming ashore. And the federal law protects them from any harassment or disturbance of their usual behavior. So I always make the pitch that you're going to be breaking the law if you go on that beach where the seals are any time of the year. But more than that, we have thousands of visitors who come all year hoping to see the seals. And if you're the one person who goes down them, it's happened with a biker Sunday morning. He came by in the morning, flushed 135 seals into the water. They did not return all day except for a few now and then, who were then chased into the water again in the afternoon by two low-flying powered hand gliders. So that was an exceptionally bad day, but all it takes is that one first person on the beach, and you are depriving hundreds of people that Sunday, probably 400, 500 people of the opportunity to see the seals. So I suggest it's also selfish when you can easily bypass it by walking the bluffs trail, which is beautiful. So that's my pitch.

Nobody else?

Yeah, I have something. OK. If you read the Coastal View, you'll see that we're going to have meetings every month called Carpinteria Matters, issues that relate to carpentry. We had the first one at the library Thursday. It was very effective. I think there were 50 people. It was pretty crowded. I mean, for a community meeting, it was pretty crowded. And we imparted information that people didn't know about. I did a planning bit based on the letter I put in the paper. And Wade took care of the issues like the budget and how we're going to handle the meetings and all the extra stuff. But I think people were pretty much grateful for the information they got. We're not pushing any agenda. It's just to inform people. I really thought it was good. Of course, I was talking, so... probably that's why anyway the other thing I want to say is vote people vote tomorrow's the election I forgot to fill out my ballot but thank you so commissioners here the next meeting

Chair, before we get to that, we do have a couple items for you under the director's report.

Oh, yeah. Go ahead.

If you want to hear them. If you don't want to hear them, we can certainly gloss over them. So in your director's report this evening, we don't have any. arb meeting minutes ready for you we've got a little bit of a backlog on those we're trying to get caught up i expect we'll start having those ready for your packet next month but you do have the city calendar for the month of june and then you have the monthly activity reports for both the planning cases and building permits for the month of may and i did want to highlight just a couple of kind of larger or more visible project milestones, if you will. So as already mentioned on the farm residences project proposed next door at tea time, we are getting ready to kick off the environmental impact report process. So that's going to be kind of the primary workload on that project for probably the better part of the next year, if I'm being honest. FOR THE VIA REAL TOWNHOMES PROJECT, WHICH IS PROPOSED ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY DOWN AT THE LAGANITA SITE, THE FORMER APPROVED OFFICE PARK SITE. THAT APPLICATION WAS DEEMED COMPLETE LAST MONTH, AND JUST LAST WEEK, CINDY ISSUED THE CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION ANALYSIS FOR THAT PROJECT. SO WE DID FIND SOME Some policies where the project does not currently appear to be consistent and so this will kind of initiate a dialogue and perhaps some back and forth between the applicant and staff to make some further revisions and refinements to the project over the coming months. The Ogun Road Builders Remedy Project remains on pause until the litigation is resolved. Chevron decommissioning work is in a little bit of a pause here also. The onshore portion of the project is on temporary hiatus until final permits are approved from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the onshore soil remediation work. So we're thinking that's going to take potentially a couple months to get caught up with EPA and get that approval. In the meantime, offshore work will continue as scheduled. So right now, the offshore work is tentatively scheduled to commence mid-June. Right now, the proposed schedule is that the barge would be leaving Long Beach Harbor, Port of Long Beach, or Port of LA on June 15th. Probably takes a couple days to get up here and get mobilized, but I would expect over the course of the summer that there will be some offshore decommissioning work occurring and then finally I just wanted to note it note in case you you haven't seen as you've been going up and down Linden Avenue but the palms remodel and renovation project is officially underway and they have put up or they're putting up today some pedestrian protection measures there along Linden Avenue so that folks can continue to walk across the the sidewalk there without risk getting hit by construction debris. So you'll see some scaffolding and other things going up, but I'm excited to report that that project is finally moving forward.

To the Chair. On the Chevron decommissioning in the barge you mentioned, are we talking about work from the barge for the offshore pipes immediately adjacent to and in our intertidal area or out on the far distant platforms or, of course, Both at some point. Through the chair, Commissioner Allen.

Eventually both. You'll recall, or maybe you won't recall, I can't recall if I reported this to your commission or to the city council previously, but before the near shore, the most near shore work can occur, Chevron needs to get down onto the sandy beach at low tide and make a cut of the pipeline somewhere along the sandy beach to separate the onshore from the offshore. That work hasn't occurred yet. That's at this point scheduled to occur in the fall. And so what the Chevron team is looking at doing instead is somewhere offshore a little ways, but still relatively near shore, you know, maybe in 40, 50 feet of water or something like that. They would go down and make a cut of the pipelines and then work from there out to the platforms to remove those sections of the pipeline and And then they would leave that near shore segment in place until they can go in and do the beach cut and then come back and pick up those remaining pieces.

Quick question on the Via Real project. What are we calling that?

through the chair, Commissioner Van Torp. For right now, I've been calling it the Villarreal Town Homes Project. I think that's what's on the plan set. I know in past iterations, I think they've floated a couple different names, but I don't know that they have a working title for the project aside from Villarreal Town Homes at the moment. If you come up with a good one, I'll pass it along.

The only reason why, when you've talked about it before, I have to stop and think, oh, that's the

Lagunitas and I think I think the neighboring residential project already exists under the Lagunitas moniker then I think they floated you know the Lomita residences and the folks behind them didn't like that because they're the Lomita residences so now we're at Villarreal townhomes at least as a placeholder for now presence at the next meeting next meeting I plan to be here

I will plan to attend by Zoom. I will not be in town.

I'll be here.

I'll be here. She'll be there.

Thank you.