Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello and welcome to the August meeting of the Carpentry and Planning Commission. I'd like a roll call.

Thank you, Chair Moyer. Director Bobroff is out today, so I am filling in. Mindy Fogg with the Community Development Department. Before I call roll, I would like to make clear for the record that this meeting is being conducted pursuant to California Government Code 54953 in that Planning Commissioner Allen will be participating in this meeting by teleconference. In accordance with the Brown Act, the teleconference location has been identified in the notice and agenda for this meeting. I'll now conduct the roll call after which I will confirm certain matters for the record. Taking roll, I'll start with Commissioner Van Antwerp.

Here.

Commissioner Lefevers. Here. Chair Moyer. Here. Commissioner Allen.

Here.

And Commissioner Benefield is absent. Please bear with me while I briefly go through some special procedures required by the Brown Act. I would now like to request that Planning Commissioner Allen respond to the following questions. Commissioner Allen, can you hear me well?

Yes, I can.

Were you able to hear our proceedings up until now?

Yes, I do hear them.

Do you have a copy of the agenda for this meeting?

Yes, I do.

Is the agenda posted at the location where you are?

Yes, it is.

Is your location reasonably accessible to the public such that any member of the public could participate in this teleconference from your location if they wish to do so?

Yes, there's no impediment to them coming to our location.

Wonderful. And is there any member of the public there with you who would like to participate in the public comment portion of this meeting or otherwise address any agenda item for this meeting?

Yes, my wife is here and may wish to participate.

Thank you. I would now like to ask that any member of the Planning Commission speak up at this time if they are unable to clearly hear Commissioner Allen. All right, hearing no comment, the record will reflect that all Planning Commissioners that are present have indicated they are able to hear Commissioner Allen. And that concludes my remarks, and we do have a quorum, Chair Moyer.

The Pledge of Allegiance.

The Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation,

Do we have introductions, presentations, or announcements?

Chair Moyer, no introductions, presentations, or announcements today.

All right.

Public comment. This time on the agenda provides an opportunity for the public. to address the Planning Commission on items within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not listed on other sections of the agenda. Please limit comments to no more than five minutes. Do we have anybody that wants to address that? We have one letter from Patrick O'Connor, and you're going to let us know how we're going to handle that.

Thank you, Chair Moyer. Yes, we received an off-agenda comment by email from Patrick O'Connor, and our Community Development Department is going to look into the matter brought up there regarding the location on Maple Avenue, and we'll report back at the next meeting. Great. Thank you.

Now we'll move on to the consent calendar. Approve the minutes of the meeting held May 4th, 2026 and June 1st. Do we have any comments?

I'd like to request that we split those. I was not present on that.

Right, okay. So we'll go with the May 4th one first.

Move to approve.

Second. Good with that one. All right. So done.

And then I'll abstain from that.

Did you want to just do a voice vote? All who approve, say aye.

All approve, say aye. Aye. That's good. Motion passes. And then we'll go on to June 1. And I think we have a comment.

Yeah, I do. On the June 1 hearing, I made specific findings that are not reflected on one of the projects that are not reflected in the minutes for June 1, 2026.

Was it the cooler residence or the surf condos?

Cooler, yeah.

Would you like then to defer the minutes for now until the next meeting and we'll follow up with, we'll watch the video back again and follow up and make sure that we've captured that?

Yes, and I have them here, if that helps.

But that would help a lot. Thank you. OK. So would it be easier for you to read it in? That way you're amending the minutes here and now. And if everyone agrees, you can then approve the minutes and we'll amend them per what you state for the record.

OK. The specific various inconsistencies that I found with the general plan for that particular project were LU3L, I, sorry, 3I, CD1, and CDS1-3.

Okay. Through the Chair?

Yes.

Through the Chair, as I recall, this project, as reflected in the minutes, was a 3-2 vote. And, Alexander, your proposed findings were not adopted. just to be clear that these weren't findings that we adopted, but rather your proposed findings, and I would certainly approve the minutes to be amended to show that you proposed those findings which would have resulted in a denial. Does that make sense and is that appropriate? Correct. I mean, to be clear, we're not changing the findings that the majority made.

Correct. I understand.

I'm fine with that as well. I did have one other change I'd like to make or ask for if we could. This is on page four of the minutes. If you could just take a quick look. It's the third paragraph down. The first sentence reads, Commissioner Lefevers asked whether it is appropriate for staff to approve the project. I request that you change the word staff to the commission. I think that's more accurate. I'm okay with that. Yeah, I'm good with it.

Me too.

With those changes, I'll move that we approve the amended minutes. Second.

Would you like to do a voice vote, all in favor?

Yeah, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? No opposed.

Thank you. We'll make sure that those corrections are finalized.

Number two, adaptive reuse of two existing office buildings. Project number 26-2404-CON. We have a planning staff report.

Thank you, Chair Moyer. Good evening, members of the Planning Commission. I'll be presenting a summary of the staff report for tonight's conceptual project review. The city recommends that applicants request a conceptual review for proposed projects that are large in scope or have unique or particular policy concerns. This gives city decision makers the opportunity to provide initial feedback to the applicant before they move forward with a formal project application. This item for tonight is for the Commission to give feedback only. A formal project application has not been submitted and no decisions on the project will be made tonight. This project proposal was also conceptually reviewed by the City Council on July 13th and I'll summarize their feedback later in my presentation. The project proposes to use the two existing office buildings at 6185 Carpentry Avenue for an adaptive reuse project. The project would change the interior of the buildings into 31 residential units, 20 of which would be live work units. The units would range from studio to two bedroom units. Each live work unit would have an adjacent work or office space accessible independently from the residential unit for visitors or clients. All 20 of the live-work units are proposed in the northern street-facing building. About 23,407 square feet would be used for residential space, and about 3,912 square feet would be dedicated to workspaces. The project proposes to maintain all on-site parking, landscaping, and habitat area as is. This 3.58-acre property is located on the Carpinteria Bluffs. It is zoned MRP, the Industrial Research Park District. The land use designation is RDI, Research Development Industrial. Due to its location, the property is also in the Coastal Appeals Overlay District and is in the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay District. The site is bordered to the west by the S&S Seeds warehouse and adjacent vacant parcel, and by more business park developments to the east. The two office buildings involved in this project were built in the early 2000s. They are currently vacant, but were most recently occupied by Plan Member Financial. The site sits lower than Carpinteria Avenue and features a semi-subterranean parking podium with two stories above so that the building appears only two stories from the street. These pictures here give a bit of an idea of the building's architecture, which the project proposes to keep relatively the same except for some minor cosmetic changes like paint. This is a floor plan of the existing parking podium with a total of 102 spaces. There are some staircases and an elevator here that provide access up into the building. Here's a conceptual layout for the second floor, which is now broken up into residential and live work units. There's a mix of studios, one bedrooms and two bedrooms. Here's an example of two of the live work units with the attached workspace available from the main hallway. So the blue portion would be the residential portion and the yellow portion would be the workspace. There's also a common conference space proposed in the center that could host larger meetings. And similarly, here's the conceptual layout for the third floor. This floor also would feature a common conference space. And this rear building here is proposed as residential only. None of the live work units are proposed in the rear building. So as I mentioned earlier, staff and the applicant are looking to receive feedback from the planning commission on this conceptual project idea. And to help guide discussion and comments, staff presented preliminary analysis in four issue areas in the written staff report, which I'll summarize now. The first area for feedback is the residential use in the MRP zone. Mixed use with residential and industrial components is an allowed use in the MRP zone district with approval of a development plan. To date, only one project has used this provision, the Lagunitas mixed use project in the MRP zone north of the freeway. Currently, the Via Real townhomes project proposes to replace that approved office component of that site with additional residential. The MRP zone has required findings to approve mixed use, which require that a project rehabilitates existing housing or provides affordable housing and contributes to the job's housing balance, is compatible with both existing and anticipated surrounding uses, and that industrial remains the primary use of the site, considered either by square footage or by the appearance of the development from the street. The general plan land use element also contains policies about mixed use in commercial or industrial areas and requires decision makers to consider factors like the density of the proposed project, the availability of infrastructure and public services, any unique site characteristics or potential impacts to ESHA, and impacts to any coastal resources such as view sheds, coastal access, or visitor serving commercial. Given these policy directives, staff present a few considerations for this conceptual review. While the proposed project would not rehabilitate existing housing and does not include dedicated affordable units, it would offer a unique housing type for certain demographics of the workforce The project would essentially present as an interior-only remodel, and the building's appearance would remain mostly unchanged. The parking, landscaping, and on-site Esha and trails would be maintained. The on-site commercial use is unlikely to interfere with the residential use, considering the small size of the workspaces. And the change in use could impact sensitive habitat as the residential use may lead to light, noise, and traffic at the site for more hours per day than the site would experience as an office park. And the buildings would continue to appear commercial, although much more of the interior floor area would be used for residential than commercial at about a six to one ratio. And so given these factors, the commission should provide comments on the proposed project's consistency and compatibility of residential use in the MRP zone. Another consideration is the commercial component of the proposed project. In a mixed-use project, the commercial uses must still be an allowed use in the zone district. The MRP zone primarily allows for R&D, labs and offices, and larger professional offices such as firm headquarters. Historically, the city's MRP zone has contained large corporate R&D headquarters as well as some light industrial and warehousing uses. In the proposed project, tenants in the live-work units would need to acquire business licenses, which means the use of each workspace would need to fall under an allowed use in the MRP zone. The proposed size of the workspaces may make it difficult to accommodate the allowed uses in the MRP zone or to find tenants that would fall into these categories. The applicant notes that the workspaces could be used for businesses like tech, software, or professional services. Office workspaces for one to two employees would be a new direction for the MRP zone district. However, staff recognizes that businesses are increasingly moving away from traditional large suites and whole office buildings. Recently, city staff has received several inquiries regarding smaller startup or business incubator type spaces. And so given these perspectives, the Commission should provide feedback on the compatibility of the proposed workspaces with the allowed commercial uses of the MRP zone district. The next area for discussion is the siting of residential uses on the bluffs. Currently, there are no housing units on the bluffs. With current zoning, residential is an allowed use on large portions of the bluffs where we have PUD and MRP zoning. The general plan land use element reflects efforts made to accommodate residential in commercial and industrial areas in response to a changing jobs housing balance, but supports it only when a particular project and setting are appropriate. The community design element contemplates development on the bluffs and notes that its design should protect unique and sensitive environmental resources, should be compatible with the small town character of the city and contribute to a pleasant visual experience on the bluffs, and should provide appropriate development opportunities for landowners within the bluffs. In the past, there has been little support from city decision makers when housing has been proposed on the Bluffs. Apart from this conceptual proposal, the Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed two housing projects in this area since 2013, neither of which moved forward. Past concerns from decision makers included that in the case of mixed use, the residential component was too dominant for the MRP zone, or that residential would intensify the use of the site and create more 24-hour activity, and that permitting one housing project here could open the door for more housing, which then raised additional concerns. The concept proposed here includes some aspects that may differentiate it from past projects. This project would maintain the existing building's appearance and footprint, instead of creating new structures. It proposes smaller units from studios to compact two bedrooms, and includes lots of on-site parking. And construction impacts to surrounding ESHA may be lessened because the project wouldn't involve completely demolishing and reconstructing buildings. The Planning Commission's input on the suitability of this site for housing would be appreciated. And lastly, because the project proposes housing units, our housing element and RHNA is a consideration. The city is about halfway through its RHNA cycle, or Regional Housing Needs Assessment, and about 73 of 901 units have been built so far. Projects are counted when building permits are issued. This project would contribute 31 units to the above-moderate category and offers a different housing type that could support business owners. The Commission may wish to consider these factors when providing input on the conceptual project. These same four issue areas were presented to the city council on July 13th, and council members provided their initial feedback. This included discussion about the bluffs as a generally sensitive area, both to the community and for habitat preservation, and that concerns remained about introducing housing to this area of the city. Council members also expressed that if housing were to go on the bluffs, the adaptive reuse format was potentially the least impactful to the surrounding area compared to new construction. They expressed that housing would be a more valuable use than an empty office building, that there was plenty of parking on-site to accommodate the new use, and that the live-work units could support younger tech professionals. There were some comments about how if housing were to be permitted on the bluffs, the project should provide additional community benefit through affordable units. And the idea of trying to revitalize the site for commercial use before pivoting to housing was also mentioned. Your commission is welcome to expand on these comments or are free to provide your own viewpoints and feedback on the conceptual project. And so with that, I wrap up my staff report. I'll leave these four issue areas here on the screen if it's helpful to guide your conversation. Thank you. And let us know if you have any questions for staff.

Very nice staff report. So do we have any questions from? Do you have any questions?

This may be a question for the applicant, but it seems like the zoning Actually, maybe it's for you. It seems like the zoning is out of sorts with what's being proposed. Has staff and the applicant considered an overlay, a residential overlay?

Through the chair, Commissioner Van Antwerp, it is briefly mentioned in the staff report that a rezone or the application of an overlay, which is essentially a rezone of sorts, it would require a local coastal program amendment, is an option. It's not one that the applicant is currently proposing, although when he comes up to make comments, he's welcome to respond to that as well.

Thank you.

David, do you have any questions? Yes.

Thank you. I suppose I should, well, as a conceptual review, I'll reserve more of my comment until later after the public presentations. I agree based on the difficulty of findings to approve adaptive reuse under the the current LCP and current zoning there that the appropriate pathway would be an overlay or a rezone. And my question then would be, isn't it most likely that a rezone, if requested and brought through the process, would apply to all of the properties on Bluffs 2 rather than doing a spot rezone on just this property?

Commissioner Allen, through the chair, that is definitely something we would look carefully at if rezoning was the pathway here. There's also a big difference between a privately initiated rezone in which obviously the landowner would want to only pay for rezoning of the particular property that they're interested in versus a staff initiated rezone directed by city council which would look at the whole and whether there are more properties that are appropriate for rezoning at the time. As you may recall, we recently updated our housing element and we did undergo rezoning of sites that were suitable to to change to housing and at that time the plan member services firm was still using this property and there was no indication that it would be available for a different use. there are other properties now that we're finding are starting to become available also and Potentially would want to change use and so that is new information That the City Council could direct staff to research and consider Hey, wait, wait, it wasn't the Victor Schaaf Request prior and already known

And that was one of the properties considered as we looked at rezone to fulfill housing element requirements. And as I recall, rezoning at that point was rejected and other properties remained higher on the list of proposed housing element rezone.

Commissioner Allen, through the chair, yes, the S&S Seeds property was always identified as a site in the housing element inventory. And when we brought that forward for your commission as well as the city council, staff recommended that that be put off to a later date for environmental review and Coastal Commission consultation reasons. However, the city council actually asked us to bring that one back on its own, specifically in particular, which we did and they considered initiating a separate rezone for it, but then decided not to at that time. It is still being considered as part of phase two of the housing element rezones that are going forward with environmental impact review and rezoning under the general plan update.

Thank you. That's my understanding. So it's a reason of all of it is for future consideration. That's all I have. Thanks.

Yeah, go ahead.

One more question for staff. How do 31 market rate rentals address the city's greatest unmet RENA needs, which are the lowest and the very low?

As proposed, this project would contribute to the above moderate income category for our housing element. They would not be counted towards any of the other categories at this time as the project is currently proposed. So OK.

So when I took a look at the chart in the staff report, we've got between very low and low We are in need of 418 units We've got 11 total on very low and low in new units approved And in both those categories our deficit or surplus deficit is 342 right now and yet On your above moderate marketplace, the RHNA numbers, we need 348. There's a big disconnect there. So I'm not seeing how the project helps with that at all.

Commissioner Van Antwerp, yeah, any unit that is built in the city of Carpinteria that receives a building permit does count towards our total number of housing units count. The above moderate income category, which tend to be essentially market rate units, is one of the categories in our RHNA and in our housing element that we do need to meet. As you can see on the chart so far, it is the category that we're currently making the most progress in. And so, as proposed, this project would continue to build on that current count in the above moderate category that we have.

Okay. Well, we have 362 in the above moderate. That includes new units approved, pending proposals, We still have the deficit is at, let's see, 65 of pending proposals in the low and zero in the very low.

Commissioner Van Antwerp, are you referring to data from our most recent housing element annual progress report? I used that to come up with those numbers.

So Commissioner Van Antwerp, through the chair, that table on the screen shows that we need 348, and so far we've had 62 approved. So we still need... well over 200 units in the above moderate category, which we believe that this project could potentially contribute toward. But I will note that while that could be a benefit, we really are hoping to get from your commission, would this adaptive reuse scenario make sense for this site if the applicant were to propose it. Obviously, there's no application in front of us as of yet, but if you have any feedback for the applicant before they begin undertaking all the effort, that's mainly what we would look for.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I guess I have one question as long as we're on housing generation and just as background for all of this. Maybe it's appropriate for me to just ask in a general way. As you were looking at our potential generation of housing at various income levels during this current cycle, I know that nothing counts until permits are issued but under the new state housing law it seems like there's a much greater potential for the generation of housing throughout the city where housing already exists than there previously was and i'm referring to uh by right lot splits uh by right adus and junior adus And I know that we haven't generated yet the numbers of ADUs that maybe we anticipated. I'm not sure what exactly was anticipated. But during this whole cycle of a few years yet, we kind of looked at what, given overall economics and the push for housing, we might see, given these new state laws that really allow for housing Considerable housing in what were single-family neighborhoods, for example, and considerable housing in existing commercial structures throughout the town and so on. And I know our hearing is not to focus on this and I'll be quiet probably after this and we'll move forward.

Thank you, Commissioner Allen. To just touch briefly, you are correct that there are several state laws that allow for increased density in existing single-family neighborhoods. ADUs currently, we have a steady, strong stream of ADU applications coming into the city. Actually, the bulk of our current RENA numbers we've been able to count have been ADUs up to this point. SB9, the state law that allowed those by right lot splits, we are currently working on a local coastal program amendment to implement that at a local level because it is not yet adopted into our certified coastal land use plan. And so those two, you are correct, they do have the potential to increase the number of units that could be accommodated in single family neighborhoods. The other thing that I'll just note briefly on page 11 of the staff report, we did mention a couple of the other current pending projects that would significantly contribute to our RHNA numbers, such as the Via Real townhomes. however because these projects have not yet been issued building permits we're not allowed to officially count them towards our RHNA allocation yet but just looking at some of these projects that are coming in you know we are generally seeing majority above moderate income with a percentage of affordable units and so overall as a trend you know that's kind of the development pattern that we're seeing so far in some of our larger housing projects

Thank you very much.

I just wanted to clarify one thing on my previous comment, and that is that we currently have a deficit just in the very low and low, based on these numbers, of 342 units remaining, 125 in the moderate category, and those are deficits. And yet we are up 76 on the above moderate. We've got a lot of work to do on those other three categories. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. Sorry. Thank you.

Commissioner Van Antwerp, I think you're referring to the amount of area that we've rezoned to accommodate different income levels. Is that what you're referring to? Because we have not yet achieved our above moderate need. We're still in a deficit. Correct. but that's new units approved through 2025 and pending proposals oh the pending projects oh yes the ones that Megan was calling out that are pending yes okay I understood now thank you open it up for the public comment and ask the applicant if they'd like to address the Commission no

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Peter Lewis. I'm the developer for this project and really appreciate your time and the city's effort to schedule this conceptual hearing because it's important to really understand what the level of appetite and interest is in this before great investments are made and And so thank you for your time and effort I don't know if you read my project description or not So I don't want to take a bunch of time if you already have Is that the case Yeah, okay good So I won't bore you with reading that the the Identification of the zoning is a very important part to have clarity on, from my vantage point, in order to make sure that we can have findings. Now, we discussed this with staff when we looked at this parcel. The thing you have to remember, if we were to do an overlay on it or a rezone, it's likely taking this project from a year's timeframe to multiple years and it likely generates enough risk to create some pause on my part. So this is one of the things that is impeding so much development in our community is the regulations are challenging to make financially viable projects. And so that's why it's great that you're affording me this opportunity to meet with you and hear from you because it's good to get an idea of the general consensus. The MRP area currently has corporate headquarters in which all sorts of functions of work go on within those buildings. And if you really look at it in that context, that's really what I'm proposing is a broad range of work that could occur in these what are essentially efficiency offices that have a conference room adjacent to them so they do have the ability to have larger groups if it were to make sense for these small business operators. But there won't be a use that would be going on in this building that's actually not currently being done in those buildings adjacent to me or that were even done in the building that is now currently vacant. So I think what it reflects is back in the 70s and 80s and 90s when you had large industrial parks that had headquarters with hundreds of people in them. A lot of that has changed, and actually in my project description, I outlined that it's amazing how many people now work from their home. It's well into the 20%. So some of these people... Companies are allowed to grow allowed to accommodate employees by allowing them to work at home and this of course was Generated by kovat as we know, but it has forever changed the the the way that work occurs and I think a full survey of your office park really kind of shows that. And there's a lot of vacant space there that is likely to also have to be repurposed soon at some point. So the beauty of this one is this building, ironically, is probably the best building on the Bluffs to be repurposed. It's got balconies around every opening, which most office buildings do not have. The other buildings are glass fortresses. So it is ironic. This building's perfect for it. It's got a reasonable floor plate. And the other thing that perhaps should help understand the affordable component of, when you work in a place that you also live in, there's an economy of scale that makes a big difference to these people. They don't go and rent an office It's part of their living expenses. So that efficiency actually is something that you can kind of formulate when you're thinking about this. But there's no doubt this is not a cheap building. There's no government subsidies like there is in other affordable housing projects. So it's not gonna meet your lowest RHNA numbers. But it can add units to a community that needs housing. And I think units that will be in high demand, that people will want to live, will want to work, and it's convenient to transportation. It's really convenient to the bluffs and recreation. Its environmental impact is nothing more than a TI. And the other thing to perhaps entertain, this building, let's say office parks all of a sudden become high in demand again, and no one's realizing that's gonna happen. This building's not going away. If housing all of a sudden gets solved, you don't have a building that's gone. So you're repurposing it in an intelligent fashion to meet a need that is urgent, as all of us know. And if there's questions anyone has, I would be happy to answer those.

Quick question, I know you, and perhaps in your presentation that's included with the staff report, and certainly in the staff report there's reference to the palm lofts. Is that fully occupied?

Yeah, that's a great question. So that building was, got its CFO in 2000. So it's been in existence 26 years. It has a current full occupancy. I haven't had a vacancy in years. I have one gentleman who just today called me because he bought a house in San Miguel Allende and he's leaving. But it's rare that we have turnover in there. It's successful, I feel. I think the community feels it's successful. And it does have a higher work component in that building. We have six units in that building that are townhouse format, which the work is downstairs and the live is upstairs. And the other ones are more like a 40% work area, 60% live area. So they're more of a hybrid. But, you know, I think... When I built that, I believe it was the first to be done outside of a Habitat for Humanity project in Santa Barbara. And so it was way ahead of its time in terms of that use, but I did meet with the staff at that time and wanted to hear what the city wanted on that site, because it had been controversial, because ironically, Prior proposals on that site were corporate office buildings. And so staff said, we'd really love live work. And I said, I'd love to do that. And originally that, I don't know if you recall, but there was an old lima bean building on that site that was really kind of charming. And it was around 100 years old at that time. And so the original idea was adaptive reuse, frankly. And then once I got the structural engineers in there, they basically said, Peter, you've got a shed. This thing is not able to do much other than be a warehouse. And it had been unfortunately kind of neglected for a number of years. That's initiated the complete redesign into the live work. And I give Carpentry a lot of credit for, at that time, doing something that was pretty novel. And even to this day, is actually fairly unusual. But it is highly popular, to answer your question.

Very successful.

Yeah.

Thanks.

I have a question. In terms of long-term residency, how will you ensure that the renters continue to, they're supposed to have a business license? Can you go through that one more time?

Yeah, so when they enter a lease, they're required to pull their business license at that time. So they come down to the city the city again to their credit not a lot of jurisdictions aren't like this They know this property they know what uses are allowed and it's kind of an over-counter business license, so it's it doesn't prevent them from you know, it's not a huge obstacle in terms of time and Staff resources it is the CUP so it has a Actual agreement with with the property owner on on that use so you know for 26 years staff has Processed those licenses pretty readily and so we have 36 business license on that site So I'm talking about The proposed site. Oh, excuse me. So it's the same. It's yes.

So because that's rentals and

They're all rentals, right?

So how would you, let's say somebody shows you their business license, and then they go out of business in two years, and then they have to find another place to live?

Well, we haven't had that issue come up.

But for this one.

So that could be a potential problem for a tenant if they no longer worked in that unit and they refused to get a business license and they acknowledged that.

Thank you.

Thanks. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Staff, as presented, is this project zoning-wise doable?

Chair Moyer. Based on what we have so far, we think it can meet the zone. But that does require a little bit of interpretation and discretion. And that is one of the reasons we wanted to make sure that we did check with your commission as well as the city council to get feedback. And so far we haven't heard anything that would necessarily directly conflict with the zoning.

Thank you. John Tilton.

Thank you, and I'm not used to speaking into microphones, so if I'm too loud or not loud enough, please let me know. My name's John Tilton. I am a Bluffs lover and aficionado. The Bluffs are a community treasure, and first I want to take a moment to say thanks to all who have done so much work to preserve what has been preserved so far. It has been a true community effort of the highest order, done through true grassroots activism, voting, and ultimately fundraising. While much has been done, many of us think that that work is not done yet. There is already a line of developers wanting to build housing on the Bluffs, and to approve this project will only make that line grow longer and faster, and open the floodgates to more housing. While I think we all agree that the community needs more housing, it shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone that Ocean View Bluff Top property does not come cheap. The Bluff's location does not lend itself to creating affordable housing for those who need it the most, as evidenced by the estimated $5 million to $10 million price tag for most of the proposed homes on the T-Time parcel. While these proposed units would be smaller and less expensive, they are still likely out of financial reach of most young families, for example, unless they already have a high enough income to be able to comfortably afford housing. Housing on the Bluffs, while it would be fantastic for those lucky enough to live there, would be to the detriment of the rest of the community, including wildlife, who enjoy spending time on the precious Bluffs by having more people and traffic there at all hours. In short, it would sacrifice the environmental quality of one of the community's most treasured resources, the Bluffs, in exchange for supposedly helping with the community's housing affordability crisis. But the help with the housing looks to be much more theoretical than practical. And that was my own kind of horse sense comment that I wrote before the meeting, but it seems to be borne out in the numbers that were brought up. Thank you.

Thank you. And our next speaker is Whitney Abbott.

Thank you. My name is Whitney Abbott. I live on 3898 Via Real, Carpinteria. As much as I'd love to support the repurposing of infrastructure for housing, this specific location is not appropriate. Putting housing between two large preserves can only shift a precedent, allowing for more housing on the bluffs, more sought-after beachfront property that cannot really stay affordable to most people in Carpentria. As much as I'd like to believe that, The bluffs are a precious commodity. They define our town. We have all worked to protect them for decades. So this rare opportunity to secure this land for all people is what we need to look at. If we do repurpose this property, let's make it accessible to all. I envision a link between our two preserves, whether it's a cultural center, recreation, or open space. Its value as a community resource cannot be ignored. It must be considered. And this is the time to do it. Let's make it accessible, not another beachfront enclave. Let's make it Carpinteria. Thank you.

Thank you. Our next speaker is Amaretta Som. Is that correct?

I'm Rita. I'm Rita armored I Love the idea of reusing property think it's great, but I don't think it belongs on the bluffs first of all, it sets a precedent of putting housing on the bluffs and There's recently was an article about San Diego having built many apartments and high-rises, and now they can't fill them because they're too expensive. Nobody can afford them. I don't think, regardless of what the RENA numbers say, that the greatest need in Carpinteria is market-rate housing. I would much prefer to see housing affordable. housing that is more affordable. And I just hope that you would consider this seriously as setting a precedent that we don't really, we've fought for decades to keep it open space. Let's try to do that.

Thank you. Thank you. Through the staff again, can you... Never mind, I'll come back to it.

I hope you all received my email earlier today. I have more complete comments about the riparian corridor and lighting and things like that, but I want to give some other comments this evening. So good evening, commissioners. My name is Arturo Tello. As some of you know, I have never supported residential uses at the Carpinteria Bluffs. I remain steadfast in my belief that the Bluffs are sacred and should never be developed. However, I live at the Palm Avenue Lofts, This is a little bit of selfish promotion here. I've been there for 21 years and I can picture the impacts a small community like mine would have at the current vacant office buildings. The palm lofts are two live work buildings that stay full because the uses are flexible. Artists, therapists, architects, designers and others over the years there have been many. All you need is a business license. The staff report says it clearly. The industrial research park zone was written for large research and development labs and corporate headquarters. That market has shifted. You have significant office vacancies and inquiries for small spaces you can't provide. I keep hearing from my friends that this is a slippery slope if we permit residential there. I believe it is the opposite. I believe that this is a pressure release valve. You take demand for housing and vent it into a building that's already standing. You relieve the pressure on Bluff's open land. If you restrict these 20 workspaces to tech, engineering and software only, they will be hard to lease. If you broaden their uses to match palm bluffs, they will lease to carpentarians who already live and work here. That will do three things. It makes the project viable without new construction. It eases housing pressure by using existing buildings. It protects the undeveloped bluffs by proving that we don't need to build new to meet the demand the real slippery slope is leaving offices empty while housing pressure grows this project is the brakes not the gas today you are in the driver's seat and i urge you to guide us wisely you're driving so allow us to use Allow the use list for this project to mirror the Palm Lofts, Palm Avenue Lofts, because that precedent exists and it works and you can use it. And I guess I have to say that I don't owe ANYTHING TO MR. LEWIS. I'M NOT DOING THIS BECAUSE I'M BEHOLDEN TO THAT. I RESPECT HIM ENORMOUSLY. I'VE BEEN THERE FOR 21 YEARS. AND I JUST RESPECT HIM. I'M NOT SAYING HE'S A NICE GUY. HE'S A BUSINESSMAN. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. AND OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BETTY SONGER. IS THAT CORRECT?

Yes, Betty Songer, 5641 Kaya Pacific. Welcome. And thank you for the opportunity to speak. These apartments are not what Carpinteria needs. We need affordable housing and not housing at market rates. Many of us do not believe that people should be living on the bluffs And I feel this would set a precedent if you okay this. And I think that we should wait until the farm project is resolved. If it goes through, if it doesn't go through, well, then no people live on the bluffs, not this project or any other. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter. The bluffs will have people living on them. I think we should wait and wait until we see what happens with the farm project. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Is there anybody else that would like to address this issue? All right. Thank you. I'll bring it back.

Chair Moyer, can we check Zoom first?

Oh, right. Great.

Thank you, Chair Morrow. At this time, would you 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. The environmental part of this project, there's no way of knowing where that's going to go, right?

Chair Moyer, based on what we're seeing, it probably would not be an extensive environmental review if they really did keep to the existing footprint. However, you're right. At this time, we really don't know. We would need the full application, and we would probably need some additional studies as well related to transportation and lighting and all of that before we could really decide.

Thanks. I think that's very important to the developer. I think that's why he's here. So that's all the public comment, and we'll bring it back for deliberation. Who would like to start?

I would, if you like.

Yeah, it's fine, David.

Go ahead. I've got an extensive set of notes I made before and during. So excuse me if I ramble a little bit, but let me go through. You know, first, I just lost the view of the screen. Oh, there it comes back. You know, I think this project, because we're really trying to address fitting in with our laws kind of is a good time to focus in on what the duties of a planning commissioner are. Our primary duties are to find whether projects are in adherence to the general plan, first and foremost, to those policies of the general plan. And then secondly, and in conjunction, whether the project adheres to and is in compliance with the zoning law. And I'll interject, I think, with this project as I move forward. It takes a lot of interpretation to make it fit. It's the project we approve, of course, and not what you might think of as extraneous considerations. I've been troubled in some recent cases, not so much in this one, but in other cases, and some things I heard about this project before tonight's hearing. You know, with people arguing that the track record of a proponent of a project or their character... you know, is a consideration. Also, and in connection with the track record of a particular kind of proposed business, property ownership changes. Business models change. Sometimes rapidly, compliance with conditions of approval and with requirements, in this case perhaps of business licenses, may change with changes of ownership. We don't approve any project, we should not, based on who is proposing it or what their business model has been or how they've operated in the past. So, we review all projects solely on the basis of compliance with general plan and the zoning laws. In this case, looking at the big picture, The Bluffs Roman numeral II parcels, those parcels between the Bluffs Nature Park and the Rincon Bluffs Preserve have always, since before city incorporation, been business use of one sort or another. What we're being asked to do is not minor at all. It represents a major change in how we're viewing a use on the Bluffs. What we're being asked to do is, you know, despite the fact that it'll fit in an existing building and has relatively few units, it's a change of use which, in my view, people have talked about precedent and so on. Well, okay, it's not legal precedent, but it certainly is that... precedent that may be argued in lay terms and even in terms of whether we treat all applicants equally. If this property is allowed to develop as a residential use, we're going to see a continuation of proposals for residential use in these currently business-owned properties, commercial-owned properties. I simply see that as inevitable. In this case, I mentioned before, Uses of property, kinds of business change over time. It's only been a few months since this particular property vacated. It's true that we're seeing more vacancy as the model has changed from large corporate spaces to you know, work from home and other models rather than large corporate headquarters and like. That may change or it may not. But one way it may change is one thing that city staff mentions in the staff report. And that's there appears to be an increased demand for smaller office units. And this property and others can be adaptively reused to smaller business spaces. It can be of the same sizes as this project proposes or of mixed sizes, but to appeal to the market for smaller commercial work areas. We just can't predict future swings in the need for office light industry space and business space. That may not be as needed now as it was 10 years ago or five years ago. But if we do lose this area to residential use, You know, what do we have left that doesn't look like it's transitioning to more and more residential, in part because of state mandates? The business park, where we're looking at mixed use also. You know, we need to retain some kinds of business spaces. And then to go back to what our legal requirement says, we have to make the findings of approval. Okay, and what are those findings that we have to make? Well, one would be, or one of some, they don't all have to be made, but we can't make the finding that it encourages rehabilitation of existing housing stock. We can't make the finding of the required findings that it will result in the production of affordable housing. We can't make the finding that the mixed use would assist the city in maintaining an appropriate balance between jobs and and housing, I read somewhat of an argument to that effect, although maybe it does, but I really don't see how. Certainly there were more people employed in the building beforehand with an adaptive reuse to smaller units equivalent to this or more. You'd certainly see more people employed, so I don't understand how we could make that finding without a good deal of interpretation. And then the finding that industrial use of the site is the primary use and residential use is secondary. I think we're really stretching it to say that this proposed use would have commercial use or industrial use as the primary use. Sure, everyone then, each unit may be working. But if it's residential and there's both perhaps equal or more residential space within each unit or the opportunity for it to be essentially treated as all residential, it's really difficult to make that finding. We can't condition the project with sufficient surety that that use will continue to be or will ever be the primary use as opposed to residential unless it was built with a tiny bedroom adjacent to something that's by design fully commercial in the way it's set up. As one letter writer pointed out, there's nothing that concludes putting a bed in a room. So I think it's a stretch to make that finding, that the industrial use is going to be primary, given the residential component of this. And then finally, and perhaps most importantly, I think in the view of many in the community, is that residential use on the Bluffs is not really compatible with the existing environment, the existing uses in the area surrounding the site. In my opinion, Lagunitas Creek and its contiguous areas are extremely important natural habitat. I mean, it's designated environmentally sensitive habitat, but as distinguished even from the Bluff's Nature Preserve, most of it, which is just now recovering from basically agricultural use, and Rincon Bluff's Reserve, which was scraped and is now to bear dirt at the time of freeway construction. This area has, at least in appearance, undisturbed and unused by people natural habitat. If we can pull up the aerial, please, the satellite view of the space we're talking about. Is it on the screen? I can't see it because what I see is the... I've pulled it up now. Okay. That's kind of a zoomed out quite a bit view. But the building we're talking about. Oh, great. Thank you. Thank you. It's on 3.5 acres. And as you can see, Lagunitas Creek starts at the freeway and the open space surrounding it continues south towards the bluffs. and then expands at the bluff's edge above the bluff as it drops down into uninterrupted apparently natural open space above the trail easement, which I hope everybody in the community knows is a public trail running from the south side of Viola Fields behind all of those buildings above the bluffs and connecting to Rincon Bluffs Preserve. But that space along there and particularly that area of natural open space alongside this proposed project and to the south of it there as it opens up into what looks like two acres at least, particularly as it extends into the vacant lot there, appears to me to be a very good habitat and it's part of the connectivity both east and west to the natural areas in the south of Iola Fields and to the whole evolving natural area of Runcon Bluffs Preserve. And along the whole trail there, I hope everybody walks that area sometimes, you are bordered on the ocean side by basically natural habitat, which provides connectivity not only for us as people enjoying it all, but for animals. This area, the large green area you see there just south of the proposed project area is where I've recorded coyotes singing. It's also an area where we have found large, I'm talking three feet, maybe more, high and four or five feet in diameter, dusky wood rat nests. Other than humans, they're one of only two animals that make wooden homes, quite large. And, you know... love children, they're not going to have playgrounds, but they'll certainly want to be exploring all these areas, living there, and In addition to light, noise, 24-7, 365 occupation by people at this area, I'm just envisioning what we'll have to do for the protection of children here. Because Lagunitas Creek has extremely safe banks. It's not a safe area. It's a beautiful area. Walk over that little bridge over the creek and look down. You know, take a little stroll down that area and you can see what I'm talking about. It's not an area, by its nature, it's not much used by people, certainly used by animals. Light, noise, more people pressure playing and using the area, it is certainly an environmental issue that would have to be explored with any project. and not one I think we want to invite. Simply on, you know, looking at an hourly basis, we've got, okay, one person working 40 hours in a business space, maybe going out and walking on the trail at lunch hour, we see that sometimes, and going home at night, that's a typical use now. You see four times the hourly occupation, you know, 24 hours a day times seven versus 40 hours a week. So certainly a major impact. And I don't think conditioning the project to have low lighting and so on is ever 100% effective. The same is true of business licenses. We do not have the financial capacity nor the resources right now to do the code enforcement that we need to be doing. We simply have not staffed it enough. We have financial impediments to that. That's one aspect of it. The other is the nature of enforcement. You don't do it proactively. You do it on a complaint basis or on an annual inspection and things of that nature. So owners change, conditions change. Once this is residential, it's highly unlikely to be repurposed to business. Okay. Again, we have to acknowledge that we're not considering this in isolation because, as I said, I would see residential uses proposed on additional parcels. And another thing that an approval of a project, a residential project in this parcel will do is One of the reasons I would find it difficult to approve and make findings is because of the strength of our general plan policies protecting the bluffs. We have numerous policies. The bluffs are the most protected. area in terms of numerous general plan policies and the nature of them in the city. And we've already seen with the farm project, the farm project proponents arguing that the city's proposed, hasn't gone into effect, but proposed rezone of the Chevron adjacent property to residential allowed use. in essence, what they're saying is, well, we don't care about those general plan policies. At the conceptual review of the, not the farm project, but its predecessor, you know, similar coverage That conceptual review, I argued what I see our general plan policies calling for in terms of protection of that space and the open space. And if we start to approve residential projects, despite our general plan policies and despite the stretch you'd have to do with the zoning code to fit it into its current zoning code, We'll see the same argument continuing with all proposals for housing on the bluffs. Going on for a while. I don't think I have too much more. Certainly in terms of findings, you know, one that is needed is that I think, you know, supporting residential development on the Blouse will not, this is I think a close quote, protect unique and sensitive environmental resources within the Blouse. We can't make that a finding. It's not going to protect it. I don't think it's compatible with a small town character. I don't think there's any particular reason it would enhance the community's image. Visual experience doesn't apply to this particular project, of course, since it will remain the same. But we, again, have to look at the whole picture and what will happen on other adjacent properties. I think that basically covers it for me. Other people have talked about our affordability need and the fact that in terms of our arena housing needs, market rate is not what is most desired, though it is a need. And I simply point out that in our last zoning review, we found that substantial housing capacity in some project and some vacant lands, large parcel in particular north of the tracks where I believe the owner is willing. That hasn't moved forward yet with rezoning, but it should in my view. And again, that with state housing laws, we're going to see a lot of lower cost housing being generated through the latitude that's now given to development under the new state housing laws, such as ADUs, junior ADUs, and lot splits. So I guess that concludes my initial and perhaps only comments. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to take about a three-minute break.

You go next. I will. I have some feedback for Mr. Lewis. I had prepared questions, actually, based on each of the issue areas as the staff report had outlined. I'm hoping it would be helpful, because I think that's what the conceptual review is about. So these are the questions. And I'm not expecting answers or anything, but things for you to think about. Under issue area one, residential use in the MRP zone district. I think we've already talked about this, but how should we evaluate affordability finding when no affordable housing is actually proposed? Because that has to do with the zoning issues that we've discussed. With a roughly six to one residential to workspace ratio, what evidence shows industrial commercial use remains primary? Again, I think David covered that as well. Why is the MRP mix use, is that the appropriate path rather than a residential overlay or rezone? And what is the unique public benefit? I think that was brought up at city council as well, but what is the public benefit? Under issue area two, consistency with allowed commercial uses in the MRP zone district, one of the questions I had is, and this would be for city staff as well, is this a new direction in interpretation of existing zoning or a policy change? Are we looking at a policy change here? What permitted MRP activities can realistically operate in these workspaces? Will leases require a valid qualifying business license? We went through that one. What happens if a business license closes? And how will the city monitor and continue enforcing compliance? I think David did a good job of honing in on that one. And one question I have is whether or not an incubator type use in the tech world. So I'm used to these tech incubators. I would see that as just a great use of that space. And that would be without housing. Under issue area three, residential use on the bluffs, what site characteristics make residential use appropriate here? What has materially changed since prior bluffs housing proposals? And how does the adaptive reuse answer, how is that a separate, how does it How does the adaptive reuse answer the separate land use question? How were 24 by 7 occupancy and indirect environmental effects considered? How does the project satisfy all three parts of CDS6? I think David alluded to that as well. How has precedent and cumulative conversion pressure been evaluated? That's one that I would have questions for if this ever came before me in the future in an actual hearing. Issue area four, housing supply, we went through quite a bit. What public housing benefit offsets the absence of affordable units or an inclusionary obligation? Again, back to the public benefit. I've been struggling with that. We went through this. What evidence shows these units meet a distinct local live work need? I would need to see studies and reports. Nexus reports based here in Carpinteria. Are commuter VMT benefits quantified or assumed? I'd need to see quantification of those reports, benefits. And we already went into the RHNA goals and what we meant by approvals or permits by income category. So I just wanted to make sure that I gave that feedback to Mr. Lewis.

Thank you. Glenn? Great. Thanks. I'll try to be as brief as I can. A couple comments. One is I appreciate Commissioner Allen's detailed comments on this conceptual review. I'll refer perhaps to some of them in my comments, but I guess I'll just start by saying that I It was a thoughtful and thorough summary of which I'm mostly in agreement with the comments that Commissioner Allen made. So I guess I want to start by, since this is a conceptual review, I want to start by expressing my appreciation for the opportunity to hear this conceptually. before a lot of energy and resources and money and commitments are made to get to a project application. We recognize how difficult that is, how expensive it is, what a deterrent it can be to... an expeditious effort to make something happen. We see it regularly here and I acknowledge it's a difficult process. The conceptual review allows us the opportunity to provide a potential applicant with some thoughts ahead of time. Again, we My comments are based on the information that I have before me, which is not a complete analysis of the project, so much of the details, as Commissioner Van Antwerp illuminated us on, there's many questions that would need to be addressed in a project application and staff analysis. We don't have that, so I'm going to provide you my thoughts on what's before us. From what I've heard, I think with my comments, it's going to be pretty clear that the consensus, and we haven't heard from our chair yet, but with my comments, the consensus that I'm hearing from the commission, is not in favor of an adaptive reuse for residential on this parcel. I'm going to go through a few. And I think it's important to have clarity on that because this is, in my opinion, a long uphill battle. And I want to make a few points that are in addition to those. And some may be redundant. But in addition to those that have been made by Commissioner Allen, So... I want to talk a little bit about Bluffs 2. This goes way, way back, but in the 90s when we did the specific plan for the Bluffs, even then when a lot of definition was put into the Bluffs proposed developments, Bluffs 2 was retained intentionally as business park, research, industrial. We liked that use that had been historical and developed on the bluffs. I think it's a true asset to the community of Carpinteria to have a, you know, what I consider to be a, you know, a premium potential office, research park, corporate office location. I mean, what better location for corporate offices and business park than, you know, ocean views on the bluffs in the city of Carpinteria? And I know that business use has changed, and we don't know what... what that looks like going forward. I know the work from home model is here to stay. I agree with that. However, I also note that many businesses are trending back towards an in-office, a better mix of in-office and at-home work. I think for a lot of reasons, just the whole dynamic, interpersonal relationships and the whole dynamic of running a business is difficult to do completely remote. So I am hopeful that our business park can survive as a premium office site location. That was the original zoning. The zoning has since been, on a holistic scale, modified to allow some residential use, and that's been discussed by others. And I don't think your proposal comes anywhere close to meeting the requirements for that. i we debated and deliberated this when we were reviewing our housing element rezoning properties in the city with full residential overlays there's quite a bit of comments on the record with regards to that as to why we don't want residential overlay on uh bluffs two properties we've seen other projects uh for years now come you know uh with with condos, with apartments, affordable housing components, the whole thing. My opinion, our business park is potentially far too valuable to compromise it with residential. And I want to comment. I think that this proposed conceptual that we're looking at has the potential to degrade the area from a pure business park environment. You're going to have residential use. You're going to have 24-7 occupation, barbecues, bikes on the balconies, families, you know, all legitimate activities for residential. Perhaps not the best neighbors for a high-end premium corporate office park. So I'll stop on that point for now because I could go on for a long time. I really, I think we need to preserve our business park and one foot in the door with residential takes us down a path that I don't think is good for our community. Comment was made that You know, the building could be repurposed back in the future if conditions changed. As Commissioner Allen mentioned, that's highly unlikely and extremely difficult to convert residential back to office once it's done, especially in office. our current environment. You're displacing people out of their homes, basically, to put in an office space. It's hard to do. A couple more specifics. With regards to the findings and staff, I appreciate you guys laying out Various areas you wanted input on I'm going to defer to David's comments on most of this and I'll just Point out that the findings that would be necessary to approve this project or this proposal I don't see I don't see It's highly unlikely that those could be made in my opinion. We haven't seen the analysis. There's lots of unanswered questions I get that I just don't see the That those findings Based on my understanding, it's going to be highly unlikely we can make all those findings. I won't belabor the potential environmental impacts. Commissioner Allen did a good job on that. Again, I concede the reuse of the existing building is an attractive thought. no new construction, and the building could use fresh paint and upgrades. I see why it's an attractive thought to do, and I have no doubt that if this were to happen, that the units would be, sought after. I'm sure there's people that would be willing to live there. Market rate, rental units with office space on the bluffs, I have no idea what that market rate might be, but it's probably pretty high. Bottom line, the current zoning, the impacts Are far lower than what they would be with the residential use on the property This project I don't the industrial use would not be primary like you know It's been commented on how nicely this can be converted to residential with all the exposed stairways exterior balconies again those are you know as as As with the palm lofts, when you look at the palm lofts and you look at the balconies, they're filled with barbecues and bicycles and potted plants. I'm sure it's a great place to live, but it's not going to look industrial from the street. It's going to look like housing. And that's not consistent with the zoning. Affordability component, again, I think there's so many things that get in the way before we ever talk about affordability. Even if it was proposed as affordable, I still don't think it fits. I'm going to stop there. I think you get my drift. So again, appreciate the opportunity for conceptual review.

Thank you. I'm going to concede to my fellow counsel. And I'm just going to go along with what they have to say. I think the idea of making it an incubator business center is a good alternative because it could be divided. It doesn't have to go to just one business. It's very dividable. So maybe that's a better avenue. I think that... They would need more number of uses, like Artillo said. That's too small. It would be hard to locate all of those people. And this isn't market rate. This is way above market rate. You look at that building on the corner, the one closest to the bluff, and the windows that look out on the Pacific Ocean, I mean, how much, that's priceless. I mean, $10,000 a month, $12,000 a month, easy. So I have trouble wrapping my head around the can't abide by affordable units without it, and it won't pencil out. I don't get that. One thing about this building, it's really the only building on the bluffs that could be converted. All the rest of them would have to be tore down. It's set up in a way that it could be turned like he suggested. And the other buildings just aren't. That's not going to happen. So staff can read. formulate a recommendation to the city council out of all that?

Chair Moyer, when we put all this together and talked with Nick and our legal counsel, they suggested that there be no motion. So we just want to document all your individual comments that you've given, which have been really helpful. I think that concludes this item. Yes, thank you so much.

Yeah, thank you. Thank you for everybody that participated and got up and shared. We'll go on to matters presented by commissioners. Nope. And then we have a director's report.

Yes, thank you, Chair Moyer. What we have in our director's report are architectural review board minutes from January and March are made available there. We also have our planning activity report for July and building permit activity for July. And the calendar is there. Notable report outs. There's not too much right now to report on big projects or milestones. I'll note that in June, your commission approved the Kohler residence and that item has been appealed to the city council and we are looking for a date in September most likely to bring that forward to city council for it to be considered. In June we also had, since we last saw you, we had the scoping meeting for the Tea Time Bluffs property proposal for housing and we also closed out the notice of preparation period for that on July 10th and we received over 100 comment letters and we received a lot of verbal comment at the scoping meeting. So that went really well and now we're moving forward with the environmental impact report for that. And as your commission knows, as I've been emailing you, I am looking to schedule the surf liner in planning commission hearing in the upcoming months and I'll keep working on finding a date for that and I will let you know as soon as we have one or two dates. that are available. Was that Commissioner Allen? Did I hear?

No.

Oh, okay. And looking at our projection report, we do anticipate having at least one item on the September 8th Planning Commission hearing. So I did want to gauge your attendance for that. Commissioner Allen, I believe you said you might still be remote for that hearing?

Yes, that would be, since the 7th is Labor Day, that would be the 8th?

Correct, yes.

And yes, I will be available by Zoom. After that, I'll be back.

Thank you. And for your other commissioners, are you available September 8th? Yeah, I am.

I plan to be here.

Yes. Thank you very much.

Excuse me, through the chair? Yeah, go ahead. Just curious if you can let us know what item is proposed to be heard on the 8th.

Right now, it looks like we're going to have St. Joseph's Church CUP brought forward on that day.

I have no idea what that will be a CUP for.

I don't think it is. Honestly, I do not know. I think that concludes my report, unless you have any questions for me. Thank you.